Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady


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

I have closed this RfA as successful because I feel that, despite significant opposition, there is a general consensus to promote the user. Orlady has enjoyed strong support, and, while the opposition is great in number, many of the remarks in this area would have benefited and would have been enforced by more solidified evidence, such as diffs. Further to and likely as an extension of that, a number of the oppositional remarks suffer from a degree of vagueness or lack of clear explication. Note that many do present such evidence and many do argue their case punctiliously; but a portion do not. Bearing these factors in mind, as well as the reasons of those on either side of the debate, I think this can be said to be over the threshold after due inspection. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
(102/33/6); closed by Anonymous Dissident at 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

– Orlady has been a Wikipedian since 2004. During that time she has authored and improved countless articles (a few to featured status), fought off trolls and vandals, earned numerous barnstars, worked tirelessly to enforce Wikipedia policies, educated countless newbies, conducted herself in a civil manner, and just in general been a huge asset to Wikipedia. She usually works in lower traffic areas, so if you haven't heard of her, it isn't due to inactivity. It's high time she be given the tools appropriate to her level of Wikipedia experience and activity. Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I appreciate Kaldari's confidence, and I accept the nomination.

I've been a fairly active "Wikipedia dilettante" since some time in 2006 (although I registered in 2004, I was not very active until 2006). I'm usually not very predictable in my activity levels or systematic about my contributions, I'm not a technically minded tool-builder or template-maker, and I'm not much interested in wikipolitical processes or wikibureaucracy. Mostly, I got involved to fix mistakes in articles and edit articles about topics I find interesting, I used to figure that I could leave the admin work to other people who are more dedicated and more technically adept than I am. However, for a long time it has been clear to me that much of my "work" here has been essentially admin-like, including reverting vandalism, warning and reporting vandals, ferreting out sockpuppets, participating in XfDs, trying to ensure that NPOV is maintained in various articles that I have watchlisted, and participating in featured list reviews and at DYK. I am aware that if I had admin tools, I could do some of these things more efficiently (for example, I could tell when a newly created article that looks like one I recall having been deleted earlier is truly the same as the one I recall) -- and reduce the workload of the administrators who I suspect might be sick and tired of responding to my requests for help with tasks I don't have the tools to perform.

If granted admin privileges, I can't promise that I won't make mistakes (heck, I know that I will make some mistakes; I will go so far as to PROMISE that I will make mistakes because people who don't make mistakes aren't trying), but I can also promise not to break anything intentionally -- and to try to clean up after myself when I do mess up. --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: To be honest, I don't know what I will do. (I don't have a crystal ball.) I do know that when I notice errors on the main page, I will repair them myself instead of posting at WP:ERRORS. Also, when I find an article with a non-MOS title that requires a sysop to move it to the correct title, I will move it myself instead of requesting sysop assistance. Other areas where I am likely to help out are:
 * WP:DYK - From time to time, I get involved at DYK (including reviewing hook suggestions, doing minor editing on articles proposed for DYK, and building hook sets for future updates). With admin tools, I expect to help with main page updates when the bot isn't working, and to move hooks into the queue for future updates to the main page. DYK is a very energy-intensive feature of Wikipedia (meaning that it requires a lot of volunteer energy to keep it running), but I think it is beneficial for bringing attention to a diverse variety of new articles and drawing people into helping to improve those articles.
 * WP:AfD - My experience in AfD runs the gamut: nominating articles for deletion, participating in discussions, working to "rescue" some nominated articles, and participating in deletion review discussions later on. I have done just one or two non-admin closures, but if given the tools it is likely that I would use them to help out with AfD closures. I believe I have a solid understanding of most policies related to deletion, I can recognize comments and "votes" that are based on invalid reasons, and I can judge whether or not WP:consensus exists. As an aside, I think AfD is a very important process, not only for helping to rid Wikipedia of articles that do not belong in the encyclopedia, but also for causing improvements to be made that cause seemingly doomed articles to be kept, and for thoroughly teaching contributors (like me) about Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * I would like to be able to help at WP:CfD, but my experience there (notably my experience with tagging large numbers of categories for renaming) leads me to think that effective involvement requires someone more technically savvy than I. As for other XfD processes, I might help at WP:TfD, but templates are of less interest to me that articles and categories. I would not take an active admin role at WP:IFD because I don't understand image-related issues as well as I do text-related issues.
 * WP:AIV - Having warned many vandals and reported some at AIV (about 90, according to my edit count), I think I have a pretty good understanding of the accepted criteria for imposing blocks and other responses to vandalism, and I probably will help out at AIV.
 * WP:RFP - The ability to protect pages is an effective tool for protecting the quality of Wikipedia, particularly until such time as flagged revisions are implemented. Having reverted a lot of vandalism (manually, using rollback, and occasionally using Twinkle) and having requested page protection on several occasions, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the basis for judging when page protection is appropriate, and I would expect to help out here. A few weeks back (when Plutonium, an article on my watch list, was featured on the main page) I learned that the featured article of the day is not protected except in cases of unusually egregious vandalism; I guess I was sheltered from that knowledge earlier because there are few FA-class articles on my watchlist.


 * Having had long-term involvement with monitoring continued sockpuppetry by one certain banned user, I would like to be able to contribute to deleting the articles that emanate from this user's new sockpuppets, but I think that Wikipedia policies discourage that kind of involvement with a sockpuppet case that I am close to. Thus, I might still need to ask for a less-involved admin to help with clean-up. (I welcome discussion on whether my perceptions of policy are accurate.)


 * Additionally, I am likely to help with speedy deletions, particularly the more obvious varieties (such as school lunch menus, advertisements for local motels, pages blanked by the creator, and obvious copyvios). I've dabbled in new pages patrol a few times in the past, and would be more likely to contribute there if I could speedy-delete articles myself instead of placing db templates on the obvious candidates.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Unfortunately, I fear that my single best contribution has been sticking my arm in the dike (metaphorically speaking) in order to help stem the tide of vandalism, particularly on the set of articles that I monitor on my watchlist. A large fraction of my edits are reversion or repair of vandalism, and several of the pages where my edit counts are highest (for example, Purple drank and Amsterdam (city), New York) are articles where I have made few substantive contributions, but have reverted (or repaired the article in the aftermath of) large numbers of "unconstructive" edits.


 * Along the same general lines as reverting vandalism, I have somehow developed a specialty in what might be called the "Netherworld of Education" (specifically articles about diploma mills, other unaccredited universities and colleges, and schools/programs for kids with serious problems), and I take some pride in having contributed to creating articles that are sufficiently well-sourced and NPOV that they are no longer subject to frequent edit wars and WP:AFD nominations. I can't point to any masterpiece articles in this area, but I think both the world and Wikipedia benefit from the information content of articles like Columbus University (not to mention List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, where I've done both rescue work and continuing maintenance), and it is satisfying to be able to create articles like Elim Bible Institute as short-but-stable replacements for earlier articles that had been deleted.


 * However, just as Sisyphus surely wasn't proud of his progress in rolling the rock uphill, there's not much satisfaction in continually reverting vandalism or crafting short articles about "marginal" topics.


 * When I create articles, my usual goal is to create a "good enough" article to fill a void in the encyclopedia, so I don't have a thick portfolio of featured articles to point to. One of my best contributions is List of cities and towns in Tennessee -- I didn't start that one, nor did I do the work that took it past the bare-bones list stage (Kaldari did that before I got involved), but I greatly expanded the list content and took the article to featured list status, with help from other Tennessee editors and some regulars at WP:FLC. After getting acquainted with the FLC process, I contributed to a bunch of reviews at FLC, and through review comments and editing I have helped several other nominated list articles reach FL status, such as List of United States graduate business school rankings and List of National Park System areas in Maryland.


 * A few of my creations have been featured on WP:DYK (at last count, I believe I was credited for 17 DYKs: 14 for articles that I created or expanded, two articles by others that I nominated, and one for which I was granted "co-creator" credit because of the extensive additions I made after the article was nominated for DYK). One of my contributions there, Stroke Belt, garnered 14,900 hits during its short time on the main page.


 * 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: Oh, yes, I've experienced conflicts in editing. The main thing I do to avoid stressful situations is that I generally refrain from contributing to articles on topics that I feel passionate about. In fact, I generally try not to read articles about topics I care deeply about. I have, however, encountered stressful conflicts due to (1) topics that other people seem to be intensely passionate about, (2) continuing altercations with vandals, and (3) the feelings of protectiveness and pride that most contributors have regarding their own work.


 * Type 1: At various times, various articles about controversial educational institutions have been subject to intensive editing activity involving both opponents and supporters of the institution. One particularly "memorable" series of experiences was at Warren National University, between about July 2007 and October 2007. The article history indicates that I was actually a relatively minor player in the battles over that article's content, but I still have managed to accumulate 139 edits in the article and 85 edits on its talk page, and I was the recipient of a fair amount of talk page abuse from one particular single-purpose account with strong COI before the account was finally blocked. I have learned a lot since that series of incidents. Other contributors and I spent far too much time and energy on minute-by-minute interaction over the article, endless arguments on the talk page, and a frustrating series of attempts to get help, including an attempt at mediation, a mostly inconclusive RfC process, and various WP:AN reports. It would have been far more effective to have requested full protection for the article early on in order to "lower the temperature" of the situation. It also would have helped to have been more assertive in reporting 3RR violations, instead of trying to "make nice" with the other "combatants." Since that time, I've also become much more familiar with Wikipedia policies, and (although it is against my nature to be someone who continually quotes rules) I've learned that it is often effective to cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's definitely not wise to assume that all participants in a dispute are aware of Wikipedia policies.


 * Type 2: Average run-of-the-mill vandalism is annoying, but not a source of stress. However, I would be lying if I did not acknowledge that I experience stress as a result of continuing interactions with persistent vandals whose disruptive behavior includes personal attacks (such as the Jvolkblum sockpuppets, who have engaged in what might be called "character assassination by sockpuppet" by posting allegations and insinuations about me on other users' talk pages under a variety of different names and anonymous IPs). Sometimes I try to ignore them or stay away from Wikipedia for a while, other times I fight back by reporting the behavior (although there's not much more that can be done about a user who's already banned and blocked). The main thing is to have a tough skin and try to avoid reacting in anger.


 * Type 3: The most upsetting conflicts I have experienced involve a few good and well-intentioned contributors who were profoundly insulted when I said negative things about their work, and who continue to nurse deep grudges. Most notable of these conflicts is with Doncram, who seems to have been deeply offended by my objections to the WP:FLC nomination of an article in which he had a strong interest, and who has chosen to interpret our subsequent interactions as some sort of a personal war. Geronimo20 also apparently holds a grudge related to an occasion 5 months ago when I found a serious problem with an article he had nominated for DYK.(See DYK nom, my talk page, and Geronimo's talk page.) DoxTxob also seems never to have completely recovered from being offended by comments I made about assigning "importance" ratings to articles (here). I'm bothered by these conflicts because these are good people -- I can't shrug them off as vandals. When I find myself in a seemingly unresolvable content dispute with a good-faith contributor, I generally back away from the article, since the subjects of most disputes are usually pretty inconsequential. I believe that these particular disputes got elevated because I didn't engage in mutual backscratching ("you do me a favor and I'll one for you") and I was not prepared to say "He's generally a good guy, so let him have his FLC (or DYK) trophy even if the nomination isn't up to snuff."


 * Question from Ottava Rima
 * Q. 4: Why do you think that pages should be deleted before users are allowed "any more time to establish notability"?
 * A.: As worded, that's a question in the same form as "When did you stop beating your wife?" As it happens, I think that creators of articles about topics that are potentially notable should be encouraged to establish notability for the articles they created, and should be given time to address problems with the articles. This is especially true of articles created by newbies. There are some articles that qualify for speedy deletion (typically under G1 or A7) because there is not even a shred of evidence that the topics are notable. When I think there is a small chance that the article topic is indeed notable, I typically will "prod" it or nominate it at AfD instead of tagging it for speedy deletion under A7. Also, I sometimes have nominated an article at AfD with the expectation that the AfD process would spur the article's creators to address long-standing issues that had not been resolved by gentler means.


 * The example you cite actually shows that I give users plenty of opportunity to fix their articles. The situation involved an article about a family graveyard that had at most 25 burials in its history and was now abandoned, with almost all (or perhaps all) of the burials exhumed and moved elsewhere. I had flagged the article as an orphan and lacking evidence of notability 4 months before I nominated it at AfD. The article's creator had added many references to the article, mostly to personally maintained online genealogical sites (non-WP:RS). None were to reliable sources that supported the article's content, there was nothing to indicate that anyone buried in the cemetery had been notable, and after 4 months the article was still an orphan, although Jvolkblum (editing under an anonymous IP) had stopped by and removed the notability and orphan templates. I believe that the article's creator had ample opportunity to fix the notability issue before I started the AfD you cite in your question, and the AfD discussion led to a thorough investigation of the topic's notability (far more than I think the topic warranted, but YMMV). --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow up Q did it occur to you to look for additional sources yourself, as explained at WP:BEFORE? DGG (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that I checked for sources (and found none) back when I first placed the "notability" template on that article, but I don't remember whether I looked for sources again immediately before I started the AfD. Frankly, I thought the article qualified for speedy deletion under A7 but for the fact that it had a large helping of references. The main problem with the article at the time I started the AfD was not a lack of sources (it contained 12 different external links as references, none of which were reliable sources), but an absence of any indication or evidence of what was supposed to be notable or significant about the subject. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Q. 5: Can you provide the link to where you contacted the "article's creator" mentioned above and when you discussed the issues with the content on the talk page? Can you explain why "needs improvement" is a legitimate reason for deletion?
 * A.: My response to the first part of your question is "Touché!" From a review of the history, I am embarrassed to find that I apparently never contacted the article's creator regarding either my concerns about the article or the initiation of the AfD. The article creator had no difficulty finding the "notability" template, because s/he returned ~4 days later to add many reference citations to the article. I don't recall why I did not notify the article creator about the AfD, but I have two theories: (1) I considered the article to be a clear case of nonnotability (an argument possibly could have been made that it qualified for speedy deletion under A7) and the creator had already made his/her best shot at fixing the problem, with dismal results. As I stated in the AfD: "... no evidence or indication of notability (for example, nobody notable seems to be buried there)...." (Although it might have qualified for speedy deletion, I thought it better to take it to AfD. At AfD, articles get far more attention than they would ever get from pestering an article creator to accomplish something that they have already tried to do and failed at.) (2) It is likely that I mistakenly recalled the creator's name as being one of the blocked sockpuppets of Jvolkblum, who cannot respond to notifications due to having been blocked. (Most articles about New Rochelle topics were created by users who were subsequently blocked, and the most recent non-bot edit to the article had been done from a blocked IP.)


 * As to the second part of your question, it's another case of "When did you stop beating your wife?" "Needs improvement" is not a legitimate reason for deletion, and I have probably said those very words more than once in an AfD discussion. Lack of evidence of notability is, however, a legitimate reason for deletion, and I have observed that sometimes an AfD nomination provides the motivation that causes a recalcitrant article creator to (1) explain why their topic is notable and (2) provide documentation to support the claim of notability. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Collectonian:
 * Q. 6: In Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School, you appeared to display a poor understanding of WP:COPYVIO and general copyright laws. What did you learn from the AfD result and did you take steps after to correct your understanding of copyrights?
 * A.: Background: I recall this as one of those articles about a local church that appears to have been created by a proud parishioner, who in this case apparently copied the text from the church website. The article had been created more than a year earlier, but was essentially invisible because it was an uncategorized orphan. (I ran across it while searching for material related to an article about a New York area cemetery.) It appeared to me that the church might possibly be notable for its history, but I had not found evidence of notability.
 * I was called out for taking the article to AfD instead of asking for speedy deletion as a copyvio. As a result of that AfD I now now understand that website content is considered to be copyrighted unless it is explicitly identified as having a free license (regardless of whether the site owner claims copyright on the page). From a practical standpoint, I think Wikipedia needs to be far more concerned about copyright violations of content from commercial publishers and other professional sources than copying of this sort of website. It is highly unlikely that a local church will sue Wikipedia for harboring an unauthorized copy of several paragraphs copied from the church website for the duration of an AfD. However, given the copyvio and the absence of any indication of notability, AfD was a poor choice for that article; I should have requested speedy deletion.


 * Q. 7: How you feel there is a difference between determining consensus in an AfD discussion, and simply counting keeps/deletes? You noted that you feel you can tell which "comments and 'votes' that are based on invalid reasons". Can you give some examples of what you would consider invalid keep reasons and invalid delete reasons?
 * A.: Part 1: Ideally, consensus should be entirely different from voting (or even !voting). True consensus would mean that all participants in a discussion are listening to one another and weighing the arguments given by others, and that participants who initially disagreed have modified their views and recommendations to converge on a single solution -- or at least acquiesce to the recommendations of others.
 * That seldom happens here at Wikipedia for a variety of reasons -- because discussion participants can't interact in real time (people come and go), because there's no eye contact ;-), because some participants never return to a discussion to see what has developed, because the participants are often strangers to one another and don't have a good grasp of the other paricipants' perspectives, because people often have radically different levels of understanding of policies, etc., etc. Thus, Wikipedia "consensus" is inevitably not true consensus. Raw numbers are often a strong basis for judgment: if 11 out of 13 Wikipedians agree, they probably have the right idea (assuming that they are independent players and not skewed by sockpuppets, people canvassed to participate, or the like). However, when the !votes are split (and even when they aren't), it's important to see whether people have been presenting reasons, what their reasons are based on (see below), whether they've been discussing the issue with one another -- or just at each other, and whether views have changed during the discussion. "Lack of consensus" sometimes means that there is a relatively even numerical split between the "sides," but it also can mean that both sides are strongly advocating their positions with seemingly reasonable arguments, and no minds are being changed as a result of discussion.


 * Part 2: You ask for invalid reasons for "delete" and "keep" votes. I've listed some examples, followed by (in parentheses) some commentary on each one.
 * Some examples of invalid reasons for deletion include: "the article is poorly written" (this can be a fatal flaw if the article is so incoherent that meaning cannot be extracted from it, but poor writing can be overcome if the topic is notable and the content is verifiable), "the topic is ridiculous" (this is not actually a reason), "the negative content in this article will be bad for our organization's public relations" (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium; we judge content by whether it's verified and presented from a neutral point of view, not by whether it benefits the article's subject), and "the person who created this article had a conflict of interest" (COI is definitely a problem, but if the article has been rewritten from a neutral point of view, using reliable sources, it might belong in the encyclopedia).
 * Some examples of invalid reasons for "keep" include "it's interesting" and "it's useful" (maybe true, but is it notable?), "this church is notable because it's very large" (OK, but large doesn't connote notability -- is there any indication that it's in any way unique, and has it been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources documenting this notability?), "this person is admired by everyone in my town" (maybe so, but this is a global encyclopedia we need an indication that the person is notable by Wikipedia's criteria, not just in your town), "I found six other articles about similar topics" (the flaws in this argument are discussed at WP:OTHERSTUFF), and "the article is accurate" (that's important, but are there sources to indicate that the topic is notable?).

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46
 * 8a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and underconstruction, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
 * A: That type of page can be deleted instantly, in accordance with both A3 (no content -- what the page has right now) and G11 (blatant advertising -- what the page is likely to become when the promised construction is complete). Before deleting it, however, I would look at logs for previous versions of the article and I would probably take a quick look at the company website and do a quick Google search to see if there is any hint that the web company is notable. In almost all such instances, the company will turn out to be non-notable (I say that because the world is full of small web companies that want to use Wikipedia to advertise themselves), in which case I would delete the page without further ado. In the edit summary I would provide a full statement of the reasons for deleting the page (including the lack of evidence that the company meets WP criteria for notability and the WP policy against using the encyclopedia as an advertising medium), and I would send the page creator a message appropriate to the situation.


 * If I found evidence of possible notability, my action likely would depend on both what I found regarding the topic and the experience/history of the page creator. In some rare cases (for example, strong evidence of notability and a user who has previously demonstrated poor command of English and has repeatedly tried to start the same article) I might even remove the speedy deletion template and write sourced content for the article, based on the sources I found. --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 8b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?
 * A: That's a circumstance I've never seen -- a page with a title and no content other than the underconstruction template! (Does this actually happen?) In that type of case, I think I would look first at the page creator's history. If this is a brand-new user, I would move the page to the creator's user space, with a note indicating that they can develop the page in their user space and resubmit it when it has content. If the user has a longer history, I would likely delete the page as "no content", with a note asking them not to re-create it until they have some content to provide. --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup I've certainly seen it happen. it's routine for an inexperienced author to write the title, and the following minute (literally) someone at NewPages nominates for a Speedy. How would you deal with this?DGG (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Live and learn! I had no idea this happened -- presumably because I'm not a sysop looking at speedy deletion requests, and when I do new pages patrol I tend to focus on unpatrolled pages that are at least about 20 minutes old. (Someone else is usually busily tagging the most obvious issues with the newest pages, so I seldom attempt to try to deal with those, but instead look at the slightly older pages that often present more complex issues.)
 * Since I've never encountered nor thought about this question before, the clear first step is to ask an experienced administrator how they normally handle the situation. (How do you handle as this situation, anyway?) As for my general philosophy on how to address this, I believe that newbies deserve some leeway. Initial contributions that may have encyclopedic value (unfortunately, many first contributions don't) should not be deleted on sight. Instead the newbie should be given time to build the article, particularly if they have placed an underconstruction template on it. A new user should be given at least an hour to start the article, but if no content has been added within the first hour, my solution of "move the page to the creator's user space, with a note indicating that they can develop the page in their user space and resubmit it when it has content" might be the best approach. It's less important to make allowances for experienced users (those who have started articles before), as they should have learned that a new page in article space needs to have content. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I handle this by replacing the speedy tag with the one for "underconstruction", alerting the user to the problem & explaining the need to get things to a reasonable adequate stub state before leaving the article, reminding the person who put on the tag to give people a chance, and coming back in a few days--not just one hour--to see if the article is being worked on. some good admins  use a Prod tag, which gives 5 days. But the essential point is to explain. Most newbies don't know about the underconstruction tag--some even place it and the holdon tag at the same time, which of course only lists the article for speedy deletion! There are a few experienced people who insist on creating unsourced ministubs, and they  are a problem. DGG (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. That approach makes sense. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 8c. Under your understanding of WP:BLP, which of the following statements may be removed if not properly sourced: "XXX is gay", "XXX is married", "XXX is of German, Polish, and Irish ancestry", "XXX is a violinist", "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate", "XXX was accused of incest by his daughter", "XXX is Presbyterian", "XXX is Muslim", "XXX was born in 19XX".
 * A: All of those may be removed if not properly sourced, because Wikipedia should not report unsourced information about living persons. However, some items must be removed instantly (as soon as they are first "sighted") due to their potentially defamatory nature (in your list, the incest accusation is the most extreme example of this, but "gay", religion, ancestry, and "did not graduate" are very close behind it), and personal identification details such as dates of birth should not be included unless they are sourced. However, as a practical matter, information that is neither defamatory nor personally sensitive (in this example, this would be "XXX is a violinist") may be allowed to remain -- at least for a brief period -- to allow for verification.


 * 8d. If after removing all statements from a biography that must me removed under WP:BLP, if the article meets WP:CSD, would it be proper to speedy delete it?
 * A: Do you mean that the article is now eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD? Yes, it would then be proper to speedy delete it, but with a summary that indicates that the article could be re-created if the new article complies with WP:BLP. (I think it's important to document reasons for deletion so that prospective article creators are not intimidated by the article's deletion history.) If the article subject is notable, a better solution would be to create a properly sourced stub that indicates why the article subject is important or significant.
 * Follow-up question. Here is an example of an use of WP:A7, that I would like your opinion of.  Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on the efforts of our team of quality control volunteers.  One of his contacts had written about: "...how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight."  Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started an article on The Political Quarterly.  This speedy nomination was confirmed.  I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description.  I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky are prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics.  Can I assume you would not have deleted the article?  How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use prod or afd instead?  Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In that example, I agree with Dick Poutain's assessment that Wikipedia has a problem with "quality control" by overly aggressive and under-informed users. That article should never have been tagged under A7 because it clearly indicated the "importance or significance" of its topic (in several ways, particularly by the journal's notable founder, the contributions by Mussolini and Trotsky, the sponsorship of the Orwell prize, and the journal's indexing by ISI). If I encountered that article in a collection of nominations for speedy deletion, I would remove the deletion template. Next, I would check to see if the article was copied from the journal's website. If it was, I would attempt a thorough rewrite to eliminate the copyvio. If it wasn't a copyvio, I probably would revise the wording to be a bit more encyclopedia-like (particularly the lead section), reformat the external link to make it into a link, look for sources for the article content, add some categories, and add appropriate cleanup templates based on my assessment of the article's condition after my quick and dirty cleanup. (Many of my article edits are like that. That is, I run across an article that's in poor shape, and I make modest cleanup changes, basically to salvage the article, but far short of what would be necessary for a DYK nomination, much less GA or FA status.) --Orlady (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, it looks like the speedy-deletion request on that article was declined, indicating that the Wikipedia processes worked, after all. --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 8e. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?
 * A: I don't think majority rule is ever the single best way to determine consensus.
 * In the ideal article writing situation, consensus regarding the content and structure of articles develops through an "organic" process that alternates between editing and discussing. Some of the various forms of this process are described at WP:Consensus, WP:Consensus, and WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. In my experience here, this works best when things move at a somewhat leisurely pace that allows all interested parties a chance to keep up with both the discussions and the editing activity. Most article writing does not require formalized processes for consensus development, but formal approaches (potentially including !voting) are needed for highly contentious articles.
 * Deletion discussions are different in that they are focused on a narrow question (usually it's "should this article be kept or not?"), occur in a brief time window (there's usually no opportunity to maintain a leisurely pace), almost always involve a larger and more diverse group of participants, and involve some participants to only a very limited degree. In this situation, it's necessary to have a formalized process, including (but not limited to) !voting. However, deletion discussions are most productive when they are truly conducted as discussions (with people introducing information and opinions, editing the nominated item to improve its chances for retention, and returning to the discussion periodically to see if their opinions are changed by the new information presented). --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Dream Focus (transcribed from "Oppose" section):
 * 9. Is there a way to list every single AFD she has participated in?
 * A: I copied out a list of the AfDs I participated in during approximately the last year. It's here (on the discussion page for this RfA). --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Questions from doxTxob:
 * 10. Can the sockpuppet investigation against Orlady, which was filed on or before Feb. 24, 2009 by blocked User:MagdaOakewoman, be un-deleted? (also see "Oppose" section)
 * A: That case was not deleted. It was renamed, because the accuser was found to be engaged in sockpuppetry. See Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup: 10a. Usually sockpuppet cases are named for the accused, not the accuser. From the history of both pages it is not obvious what led to the renaming of the case. Sockpuppet_investigations/Orlady does not link to the renamed case Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive nor is the latter case linked to the first. Can you provide any information about where the renaming of the case was discussed on Wikipedia in a way that the community could take part in the discussion?
 * Comment Closed sockpuppet investigations are "moved" (apparently copied) to /Archive by a bot, but you can find the history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman. For example, here is where the case was renamed: . --GRuban (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A: I had nothing to do with closing that case or renaming it. The case was investigated by a checkuser and renamed by another administrator. The user who had accused me of sockpuppetry was in fact engaged in sockpuppetry. Those who are trying to dig up dirt on me probably will be excited to know that earlier one of the sockpuppet accounts had accused me of edit warring in connection with an article where I had made exactly two edits three days apart. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Interesting, that user who dug up dirt on you is now also indefinitely blocked. doxTxob \ talk 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough with the conspiracy theories, DoxTxob (and please don't make another one of your comments relating Wikipedia to Nazi Germany). The accusation was ridiculous. There was no basis for it. It made as much sense as if you were accused of an edit war over Graceland because of your two edits to the article. --Orlady (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no basis to the accusation and it is so ridiculous, why do you so intesively refuse and fight an independent opinon of your involvement in a sockpuppet case for which I have suggested a solution that would secure privacy? That looks suspicious to me. Are new admins not to be put under scrutiny to see it they are worth it or is the procedure more part of a campaign of mutual "back scratching"? You had editors banned ("shrugged off" as vandals, to use your own words) after three edits in which historical details were tweaked and things going on in your imagination and I am just wondering about the accusation against you. By the way, I was in fact accused of wrongdoing together with Doncram a day ago and asked for an investigation on myself and Doncram, demanding an apology by the accuser (who also happens to be a CHECKUSER), User:Deskana and I demanded that published here because I do not like stains on my record. I have not heard anything yet, I have left a note on Deskana's talk page, too, but still without any response. Is there anything to hide from the community? doxTxob \ talk 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You should link the source of my comment about Nazi Germany for the participants to know the whole context in which I drew that parallel. I did not compare Wikipedia to that dark time, I just compared certain development then to developments here. That's all. History is something you need to learn from to make sure mistakes are not repeated. doxTxob \ talk 05:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are continuing to give far more credence to the bizarre theories of the anonymous creator of that angelfire attack page than you acknowledge. The principal basis for the supposed "outing" of Orlady is the strange theory that I was the true author of an insult posted on my talk page from an anonymous IP. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) PS - I don't recall where your comments about Nazi Germany first appeared, so I am not providing a link. I do recall that you didn't specifically use the word "Nazi," but instead talked about "75 years ago." --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, that is what I said. I appreciate the clarification. doxTxob \ talk 22:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup: 10b. The page Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive states that Orlady was not checked and the case was closed. For a proposed admin, the accusation of sockpuppetry is a very, very serious one. Would you agree to an investigation of the accusations made against you conducted by an independent party, to clear your record of any doubt?
 * A: The request is unreasonable. Do you not trust the findings of the checkuser process? Do you not accept the possibility that some vandals disrupt Wikipedia by filing accusations of sockpuppetry where there is no basis for the accusation? --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable and do not know if there is a basis because the report states that Orlady was not checked. (See Oppose section below to save some space here) doxTxob \ talk 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The following statements by Hans Adler may be helpful to anyone who is trying to follow this exchange. Hans Adler [Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady#Moved comments to Q10–10b|moved them to the talk page] after DoxTxob asked to have them removed from "his" question section, but I am restoring them here because they are a useful supplement to my responses. --Orlady (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your categorical "request" was completely out of order:
 * AFAIK the logs used by checkuser are deleted after a few weeks, so it's probably not even technically possible now.
 * It borders on insanity to suggest a connection between Orlady, Director Magda (a user who made 5 very clumsy beginner's edits in January), and Special:Contributions/161.45.203.38 (an IP who attacked Orlady and vandalised two other pages). There is no motive, there are no commonalities, there is nothing but an attack from a sockpuppet.
 * Checkuser is a privacy intrusion and must not be run without good reason. Its use for fishing in the way you demand would be a step on a path parallel to that of Nazi Germany. (Sorry; you brought it up first.)
 * Orlady is in no position to authorise a privacy intrusion that affects someone who is clearly not herself (Director Magda). Certainly not based on an insane conspiracy theory. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11. You have been involved in the Jvolkblum sockpuppet investigation for a while and have reported many users as sockpuppets. Imagine the following scenario: One editor requests that you step back from the case completly and let other experienced editors handle the case, due to a concern that you might be biased by your long involvement in that very case. How would you respond to that request?
 * A: This is not a hypothetical question -- you (i.e., "one editor") have been asking me this question on various different talk pages. I have not answered because you don't "own" the situation any more than I or anyone else does. At various times in the past there were multiple users contributing and cooperating to take note of Jvolkblum socks, but several of those other users have disappeared from Wikipedia or moved on to other projects. If other people were to become productively involved in this area, my level of involvement would quickly decline. Contrary to Doncram's allegations, I don't enjoy playing "whack-a-mole" (I think it's a frustrating and unproductive exercise, but a necessary one).
 * I consider myself as "one editor" of Wikipedia, you are absolutely right. I have asked the question not several times but only twice to offer a solution that might be best for the Wikipedia project, and there was no response from you. I do not own the situation (and you don't either) but I am seriously interested in Wikipedia and seek the best for the project. The best for the project might be without you, doncram and doxTxob (myself) being involved in this particular case. As you try to diverge from the question, let me explain here to the participants of this discussion what my complete proposition was: All heavily involved parties in the discussion that got out of control, Orlady, Doncram and doxTxob (myself) would agree to not further pursue that case and let other experienced editors and admins take over as I am convinced that every one of these three (incl. myself) is too much involved to judge fairly, unbiased and for the best of Wikipedia. Refer to: User_talk:DoxTxob/Archive_2 and there Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=281632533
 * The question becomes hypothetical when it is about your qualification for adminship, because this situation might happen again and at the cost of valuable contributors of Wikipedia. I formulated the question the way I did to find out what you would do if such a case repeats. I mentioned it before at a different place and I said that I was very, very impressed by User:Coren, who closed two AN discussions. At the beginning of the arbitration, Coren suggested he/she would reclude from the discussion at the request of any participant. Wow, that is the wood a good admin is carved from. I salute to Coren for this behavior that could be used an example for anyone, inside and outside of Wikipedia. If there is any doubt about your integrity, you (and anyone) should let someone else take over, just to make sure everything is judged properly. doxTxob \ talk 06:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Quadell:
 * 12. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?
 * A. One such instance is documented at Talk:National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts and Articles for deletion/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts. Here's the story:
 * I believed that the page did not belong in article space, in accordance with WP:NOT, but that it might be appropriate in wikiproject space or user space. I first discussed my concerns on the talk page, where the article creator participated energetically in defense of the page, and another user commented that a move to project space would be a good resolution. After almost four days had passed without further discussion activity following my last comment on that page (in those last comments I had responded to the creator's request to provide a detailed explanation of my reasoning), I concluded that the discussion had ended with acquiescence to a page move (if not a consensus), so I moved the page to project space. Thirty-five minutes later, the page's creator moved it back to article space, illustrating that he did not think that consensus had been reached. The page's creator (who is now vociferously complaining that I am a "bully") had earlier effectively dared me to take the matter to AfD, saying "If you don't feel like explaining, and if you feel inexplicably compelled to continue, then go ahead and raise the issue in AfD or wp:Requested moves or requests for arbitration or whatever other forum, and I will respond more fully to point out what I feel to be inaccuracies in your statements, and I will muster arguments for keeping this list-article where it is now." Seeing that talk page discussion had failed, a few hours after he reverted the page move I started an AfD discussion. After 3-1/2 days of lively discussion, with several users supporting either deletion or a move to project space and several others supporting retention, the AfD was closed as "keep." I accepted that conclusion (albeit reluctantly) and continued with other initiatives; I have had no subsequent involvement with the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an odd choice to present this incident. I freely grant, and did grant, that the article was in a gray area about being in project or mainspace, and it would benefit from some fixing up.  It happens that having the article in mainspace serves purposes of the NRHP wikiproject in several ways and is proving to build a closer relationship with the National Park Service's National Register program people (Orlady probably is unaware of this further development).  But, the NRHP wikiproject is the one that she has been most involved with / has posted the most at, per edit statistics, so repeating the example here as if she was right about challenging it, seems oblivious to the interests of one of the main communities to which she belongs.  About "daring" her to take it to AfD:  I asked her NOT to, because I thought it would (and did) take time away from better activity.  This occurred, also, at a time when she was following my edits around, and I did experience it as antagonistic, just as Ottava Rima suggests (within Talk page attached here) describing her use of AfD's with another person she has followed around:  "....simply put, if you are showing obsessive characteristics by countlessly following a person, then chances are there will be mistakes and accidents. Her AFDs are proof that she has pursued the person in an unreasonable manner and seeks to delete pages that could easily be fixed up. That is damaging to the encyclopedia. AFDs are not a tool to destroy one's enemy."  For her to bring this AfD up as a positive example, merely because she did not revisit it more times later, and to repeat again her fantastic idea that I was daring her, shows obstinacy and non-acceptance of the fact that others views may be valid, more than any real acceptance of consensus. doncram (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doncram, I cited this situation as evidence of what I did when consensus went against me. I cited it because this happens to be the single best example I can recall of a situation in which consensus went against me in a process in which I was thoroughly engaged (and that occurred after I had a clue about how things are done at Wikipedia). --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional remarks to Doncram moved to Doncram's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically i think Orlady has been bullying, and amazingly to me she calls my generally polite request to her not to open an AfD as "a textbook example of bullying". In my request, i acknowledged some weaknesses in the article and I made some arguments against opening an AfD that I recognize are not valid within an AfD itself (such as the article "was not hurting anyone" and such as my personal reason that I wanted to work instead on a wikinews article about the first new NHL in New York State in more than 2 years, instead, right then).  I feel her pushing to AfD right then, to seize upon and exploit weakness, is classic bullying behavior.  My other more AfD-valid arguments as to the notability of the article later did in fact prevail in the AfD, and others did the development that i acknowledged was needed.  The AfD appears to be have been inappropriate, then and now, to me.  Q12 was about consensus.  Orlady's response to Q12 here, her longer response on this page right here, which she moved with expansion to User talk:Doncram, seem to show further obstinacy and disagreement with consensus, and difficulty to this day in accepting that AfD decision.  It seems mostly like she and i butting heads, but in my view far more her bullying me.  On a simple level, I think she thinks she was right all along about everything in this situation, and would like to be acknowledged for that now.  So I interpret her complete response to Q12 as more or less saying that there is no valid example of consensus going against her. doncram (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I removed those comments from the RfA and moved them to your talk page before that remark appeared on my talk page. Also, you chose to reply here on my RfA page -- and hide the comment that I posted to your talk page -- several hours after I had moved the comments to the talk page. Did you think this RfA is about providing a platform for you? --Orlady (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To see your comment on my Talk page, which you composed here as a response about Q12 here and which i collapsed (to anyone else, i did not hide it in a comment), please click "Show". If you are insisting that it is part of this discussion, so you want it displayed, please feel free to insert it back again here. doncram (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True. As you say, you "did not hide it in a [HTML] comment". Instead, as Orlady said you "hid[e] the comment that [she] posted" in a template, whose colour you set manually to the colour of its "show" link. Not that it's particularly important, but it does seem to give some insight... --Hans Adler (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC) [Colours now changed  Hans Adler (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)]
 * I don't use collapse boxes often, and copied it from a FAC discussion for Listed buildings in Runcorn where i recalled seeing one used. I just changed the colors to improve readability, before seeing your comment here. doncram (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the (very plausible) explanation. I amended my comment. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional questions from jc37
 * In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
 * 13. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
 * 13a. ...an editor to be blocked?
 * A: A block is a tool that can be useful in several different types of situations. The appropriate uses of a block are, of course, fully discussed at WP:BLOCK; I will answer your question with a discussion of general principles (as I understand them), rather than by repeating the specifics of the policy. Your question appears to focus on blocking of registered accounts, not IPs.
 * Registered accounts may have temporary blocks applied to them to stop some sort of activity that is disruptive (or otherwise deleterious) to Wikipedia and that has not been (or cannot be) resolved by gentler mechanisms. Perhaps the best-known example of a temporary block is the block for violation of the three-revert rule. A 3RR block has a duration of no more than 24 hours for the first instance. Ideally, when the block has expired the blocked party will be better disposed to engage in calm interaction, and the edit dispute can be resolved through nondisruptive means (if it isn't successfully resolved by judicious edits during the period of the block). Temporary blocks are also appropriate for repeated acts of vandalism, copyvio, WP:BLP violation, or incivility that have persisted in spite of repeated warnings. As I perceive it, this type of block is intended primarily to protect Wikipedia from the disruption caused by the disruptive behavior and secondarily to impress the blocked user that Wikipedia is serious about enforcing its policies. Some temporary blocks are solely to stop disruption -- for example, when an automated process appears to be "out of control" or when it is suspected that an account has been compromised.
 * Temporary blocks are appropriate when the assumption of good faith is still possible. In some instances, however, it becomes appropriate to block a registered account indefinitely. For example, a new user whose only "contributions" have been a series of vandalism edits that appear to be intentionally disruptive, and who has received a full series of templated warnings but has continued to make the same type of edits, may be blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism-only" account. Similarly, indefinite blocks may be applied to accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets (at WP:SPI), that have user names deemed to "have clearly been created only to cause trouble" (per Username policy; please note: I have reported a couple of "bad" user names during me tenure here, but I have not been involved in arbitrating user names and have no particular interest in that area of admin activity), that have demonstrated severe and persistent incivility to other users, or that have persistently introduced content that violates copyright or defames living persons.


 * 13b. ...a page to be protected?
 * A: Again, the relevant Wikipedia policy provides full details.
 * Most of my experience with page protection is with semi-protection. This prevents editing by anonymous IP users and newly registered accounts (not autoconfirmed). When a page has been subject to frequent vandalism (for example, for an article this might mean a dozen vandalism edits every day for several days) by anonymous users, semi-protection may be appropriate to protect it from continued attacks. It also may be helpful to protect frequently used templates to prevent accidental or intentional damage by inexperienced editors and vandals. I have noticed that some highly visible Wikipedia pages (such as noticeboards) are frequently semi-protected for brief periods after outbreaks of vandalism. Semi-protection is generally more appropriate for pages that have fairly stable content (and thus are unlikely to benefit from drive-by edits from anonymous users) than for pages that are not yet well-developed or that may require frequent updates because they deal with current topics. In my experience, this is an effective way to prevent much of the vandalism that would otherwise occur on highly-visible-but-stable pages such as the biographical articles for presidents of the United States.
 * Full protection restricts editing to administrators. Full protection, typically for a period of several days, can have the effect of imposing a "cease fire" when several editors are engaged in a content dispute over an article. Ideally, full protection of the article will lead to productive discussion among the editors. Sometimes it does not lead to discussion (all the participants may simply go away until the protection expires), but at least it should reduce the levels of stress that participants have likely been experiencing. Full protection is also employed for some critically important pages, including the main page and images that are displayed on the main page (including the current DYK image). However, except for cases of unusually high levels of vandalism, the featured article of the day is unprotected. --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 13c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?
 * A: The criteria for speedy deletion identify the only circumstances in which a page may be speedily deleted. These include (for example) pages that are pure nonsense, blatant copyright infringements, articles that contain no indication or evidence of the notability/significance of their subject, and pages created by banned users in violation of their ban with no substantial contributions by others. Not all pages that are eligible for speedy deletion should be deleted; for example, instead of deleting the entire page about a notable topic because that page infringes on copyright, it may be possible to salvage a short stub (or even replace the copyvio content with a properly sourced article, as I did for WVOX). --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 13d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
 * A: That question is somewhat paradoxical. If there were clear-cut situations where "Ignore All Rules" applied, then there would be rules for those situations, wouldn't there? Basically, IAR means that all specific rules should be understood and interpreted in respect to their purpose and the context in which they were created, and that the good of the encyclopedia should be the overriding consideration at all times.
 * The best examples of the application of IAR are actually embedded in the rules. For example, WP:V makes it clear that all articles must be "based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," but it also acknowledges that creators of inadequately sourced articles should be given "sufficient time to provide references" before content is deleted. This encourages the application of good judgment, rather than strict application of the basic policy. As specifically stated in the policy, unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons should not be allowed to remain in articles or on talk pages, but in many other instances Wikipedians are encouraged to apply good judgment in determining how to handle a situation of inadequate sourcing.


 * 14. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
 * A: I have addressed the general topic of "determining consensus" in my responses to Q7 and Q8e (above), including examples related to articles and XfDs. Please advise if you want additional specifics.
 * As for deletion review discussions, I have relatively little experience with that process and, as a new administrator, I would not expect to get involved with closing deletion reviews. As I perceive it, determinations of the conclusion of DRV discussions should be based primarily on consideration of the reasoning that is presented, as it applies to the specific situation. In that context, "consensus" (or lack thereof) relates to whether (or not) multiple knowledgeable participants agree on the validity of the information and arguments provided. Since the focus of DRV is on whether Wikipedia process has been carried out appropriately, determinations regarding the results of a DRV discussion should be made by experienced administrators.


 * 14b. - Followup question: In reading over the answer above, and the answers you note, you seem to be describing the process of discussion, and that consensus should (in optimum circumstances) involve discussion. Theorietical discussions of consensus aside, how would you close a discussion. What specific factors would you be looking for as closer in deciding what the "result" of the discussion is?
 * A: Hmm... It's hard to answer this kind of question hypothetically. In practice, I think it is a matter of reading through the discussion, reviewing the item's history, and recognizing the conclusion that a discussion has reached....
 * Trying (anyway) to deal with this in a hypothetical manner, I'll start with the simplest situation, which is when all discussion participants have come to agreement. This happens particularly (1) when an "X" proposed for deletion has been sufficiently improved or new information has been provided that causes the nominator to withdraw the nomination and all other participants to agree on "keep", or (2) when all participants agree on a non-keep resolution (which is not necessarily a deletion; it might include something like "merge and redirect"), and no one has presented contrary arguments. If the nominator and all others agree on "keep," the XfD can be closed as "keep" without further ado. When all participants agree on deletion (assuming the item is not a clear speedy deletion candidate), however, it is important not to be hasty in closing the discussion as "delete." When a dozen people show up in the first two hours of an XfD discussion to say "Delete," there is a tendency to become impatient for the discussion to be closed as a snowball delete, but additional time is needed to make sure that users who might have other viewpoints have had a chance to weigh in and/or improve the item under discussion. If the creator(s) have been notified, the XfD has been appropriately categorized and listed on one or more deletion-sorting lists that have an active following, and the participants have given reasons that make sense (i.e., are consistent with policy/guidelines and are relevant to the item under discussion), it might be reasonable to close such a discussion in 48 hours or even less. However, as a general rule, Wikipedia will not collapse because an XfD discussion goes on longer than absolutely necessary, and it's important to give interested users a reasonable chance to participate. Also, as a general rule, there should be a total of at least 5 opinions on a discussion before it is closed as "delete."
 * Other situations are more complicated. If the allotted time for discussion has expired and there are fewer than about 5 opinions (on an XfD that is neither withdrawn by the nominator nor a clear candidate for speedy deletion), the AfD generally should be relisted for additional comment. (CfDs, TfDs, MfDs, and IfDs -- the last of which I don't intend to deal with -- generally get less attention, so they often may be closed with fewer comments.) If there are more than 5 opinions, the opinions conflict, but most of the comments are brief (without much in the way of explanation), then the XfD should also be relisted. (IMO, there should generally be at least five opinions and conflicting well-reasoned opinions on both sides to result in a "no consensus" close.)
 * This leaves the most important situation: the discussions with a sufficient number of participants with conflicting views. If most agree, with only one or two dissenters -- or no more than ~15% of the total participants (after discounting the effects of SPA accounts and canvassing), the majority opinion is almost always the consensus view. If opinions are split more closely than that, but the trend of opinion has changed during the discussion to one view or the other, the later opinions should get more weight than the early ones. If those later opinions lean toward "keep," then this is probably a "keep" consensus -- particularly if the article has been improved during the course of discussion. If those later opinions are heavily on the "delete" side and there is reason to believe that the earlier supporters of "keep" are aware of the discussion (but refrained from continuing to comment), then the consensus is likely to be "delete," but cases of doubt should lead to "no consensus" or "relist." If the trend over time is toward "keep" but there continue to be some well-supported arguments for "delete", "no consensus" is likely to be the "right" conclusion. --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 15. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
 * A: The first step is fact-finding. That is, look at the article and its history to see what JohnDoe and JaneRoe have actually been doing (and what interaction JohnQ has had with them and with the article); look at the talk page to see what discussion has occurred; look at the users' histories to see if there are any single-purpose accounts and what related articles the involved users have an interest in; and look at the users' talk pages to see if they have discussed the article there.
 * The next step depends on the situation identified in the first step. The main possibilities include:
 * (1) Place messages on the users' talk pages warning them that their actions constitute edit warring and asking them to refrain from further reverts until they have discussed their concerns about the article on the article's talk page and reached consensus. This is particularly applicable if there is reason to assume that both users are acting in good faith and they have not previously received such a message. If this is done, monitor the article and its talk page to see what happens next.
 * (2) If the users have already been warned for edit warring and have continued, one or more temporary 3RR blocks may be needed.
 * (3) If it turns out that User:Doe is adding blatant advertising, POV-laden text, defamatory content, or similarly unacceptable material, while User:Roe is repeatedly replacing it with a neutral version, give User:Doe a "warning" about his behavior (type of warning to depend on user's history and history of past warnings; in cases of obvious COI, a user block might be appropriate).
 * (4) If option 1 has been tried and failed (or if there has been extensive talk page discussion that is leading nowhere), temporary full page protection on the article may be appropriate, in hopes of stimulating productive discussion on the talk page. In general, I think this is more likely to be productive than placing user blocks on good-faith contributors.
 * In every case, I would want for an administrator or experienced disinterested observer to continue to monitor the article -- and perhaps participate in discussion and editing in order to foster a favorable resolution to the content dispute. Often I would do this myself, but if the topic of the article is an area in which I don't feel particular competent to judge content but a topic in which many other admins and experienced users are competent (examples of this include professional wrestling, anime, and current popular music), I probably would seek someone else to take on the assignment. --Orlady (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 16. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
 * A: I don't actually "wish" to be an administrator. Rather, I think I could make myself more useful if I took on this additional responsibility. I am aware that if I had admin tools I could do some of these things more efficiently and help reduce the workload of the administrators (some of whom are probably sick and tired of responding to my requests for help with tasks I don't have the tools to perform).


 * Additional questions from Jennavecia
 * 17a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
 * A: I believe that there is a problem with BLPs and with content in general: there is insufficient oversight (and I mean "oversight" in the dictionary sense of the word, not the Wikipedia sense) of changes to prevent seriously inaccurate and/or defamatory content from being inserted into articles. It ought not to be possible for drive-by vandals to insert blatant falsehoods in articles about living people, and (in general) it is unproductive for volunteers to spend there time checking and rechecking factual details to figure out whether factual errors have been introduced into articles. (A non-BlP area where I frequently see factual problems is in numerical statistics in articles; for example, a user might change a town's per capita income, based on Census date, from $53,000 to $153,000 per year. Bots don't usually detect that sort of seemingly minor edit as vandalism, and human evaluation of the accuracy of these types of statistics can be time-consuming.)
 * 17b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
 * 1. Flagged revisions
 * 2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
 * 3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
 * A: I think it is appropriate for any or all of these to be tried on an experimental basis, and I think it is necessary to try at least one of them. All have potential merit, but each has drawbacks. As I see it, the main drawbacks of the two "flagging" proposals are the need for extensive volunteer effort to patrol revisions and the potential addition of a new layer of bureaucracy related to granting of permissions for this new function. The main drawback that I see with expanded semi-protection is the possibility of discouraging input by anonymous newbies who might have good info to add or who might later become active contributors. Among the three, I would prefer expanded use of semi-protection (that is, semi-protect most reasonably stable articles), but I will gladly support whatever method is selected for a trial implementation.
 * 17c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
 * A: It depends (is that a wishy-washy response, or what?). If the conclusion of "no consensus" is due to an issue potentially related to the personal privacy of the article subject (for example, this is often an underlying issue for people known for one event) or tha verifiability of the basic biographical information in the article, then it may make sense to default to delete. However, when personal privacy and verifiability are not central issues, then the usual default conclusion of "keep" makes sense, consistent with established policy. --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 17d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about vandalism made to the article and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
 * A: This is extremely hypothetical -- I do not expect to have access to OTRS information, and under current guidelines (as I understand them) the AfD no-consensus would default to "Keep."
 * If there were no guidelines, I'd say this should depend on the AfD outcome and the nature of the subject's concerns. If, in the absence of the complaints by the subject, the AfD result would have been a clear "keep", and the concerns of the article subject are related to simple vandalism by IP users (such as repeatedly replacing the subject's middle name with a vulgar word), I would be inclined to keep the article but apply long-term semi-protection to reduce repeat vandalism. If the AfD result would have been "no consensus" and the article subject is charging "vandalism" due to his objection to information that is apparently relevant sourced and factual content in the article, a different result might be appropriate. For example, if the subject of the article is CEO of a company and does not want the article to report negative information that the CEO says is wrong, if the article is of marginal notability anyway, it might be a good idea to honor the CEO's request that the information not be publicized. Most incidents likely require an outcome somwhere in betwee these two. --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up:
 * The OTRS portion is just to say the subject's identity has been confirmed. No worries. Okay, so you start your answer with "If there were no guidelines". What about the deletion policy? I suppose, technically, there's no guideline on it. ;)
 * A to follow-up Q: My admittedly unclear reference to "no guidelines" referred to the current state of flux with respect to the matter of implementing flagged revisions or other measures for protecting BLP articles from vandalism. (I was writing late at night, and I fear that my fatigue showed in the writing...)
 * In my very limited experience with OTRS information about BLP concerns expressed by the article subject (most recently, this happened with Percival Davis, where I had recently made some drive-by vandalism reverts), the OTRS volunteers do not share information regarding the specifics of the concerns expressed. I would expect someone who had access to that information to remove any content from the article that had been reasonably challenged by the article's subject or was otherwise problematic with respect to WP:BLP. This would leave the AfD process to consider the article as it existed, without that OTRS content. If, based on review of the article in that redacted form, the AfD consensus is "keep" or "no consensus," then those conclusions should stand.
 * The wrinkle added in your comment is that the article subject complains of "vandalism." If this is garden-variety vandalism by anonymous IPs, it's not a valid reason to delete the article. However, since this kind of vandalism can be largely prevented by semi-protecting the article, I think semi-protection would be a reasonable action in respect of the article subject's reasonable concerns. There is, however, currently no policy or guideline encouraging the use of semi-protection in these circumstances (this is connected to the whole flagged-revisions issue).
 * If, on the other hand, the alleged "vandalism" is inclusion of reliably sourced content that the article's subject doesn't like, there are different nuances to consider. If the AfD is concluding with a consensus to "keep", the article should be kept, in spite of the complaints from its subject (but effort is needed to ensure that the article is balanced and does not place undue weight on negative info, no matter how well sourced it might be). However, if the article subject is only marginally notable and the AfD seems to be concluding with "no consensus," the objections of the article's subject might cause me to lean a bit toward the "delete" direction. This would be a good time to consult off-wiki with the OTRS volunteer, and "relisting" might turn out to be the most appropriate resolution (but XfDs should not be allowed to go on forever). --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion policy states: Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.


 * Additional question from doxTxob:
 * 18. You certainly remember the instance when I commented on your Request for Adminship when it was not yet opened. I did not notice it was not opened, because there were two support votes on your RfA already on March 3rd, more than five weeks ago. That made me think it was open for discussion already. (See this diff ) The mistake was only mentioned after I left my comment there (neutral at that time), the premature support votes had not been criticized. The premature voters excused themselves for their "mistake". They called this a "mistake", others might call it voting "irregularities" or even "fraud", I just call it "suspicious" collection of support votes. Is this your understanding of "mutual backscratching" to use your own words above? What is your position on accumulating support votes for a RfA before the discussion has started officially?
 * A: Orlady had nothing to do with "accumulating support votes" before the RfA started, so quit trolling already. She objected to your assertion that she hadn't filled out the questions yet, not the fact that you didn't vote in support. Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Orlady did not object support votes on this very RfA coming in as early as Feb. 28 (Diff. ), the votes were still present and not objected on Mar. 3 (Diff. ). During that time, Orlady was actively editing on Wikipedia. I see an imbalance if support votes are collected as early as 5 weeks before the RfA starts without any objection in an "inofficial" process, while neutral or opposing opinions are limited to just one week in the "official" RfA process.


 * I do not at all consider this request for her opinion as "trolling" as you chose to call it. Trolling is defined as "any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." [emphasis in the original] . I will leave the decision if my request regarding voting irregularities in the RfA disrupts Wikipedia to every particlipant in the discussion to answer that for themselves.


 * Acting inadequatly and not acting adequately when actions are required are not so very different, both result in an inadequate outcome. Thus, I deliberately and intentionally question Orlady's ability to use fair judgement by not acting adequately in a process which is essential to Wikipedia, which would cause a dispution of the due precess on Wikipedia. Voting in new Admins should be conducted in a fashion that is beyond any doubt about irregularities that would benefit the proposed Admin and no one else. I am interested in Orlady's position on this issue. doxTxob \ talk 02:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A from candidate: I'm no expert on Wikipedia RfA protocol. However, in other RfAs I have seen other instances of people commenting before the RfA went live, so it did not seem unusual to me when this happened here. The two people who commented on this one before you noticed it because they (like you) had my talk page or this page watchlisted, and their comments were based on their knowledge of me and my work, so it didn't matter to them that the RfA was not yet live. They (and presumably you) were unaware that the page had not yet been transcluded to WP:RfA. I objected to your comment because it was not based on your past acquaintance with me, but focused on the fact that I hadn't responded to two of the three standard RfA questions. My response pointed out that I simply hadn't finished answering the questions -- and that the RfA hadn't been posted for comment yet. I was not concerned about the fact that you had commented, but rather about the premature nature of the basis for your objections. Also, note that no !votes were actually collected here until after the RfA went live; all "premature" !votes and statements were removed.
 * My remark about "mutual backscratching" relates to behavior in which users overtly or covertly "trade favors" (or "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"). I have seen !votes on other RfAs (no need to name names though ;-) ) that said something like "I am supporting your RfA because you prevented my article from being deleted." I don't want to suggest that there is anything wrong with being grateful to other users for past favors, but I do believe that opinions should be rendered on the basis of objective evaluations rather than on "supporting my friend" or "helping the person who helped me". If you had voted "neutral" or "oppose" and explained your position solely on the basis of your past acquaintance with me, I would have been disappointed (just as I am disappointed by your energetic opposition now), but I would not have complained that you were voting prematurely.
 * I don't think it would be productive to get into a discussion of the definition of "trolling," much less an argument about motives. However, I think that someone inclined to engage in that sort of analysis and speculation could make a convincing argument that you and several other participants in this RfA are participating with "the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion" (see Troll (Internet)). --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was one of the people that responded to the RfA before it went live. I think that Doxtroxb is being silly rash to think that I was somehow connected with voter fraud. What could possibly be accomplished? It makes no sense to me what Doxtroxb could possibly be thinking that my actions could somehow be dishonest or sinister? I found the premature RfA page simply because I looked at Orlady's contribution history to see if there was something I could help with because I thought that she had been busy outside Wikipedia because she had posted a Wiki-break on her talk page. I don't know what caused the bee under your bonnet, Doxtroxb, but this accusation is going a bit too far. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you, TallMagic, of anything and left an apology to you at your talk page. doxTxob \ talk 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I struck the word "silly" and replaced it with rash. Perhaps you didn't intend to accuse me of doing something sinister but I don't see any other explanation. Just because your intent was only to smear Orlady does not justify it, at least not in my view. It is clear that Orlady has upset you but, my view is that Orlady is a most excellent Wikipedian. Orlady and I have disagreed on so many occasions that I couldn't even count them all. She has always been very professional and focused on the good of the project in all our dealings. We have always been able to come to an agreement and contrary to some of the accusations that I've seen here, it has not always been decided to do leave the edit as Orlady wanted it in the beginning. As I say below, my view is that Orlady would make a fine admin. Anyway, I noticed that I messed up your handle, I'm sorry for that doxTxob. Peace, TallMagic (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not upset and do not want to smear Orlady or anyone. I just have serious doubts that she is fit for the admin role. doxTxob \ talk 02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional question from BQZip01:
 * 19. Can you explain the difference between copyrighted images and trademarked images? Are they allowed on Wikipedia? If so, under what circumstances. The only reason I ask this question is because you have stated that you intend to delve into copyvio issues and I want to make sure you have a firm grasp on the concepts. Please take your time to research and answer these questions as you deem necessary.
 * A: Oops, but I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I don't intend to "delve into" copyvio issues, and I have declared that I have no intention of working with deletion discussions for images. I most definitely can't expound on the difference between a copyrighted image and a trademarked image. When I see an image that's identical to an image on another website or that I think has an unlikely or invalid licensing/ownership claim, I tag it (as a speedy deletion candidate, as needing source information, as needing fair use justification, or whatever is appropriate) or add the missing info (such as a fair use justification, source URL, or PD-US license if I think I've verified eligibility), but I have to leave the "heavy lifting" to people with more expertise in image evaluation and IP law. As an admin, I would expect to speedy-delete some copyvio images on occasion -- in easy cases when I can confirm where the image came from and when there's no hint of a free license (for example, if the image was copied from a website that clearly states that nothing on the site may re-used without permission) or a fair use claim. If it gets more complicated than that, I'll leave the decisions to somebody else. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Admitting weaknesses is part of being human and an admin. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional question from User:Smallman12q
 * 20. Is there any particular policy or guideline that you detest? If so, why?
 * A: Not that I can think of.


 * 21. Is there any particular policy or guideline that you venerate? If so, why?
 * A: None.


 * 22. Is there any case in which a vandal should be exonerated? If so, why?
 * A: I think that the use of the word "exonerated" is a bit odd in the Wikipedia context, since (to me) it implies some sort of a criminal proceeding. Anyway, here are some thoughts:
 * Sometimes good-faith edits are mistakenly labeled vandalism. In that case, the user who is accused of vandalism may deserve an apology. If the user has been blocked or otherwise sanctioned for vandalism, the block or other sanction should be reversed.
 * Sometimes good-faith users are mistaken for banned users and are blocked. If that happens, the block should be reversed and the user should receive an apology.
 * Wikipedia does not assume "once a vandal, always a vandal." Users who have engaged in vandalism in the past will be welcomed as valued contributors if they stop engaging in vandalism and become productive contributors. (Sometimes it is best to do this under a new name.) I think this is a good thing in general -- because people are capable of change. However, I do not believe in infinite second chances. In particular, if a vandal's behavior has been so long-standing and/or egregious that vandal is indefinitely banned, it would be disruptive to Wikipedia to re-evaluate the ban on a frequent and regular basis. (As a general rule, the policy allows for reviews of indefinite after one year -- with the clock starting over if the banned user evades the ban. This time period is arbitrary, but I think it is sensible.)


 * 23.In your own words, how would you define a "fringe theory"?
 * A: Wikipedia articles about "fringe theories" are articles that I stay away from, as a general rule. These are topics that many Wikipedians feel strongly about. I also have strong feelings about many fringe theories, but I don't care to get into disputes here about these topics. --Orlady (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Orlady:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Orlady before commenting.''

Discussion

 * For those that prefer them:
 * WikiChecker edit counter
 * Soxred93's edit counter
 * Wikimedia edit counter
 * ~  ωαdεstεr 16 «talkstalk» 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention (thanks to a courtesy notification by one of the people who is vociferously opposing this RfA) that there is was an anonymously-maintained misogynist attack page on the web about a chimera called "Orlady (a.k.a. [several other names])". On this website, my "Orlady" moniker is was erroneously connected with several other online personas, plus one real person -- whose personal welfare I fear may be threatened by this bilge.
 * Regarding anti-Orlady attack site

I assume that the creator of that website had something to do with the strange "Magda Oakewoman" sockpuppetry case that has been mentioned here. I hope that no one else here at Wikipedia is connected with it, but I can't help but wonder if some of the people opposing me so vehemently here have been influenced by the vitriol there. If you are prepared to believe this garbage, please don't --Orlady (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As you brought the topic up yourself here, please let the participants know that it was me who brought that site to your attention. I hate secrecy and I hate anyone anonymously saying bad stuff about anyone else, whether it is someone I like or someone I hate, in this case I preferred to let you know about it privately. As I state in that email, I am not your biggest fan (for those who have not figured that out yet) but I decided to let you know the bad stuff I found on the internet dragging your user name into the dirt. Because I find it disgusting to spill dirt on someones name anonymously. I have posted the text of my email to you ragarding this topic on the talk page of this RfA.


 * That site must has been created by someone who seems to dislike you very much and I am now convinced that the relations brought up there have nothing to do with you at all. But guess what, for a day or two, just for me and myself, it cast doubt on your reputation. That might explain my insistance on clearing your record of any wrongdoing and of any doubt, whatsoever. Good you brought that up. As mentioned, I do not think that you are in any way related to any of the accusations on that website. My vote would still be an opposing one due to reasons unrelated to this dirty website as outlined below in the oppose section. doxTxob \ talk 06:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that attack site to my attention, DoxTxob. You are indeed the person who alerted me to it, and the fact that you were previously aware of the page does help to explain your earlier persistence about requesting an investigation of the "MagdaOakewoman" sockpuppetry allegations. For the record, the link you posted to your e-mail message no longer works because another Wikipedian requested that the copy of the e-mail message be "oversighted" (before realizing that I had posted the information here).
 * I cannot tell whether the attack page is directly related to this RfA. It was created some time between 17 February 2009 (the date when an anonymous user posted on my talk page using the IP that the harasser has inexplicably attributed to me) and 26 February 2009 (when Google last cached it), which happens to be the day after this RfA page was created by Kaldari. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note, there is an OTRS ticket on the subject at #2009041310004635. &rArr;  SWAT Jester  Son of the Defender  03:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was asked honest questions about a possible involvement in the attack page against Orlady and I provided honest answers to these questions. As this topic was raised here, I would like to provide the link to the relevant section: User talk:DoxTxob doxTxob \ talk 04:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If that link does no longer work I would be happy to re-send my email to you privately and you can use the link any way you want. Just let me know. doxTxob \ talk 05:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Support
Longer than many admins More than qualified. GARDEN 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Vandal fighting for the win So why the hell not?  Flying Toaster  16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I have seen Orlady around doing good work. Should do fine as an admin. Good luck. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Orlady will make a great admin. She helps out at DYK by reviewing nominations, preparing sets of hooks, and alerting admins when the next update is due. She's polite, understanding, and helpful with newcomers. And she's been invaluable with debugging DYKcheck (also shows she's willing to try out new things). Shubinator (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Orlady's been here
 * I'm abstaining; too many issues brought up in the oppose section that worry me. GARDEN  21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lots of good edits
 * 1) Orlady finally running for adminship? That's excellent news. I remember her as an admin or whatever they call it of the Open Directory Project, a bit less than 10 years ago, when I was active there. She absolutely had the right personality for her influential position there; and from all I have seen since I started watching her talk page about a year ago, I predict that she will be one of the best admins here as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC) — Since there are a couple of oppose !votes, I think I should add: This is absolutely normal for an editor who has been an "admin without the tools" for a long time. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support.  Orlady guards Wikipedia articles like a mama bear guards her cubs.  She homes in on the singular goal of making the article better or more accurate, and doesn't relent until that end is achieved.  Giving her admin tools is long overdue.  Bms4880 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I wish I could right a haiku, but that's not my thing.  So, I'll just say, looks good! Cool3 (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Looks like a very good and trustworthy editor. She should have gotten the tools long ago. Tim  meh  !  16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - my experiences with Orlady have all been positive, she's been here longer than most of us and has surely earned her chance. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, and not just for the sockpuppet fighting.  I think she's shown a lot of patience in this matter, but she has a lot of other great contributions all across the project. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I've been asked to remove this support vote per this edit.  Apparently, there are allegations that I'm seeking favor from a potential admin (who I'm no longer supporting) to get support for a possible featured list that I'm working on (which I'm no longer seeking featured list status for).  Sorry, Orlady.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I don't recall when I put this page on my watch list, but it was so that I could support this editor when and if the day came that they were nominated. That day is today.  I've seen Orlady's work before and am supportive.  GRBerry 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. – Juliancolton  | Talk 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Looks trustworthy. GT5162 (我的对话页) 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Clearly trustworthy. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, unequivocally. bd2412  T 17:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Orlady is an asset to DYK, no matter what the opposers here might try to claim.  Giving her admin tools will be a net benefit to the project and to the encyclopedia. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)  Moved to Neutral. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral (moved from Support): My own interactions with Orlady at DYK have been pleasant and I've never seen this bad temperament people keep talking about, but the number of concerns that have been raised suggests that maybe I've just been fortunate in always being on Orlady's good side. I perused some of the diffs and AfDs that people linked in the Oppose section and, to be honest, didn't see a lot that concerns me (but I didn't really read through everything super-carefully, and I only glanced at a few links at random). Anyway, I wouldn't be comfortable supporting until I could look through these past issues more carefully, so instead I'm going to neutral. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to weak support. After looking through some of the diffs and pages linked in the Oppose section, I don't see anything that really offends me.  There are opposes from several editors whom I respect greatly, but based on my own experience I can't really oppose. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - In addition to default Tennessee support, I've always seen Orlady as a strong contributor that has unquestioned zeal for improving the encyclopedia. TN X</b> Man  18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongest possible support -- #1 Orlady is an editor's editor. #2 She is judicious and diplomatic; in controversies, she always just takes the discussion back to encyclopedia-building and our editorial standards, thereby defusing behavioural issues. I've been asking her to stand for admin for a couple of years now. --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add that looking at all the oppose comments and the links cited just reinforces my belief that Orlady would make a fantastic admin who would perform very well under fire. --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you mean all of those (17+) faulty AFD justifications that would only lead to more DRVs makes you believe she will make a fantastic admin? That is scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether they were faulty or not is a matter of opinion. Plus you seem to be implying that AfD is the equivalent of deleting an article. An AfD can only lead to a DRV if the article is, in fact, deleted, in which case more editors than just Orlady would have to support the deletion. Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One of her primary uses for adminship is to close AFDs. That means she will be deleting. With such a poor understanding of deletion policies there is no justification to give her the power. Combined with her aggressiveness in trying to get rid of certain pages, it is probable that she will CSD pages without taking them to AFD. We have enough admin with these problems now. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a detailed list of AfDs Ottava is disputing as well as a thoughtful analysis by another editor at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, you have a perfect right to say whatever you wish here as long as you stay within the wide and easy boundaries of WP:CIVIL, which you are doing. Nevertheless, you may be undermining your own arguments here by the stridency of your opposition and your responses to various editors in this RfA. I think you've made most of your points already. --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support  - down  load  |   sign!  18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Has a clue, will travel. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Yes. America69 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support no worries here; longterm prolific and uncontentious editor with a clean block log, (the only block was an accident in 2007 that was reverted within three minutes).  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I've often seen this editor doing good work. I trust her to improve the project with whatever tools she has.   Will Beback    talk    19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Everything I've seen indicates this editor works in good faith and is a major contributor to the Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - A valued colleague and s good spirit, unflagging in her efforts to improve this project; truly worthy to wield the Mop-and-Bucket. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Net positive and should help, plus there aren't enough admins yet. :D--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 T/  C  19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Aye Long overdue. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Sure- why not? Seems to have a good head on her shoulders. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I've been impressed with her work on diploma mil^H^H^H^H^H^H *cough* unaccredited institutions. Skinwalker (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Strongest possible support Orlady is great improving articles as well as preventing vandals from degrading Wikipedia. My experience with Orlady is that she's very respectful when dealing with others and encouraging others to improve Wikipedia as well. Making her an admin will lead to making Wikipedia better. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked at diffs by Pastor Theo and others, and I'm still comfortable supporting. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Great work at SPI. KnightLago (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is an easy one.  MBisanz  talk 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A tireless contributor and defender of Wikipedia policy. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - seems committed to the encyclopedia, patient in disputes, good contribution record. Euryalus (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Jonathunder (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Knowledgeable editor. The opposes are not persuasive. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Despite my shock that Doug is fourth opposer... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, but remember that while it's nice to be important, it's more important to be nice. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Changed to oppose.
 * 1) Support Eusebeus (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support in the Strongest Terms Possible Orlady is a great editor, is a tireless proponent and advocate for Wikepedia policies, and is highly respectful of other editors. Contrary to some of the arguments made below in opposition to her candidacy, she does indeed suffer fools gladly. She will make an outstanding administrator. Fladrif (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I've now taken a look at most of the examples cited by the small but vocal "oppose" group. The examples cited are laughable, and that's putting it charitably. If anything, these examples strengthen my conviction that Orlady would be a fabulous adminstrator. Fladrif (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it troubling that you think a faulty understanding of our deletion policies, notability policies, and copyright policies as found in over 17+ AFDs with very faulty justifications is laughable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I think that the claim that the examples cited evidence a faulty understanding of those policies is laughable. The examples show conclusively that Orlady clearly understands and follows those policies. The vocal arguments to the contary by a handful of disgruntled editors appear to me, as an entirely neutral and disinterested party to the particular disputes, to be completely unsupported and entirely divorced from reality. Fladrif (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a "sofixit" tag for claims that a page does not have enough references. Most of the time, she didn't even look which was proven by others. This shows that she does not understand the purpose of deletion. Her failure to contact the creators of the articles she noms and even stating "I see no point in allowing the article proponents any more time to establish notability" is indefensible and 100% wrong. This is not about disgruntled people. This is about understanding policy, and your disregard for such is very troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your out-of-context quote is a perfect example of why your arguments are simply foolish. I can read Latin, French, Italian and Spanish too...but I can also read plain English. Orlady did precisely what WP:FAILN contemplates in that PFD. She put a notability tag on the article in October 2008. FOUR MONTHS LATER, the tag had been removed by another editor, but no source to justify the notability of the subject was presented in the meantime.  To conclude, at that point in time, that more than a reasonable time had elapsed for the article's proponents to come forward with the necessary support and that no further time was warranted is not a misunderstanding of the policy, it is precisely consistent with the policy.  It is you that is misinterpreting the policy, not Orlandy.  It strikes me that your stridence is at least in some small measure sour grapes over your own failed RFA and Orlady's even-tempered statement of opposition to it. Get over it.  But, I will make a note for myself to be sure to express my opposition to any future candidacy by you, with your arguments here as Exhibit A of your own complete lack of understanding of applicable Wiki policies and lack of temperament to apply them. Fladrif (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC
 * No, that is completely wrong. You are supposed to do your own research. She does not. The links provided by people afterward prove this. The fact that she did not want to even notify the creator as required in an AfD only verifies that her actions there are completely troubling. You can do whatever you want to dodge from this fact, but she has made it clear in over 17 AFDs that she doesn't understand one of her core areas. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. Reread WP:FAILN. In Latin, French, Spanish and Italian if necessary. Doing the research for the editors is NOT a requirement; it is an alternative. Notifying the original editor is NOT a requirement, it is an alternative. Putting a notability tag on IS an alternative, and the one Orlady chose in that case. She then waited four months, with no appropriate response, and submitted a PFD, which is also the appropriate course to follow. The links provided in the PFD did not support the notability of the article; rather, they confirmed the lack of notability of the article, and it was ultimately deleted. A word of advice: When you find that you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Fladrif (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you reread the Notability statements yourself - Failure to do -any- research is not a justification to claim that such does not exist, and it is not appropriate to not contact the creator of a page and try to delete it before they have time to provide such. These are extreme abuses of the AFD process. It states clearly "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself". She did not do this. Your claims about Notability disgust me. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You really have a problem with quoting out-of-context, don't you? "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:..." "Or". It's such a short word. And yet, so packed with meaning. (In case it's giving you trouble in English, that would be "vel" in Latin, "o" in Spanish or Italian, and "ou" in French. )Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And it says "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them" rather clearly. I think it is obvious that the Notability guideline is 100% against you and Orlady, and your continued persistence only verifies that you don't understand it, which negates any support you may offer. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I remember Orlady from the Open Directory Project, where she was invaluable as one of the more steady, patient, and even tempered editors, and eventually Meta-editors. Her work here seems to continue that trend. Probably the best evidence for that is the links her opponents seek to use against her, showing that she is able to change her mind and is diligent and thorough. If this is her worst, she'll make a fine admin. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) per above. --Kbdank71 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I've encountered Orlady in a couple of articles and article talk pages that are on my watchlist and have found her to be an impressive editor and is able to back up potentially controversial edits with sources. --Polaron | Talk 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I haven't encountered Orlady much at Wikipedia. Only once or twice.  However, the plaudits above seem persuasive.  I did nose around a bit regarding the Jvolkblum matter, and cannot see that she's done anything wrong.  Orlady may recall interacting with me quite a bit at DMOZ ages ago, and not in a very pleasant way, but that's water under the bridge, and anyway neither the water nor the bridge are at Wikipedia.  Good luck, Orlady.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support —  Jake   Wartenberg  23:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support excellent contributions and discussion at DYK. Your help will be appreciated!  Royal broil  00:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Kaldari appears to have hit the nail on the head below -- Orlady "seems to have a gift for maintaining calm and patience in the face of persistent antagonism."  Indeed. --JayHenry (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support DGG is fairly convincing, but thinking about it some more reminds me that it's okay for admins to do a bit of learning on the job. Orlady has definitely proven her basic trustworthiness and dedication to the project, and I assume that she'll ask someone or look something up before speedily deleting things she's unsure of. Steven Walling (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Partly because she meets my criteria, and partly because I'm just not finding any of the arguments from the Opposers to be convincing. <span style='font:bold 1.2em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Support The oppose votes do sway me a bit, but not seriously. I still think that having Orlady as an admin would be a net positive. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 10:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support- Orlady has been very helpful specially in articles about educational institutions, which seem to be his expertise. I believe that we need an admin with that kind of inclination as Wikipedia is a primary resource relied upon by people who search for information in that field due the scarcity of inputs elsewhere. People are being deceived into spending thousands on useless "degrees" from unaccredited or completely bogus institutions of higher learning and in this he can help a lot by confronting head-on and putting through the acid test the POVs of PR men and women sent by such institutions to create or whitewash existing articles. Orlady is a decent Wikipedian with a consistent record of adhering to guidelines and policies, he has been with us for many years and have contributed a lot. I would feel more confident if we have more administrators like him and fewer of those who hardly know what they're doing. – Shannon Rose (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak Support. Some people in the oppose section do have some points against you, but I think that if you are careful about your work as an administrator, there will be no problems. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, an obviously qualified candidate. Everyking (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support vandal fighting in face of horrible abuse and handling it well shows she gets it.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Sheesh, she's been around long enough so she understands the culture. And if she's battled vandals, she's done more than me on this matter. We needn't talk about whether she gets sarcastic or snide -- everyone does it once in a while. The question is will she abuse the admin bit, for example block people for petty reasons? I think not. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -- dedicated editor, smart and committed; she's impressed me as an editor in the past; I looked at diffs and wikilinks that opponents brought up, but didn't see problems with temperament -- Reconsideration (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support good answers to the questions, and no indication that she'll misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support as in the six AFDs we both participated in, four of his arguments were strong, while only two were weak, but at least they were not “its cruft” in nature and four to two cancels out and supersedes the two. Also, as candidate has multiple barnstars at User:Orlady and only was block was apparently a mistake (quickly unblocked).  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are saying that you are comfortable with a 33% error rate? So, for every two good closes they will have created one legitimate DRV? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you insist on equating nominating AfDs with closing AfD. They are NOT the same thing. Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AFD closers have to balance rationales. She believes that completely wrong rationales that show a lack of understanding deletion requirements and notability standards as to be correct. This would mean that she could accept bad rationales from others. To close AFD, you have to have a strong understanding, not a completely faulty understanding. Over 17 AFDs showed errors in her understanding. Thus, she cannot be deemed trustworthy to close any AFD. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Some concerns, but none with strike me as dangerous. Wizardman  20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I've worked with this editor on several articles related to higher education and found him or her to be level-headed, knowledgeable, and trustworthy. His or her work related to unaccredited institutions (like List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning) is particularly commendable given the contentious nature of such articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) She is a strong editor. Acalamari 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support, having personally offered to nominate Orlady for adminship myself in the past. A sensible and articulate user with a good understanding of the issues affecting Wikipedia's hosting of article on controversial topics, especially biographical material. Orlady also has valuable experience of sockpuppetry investigations - an area that is time consuming and unpopular with many/most admins. There are good reasons put forward above why she needs extra buttons. I am not convinced that "a bit abrasive" is a reason why someone shouldn't be an admin. Sometimes points have to be made firmly - adminship isn't social work. Orlady is competent and has shown herself capable of taking on the extra rights on this project. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of abrasiveness, you state that sockpuppets is something that she would be good at. Would that not be a CoI seeing as how she has spent a lot of time fighting this sock puppet in particular and her judgment may be clouded? Also, there is a major issue brought up by many about her problematic AFDs and her ignoring the WP:NOTABILITY requirement to research for sources before listing something at AFD. One of the supports above says that she has a 33% problematic rate. Wouldn't both of these remove any reason for her to be trusted as an admin? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen no compelling evidence that Orlady's judgement is clouded in any way, quite the contrary. BTW, WP:NOTABILITY isn't a "requirement", it's a guideline. WP:BAN is, however, a policy and trumps WP:NOTABILITY. You may want to refamiliarize yourself with those pages rather than continuing to spread misinformation. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? So, you think someone who has actively pursued "sock puppets" to the point of nominating several pages for AFD simply to get back at this boogyman along with fighting at least two definitely not sock puppets who are mentioned below is some how acceptable? Notability is a requirement for AFD. Your disrespect of it is the same as your nominee's, and your mutual lack of respect for it is telling. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is ludicrous. You are seriously suggesting that the fact that Orlady is doing what all admins who have opined on the matter agree is excellent, responsible work fighting jvolkblum socks without the tools (give me a counterexample if I am wrong) she can't be trusted to do it responsibly once she has the tools? Is that what you are saying? --Hans Adler (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CoI. Being actively against someone and then given the tools will mean that she will not be able to stay objective. Objectivity is a central requirement in blocking. She has nominated many pages in seeking revenge and has waged war against multiple users who are clearly not the socks. If anything, she should have been topic banned from NY related articles long ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not Orlady's responsibility to vet articles created by banned users. If you guys want to rescue such articles, that's great, but it requires more work than just complaining. Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Suddenly being banned does not mean all of their old contributions must be removed, and deleting potentially valuable resources would be harming the Wiki. If there was a CU statement proving that a page was created after someone was banned, it would have to be displayed at the AFD. I haven't seen evidence of this in any of the statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OR, you are not making sense. It's like saying someone is disqualified from becoming a neighbourhood police officer because he has been showing civil courage in dealing with a member of the community who is publicly molesting women. It may be the case. But if he has acted within the bounds of what every citizen is allowed to do and as one would expect from an off-duty professional police officer under this constraint, the only reason not to give the person the job is to save the salary because there is already a volunteer doing it.
 * It is getting increasingly clear to me that you are simply throwing random dirt at Orlady in the hope that some of it sticks. I agree with Harvester below. And you are making a fool of yourself. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't believe me? What about an ArbCom member - "it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master. It is common to become too easily persuaded that new accounts are socks, and eventually there will be collateral damage. At some point, someone should volunteer to take over." Having admin tools will only put her further entrenched in something that she should not be pursuing in such an overactive manner. Other people can handle it, and her efforts have crossed the line beyond reasonable, especially when it affected multiple AFDs. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a general comment, and there is no indication that it has anything to do with the specific situation. I will ask Carcharoth to comment here. Talking about Arbcom members' comments, how about this one: "Orlady is doing a stellar, difficult job of tracking down that vandal, and has the full support of the community." Well, obviously with the exception of a handful of editors who object to other editors acting like admins without the tools. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hans, thank you for letting me know that I was being quoted here. That comment by me at a request for arbitration was a caveat to a decline to take the request as a case. It should have no import here, and I would appreciate it (addressing Ottava in particular) if comments by arbitrators (or at least by me) were not quoted in this fashion (even in rebuttal, as Hans has done with another arbitrator's comment elsewhere). Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Arbitrators working in an official capacity are used in all discussions dealing with general themes. I did not quote the above as specific about Orlady, but about the mindset of constantly dealing with an individual sockmaster on your own and to a large extent. The reason why we have ArbCom is to be a final community voice on behavior, so such statements are utterly necessary when interpreting appropriate behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You were quoting it as the only argument in support of the fantastic idea that because Orlady is dealing with jvolkblum now she is disqualified from being an admin. This suggests to me that you are the kind of person that cannot be characterised correctly in an RfA without being blocked. Perhaps it's just a communication problem, but by now it seems extremely unlikely. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems a tad odd that I quoted -one- other reference to the idea and you seem to think it is the only idea. As an admin who has worked with banning someone at WMF projects and the events afterward, I have a lot of experience with the matter, and I can provide you with a list of many, many admin who will say the same thing as I have said - simply put, if you are showing obsessive characteristics by countlessly following a person, then chances are there will be mistakes and accidents. Her AFDs are proof that she has pursued the person in an unreasonable manner and seeks to delete pages that could easily be fixed up. That is damaging to the encyclopedia. AFDs are not a tool to destroy one's enemy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add to that that such quoting is generally unwise in most cases because the lack of context can remove important nuances. For instance, my comment to Doncram (which is what was quoted) is perfectly accurate but should not be used to endorse (or oppose) Orlady's RfA: I commented on only one aspect of her behavior but have not actually examined her contribution with an eye towards evaluating her suitability as an administrator.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your clarifications. Coren, I did not mean to suggest that you are endorsing Orlady's nomination. Since both of you agree it can be read that way, I am withdrawing that part of my comment. I suggest that OR do the same with his. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Not insane. Patient in the face of ridiculous questions, in fact almost too patient. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I randomly looked over some of her edits/comments/exchanges with others. They seem invariably in the best interests of the project, even when putting a nose out of joint here and there. Admins aren't expected to be perfect. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, committed and hard-working, unlikely to damage the project with the tools (in fact, likely to be a net positive). BencherliteTalk 06:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support.  Rami R  10:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support The few opposes that I consider legitimate - those based upon neutral observation rather than invested antipathy - need not make Orlady a poor sysop; Admins will make mistakes, as is evidenced by Orlady's block log ..cough.., but the primary criteria is trustworthiness. Orlady has demonstrated that trait to my satisfaction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Has a large quantity of clue. Yes, some of the oppose votes do say things that are worth saying -- and I'm grateful that they link to such stunning sights as this (blackly hilarious, though not by Orlady) -- yet the negatives seem overblown. -- Hoary (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Aftre reading this RfA extensively, I do so for three main reasons: (1) she meets my standards; (2) she's been "outed" -- as a Wikipedian and otherwise -- and I feel a great sense of empathy here; (3) she's made some mistakes on AfD nominations, but none so egregious that they cause me to wonder about her use of a few extra buttons. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * She has been attacked but not outed; rather she has apparently been confused with some other real life person.  Let's not imply she is in fact that person:  that would be outing her if true and in fact it seems to be false. doncram (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - great work in sockpuppetry cases and at afd, has been around forever. Let's stop wasting her time by making her find an admin every time she needs a page protected or a sock blocked. -- Vary  Talk 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The admin CoI requirements were put in place so that an admin would not be page protecting or blocking users involved in a page that they are involved in. Thus, Orlady would not be able to be objective enough to handle such things. With that in mind, your justification for her needing the tools falls flat. She will have to find another admin or she will be in violation and, if it happens enough times, will be desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that an admin can not neutrally handle the same disruptive user more than once is flawed. Thus, your opposition to my support falls flat.  :-) -- Vary  Talk 19:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, she has listed many users that didn't pan out as the sock, has participated in AFDs and the rest in regards to the user, and has fought with other uses who edit those same pages. I think she is beyond an objective participant. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you're certainly entitled to the opinion that she is no longer objective in that matter. I disagree, as do numerous other editors in excellent standing in the community.  Hence, my !vote in favor of her candidacy.  -- Vary  Talk 20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think she is objective, please explain the large portion of her faulty AFDs relating to the subject area that the sock puppet use to edit and comments like not giving them anymore time to find references to make a page notable? Or how about her ignoring of the notability guideline which states that you should make a good faith effort to find references and people later putting forth references along with her admittance that she didn't look? Reputation is not an answer nor a legitimate justification for anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All of those concerns have been amply addressed elsewhere, Ottava, and frankly, most of them are overstated here. As I said, you're entitled to your opinion that the nominee is not objective in the matter of the Jvolkblum sock puppetry case, despite the high praise she has received for her patient and responsible actions: looking at the same evidence as you have, I have come to a different conclusion.  I see no point in further discussion of my !vote with you. -- Vary  Talk 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Another fine contributor. The AfD problems cited below seem arguable rather than showing significant misunderstanding of policy. Dean B (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - My review shows no cause for alarm. AfD seems like a third rail for some - agree with above - arguable, not significant misunderstanding of policy.  Feel free to badger; made my comment, I'm done.King Pickle (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support &mdash; I have never seen Orlady's signature and not had a good impression. I'm pleased to see they will be an administrator soon, this user deserves it.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per positive contributions to the project in multiple varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) I never take part in RfAs. I certainly had no intention of doing so while my own RfA was ongoing, but looking through some of the diffs provided by the opposers, I found something rather different to the claimed incivility and contentiousness.  I found an editor arguing rationally and strongly from policy based positions for things to help and improve the 'pedia.  If that's what the opposition are saying, don't see much point in reviewing anything else. Support, yeah, strong support.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support 66.28% of edits on the article main space, wow!  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Multiple years of experience in the mainspace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlith (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Every user and admin has their own communication style. Some walk on eggshells and some tell it like it is. True, the latter style may be taken more personally by users and those users can bring it up at the appropriate place if they wish.  In any case, I think it is clear that Orlady is a hard-working, highly experienced editor on Wikipedia and other places (her work on the ODP is also extensive and long standing). <b style="color:green">κaτa<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ʟ aveno</b> TC 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I looked over the oppose !votes and couldn't really find much there that's worth opposing over. Since when has speaking bluntly been a crime? Assume good faith doesn't mean you have to lie to people, after all.  Her contributions in SPI are stellar and she'd make a great admin there.  Them  From  Space  18:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Orlady is welcoming to new users and, in my experience, is a peacemaker in contentious editing spots. —Eustress talk 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support We always need more vandal fighters, and her vandal fighting work is good. Comments are sometimes not as polite as they should be, but hopefully she will take the criticisms to heart, and refrain from any overly negative comments in the future. LK (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. No problems here. One editor says in the oppose section that admins should somehow retain complete control in situations that "would make saints go ballistic". I refuse to think that a collaborative project needs such strict vetting standards. The White House doesn't do that. Tan   &#124;   39  15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support The thoughtfulness with which she has answered the questions is impressive. And, clearly, anyone who involves herself so deeply in this project is going to make mistakes and upset some people so I'm not surprised at the oppose !votes but do feel that these !voters should consider what wikipedia's content would look like if everyone made nice all the time. I'm a little disappointed to see that this is a borderline RfA whereas those of other editors with less involvement with the project (mine included) were much clearer. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since several editors are opposing based on her conduct in this RfA, may I add that I find it (her conduct) reasonably exemplary and admirable. In the face of numerous questions from people who would likely oppose anyway, she has given detailed and reasonably polite answers (faltering, perhaps, in one place, but then, one assumes she is human). We should, I think, respect the time and care devoted to issues raised by obvious opposers. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Even when I have found myself on the opposite side of an issue from Orlady, she has never failed to earn and keep my respect as a solid, knowledgeable, helpful, and trustworthy editor.  I believe she can and will use The Tools for the betterment of Wikipedia, and I feel wholly comfortable trusting that she will not misuse them, which is really what this RfA vetting process is all about.   --Dynaflow   babble  17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Thoughtful answers to questions, good responses to controversy on this page. Has clue. Seems to have picked up a small handful of opposers who are very vocal at this RFA, but many of whose points (like AFD reasoning objections, clearing self from sockpuppet allegations) do not stand up to scrutiny and are more heat than light. (By this I'm not asserting that no opposers' justifications hold water, just that in my opinion those of some of the most vocal opposers are not valid.) Martinp (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I knew this editor at ODP. Strong-headed editor that has a clear idea of right and wrong, which means it can sometimes be annoying to be on the opposite side of an argument with her. But that doesn't mean she'd be a poor admin; in fact, the opposite in my opinion. I fully trust her with the extra tools. -Atmoz (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I spent a significant amount of time reading through the issues raised here, from a nomination that has raised far more heat than I would have expected based on my experience with the editor under discussion. The Orlady that I've seen has been a thorough editor, by expanding, improving and sourcing articles including many that many would be happy to toss off the cliff. Orlady has received a rather thorough grilling under the various questions listed, and I wish the artificial standards being set for her were observed by all administrators, including some of the admins asking these same questions. The issues that have been raised here are issues that can be addressed by Orlady, and I hope that these recommendations are taken seriously regardless of the success of this RfA. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above vote is possibly in response of a note left on their talk page. See here for more details. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Conditional based upon answers to #19, but, in general Orlady knows what is going on and how to handle the situations appropriately. People here need to realize that this user is involved in the seemy underbelly of Wikipedia where WP:OR and lack of citations lurk. Those wishing to game the system eventually run into editors that won't take "I want to do it this way" as an appropriate solution to a problem. Good/Great editors piss off people. Good/Great admins do the same because there are some people out there that just don't get it. Merely causing or being the source of drama is not a valid reason for opposition, IMHO. Orlady and I have disagreed and still do on some subjects, but that isn't a reason to oppose. This whole thing is like the Senate approval process in the U.S. for cabinet members. Senators who oppose someone's nomination should only do so if they have grave concerns about the person's ability to do their job, not the political views of the individual. Some of the best people out there caused a lot of disruption in their lives (like Elliot Ness, Harry Truman, Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi), but only to the betterment of society/niche. There is nothing wrong with being thorough. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above vote is possibly in response of a note left on their talk page. See here for more details. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support She has a solid reputation for neutrality.  Although she can be mildly abrasive, it's more like Comet cleanser than sandpaper.  She always seems to be working from as genuinly neutral viewpoint as possible.  What some don't seem to realize is that to achieve neutrality, sometimes you have to lean the boat one way or the other.  Defending expression of different sides of a topic is not non-neutral - frankly, conducting a discussion in this way is an excellent way of reaching consensus.  My two cents - it's hard to imagine anyone wanting this job - it's thankless hours of self-sacrifice and hard work - I say let her do it!  --Caernarvon (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Just because. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Whilst I am mildly concerned by the comments in opposition, that's how it is — a mild concern. I believe that Orlady would make a fine admin. <font face="Trebuchet MS">— neuro  (talk) (review) 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Orlady would be a tremendous asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --Ichabod (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above vote is possibly in response of a note left on a WikiProject talk page that they are member of. See here for more details. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A little wikidrama provides experience=D. She's done a bit of vandal fighting, so that would cause slightly more "aggressive" behavior. I also like the fact that she's put up a tough fight in a number of cases. I believe this shows the user has a genuine interest.Smallman12q (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I hadn't really clued into this until I came across the discussion on the RfA talk page this afternoon. I since took some time to look at the candidate, and I really have no major concerns. I prod'd an article that I think is ridiculous last night, and AFD'd it this morning. I could have just deleted it, but I'd be drop kicking a hornet's nest. Just because someone who nominates articles for deletion gets the mop doesn't mean they'll go nuts with the delete button. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support It took me a while to check out a significant sample of her contribs. Overall, very positive. Some worries about tone when communicating. Her volume of work outweighs this in my mind. -- Stani  Stani  00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, (initially distracted by the vocalness above, below and elsewhere) per the facts and my humble opinion. Dedicated, consistant, responsible editor.  Communicates well with those that ask for help or clarification.  Far from concise, she is willing to fully explain the reasons for her actions.  The flag would be carried responsibly and effectively.  --Preceding unsigned comment  02:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support (change from neutral) Off the fence and shooting. I see nothing wrong with the responses Orlady has made in this RfA.  She looks to be a fine editor who will make a good admin, and at the worst, she's brusque.  Guess what, people, join the real world.  She has been civil, for all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: would be a great asset. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;"> South Bay  <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">  (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: While I dont always agree with Orlady, I've never found her disagreeable. I'm sad that she and other valued editors can't seem to get along, but so be it.  I trust her judgement but I would caution her that by gaining more power, she has also gained the responsibility of being more even-handed than she was before.  dm (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Unconvinced by opposers (actually some of the oppose reasons a ridiculous). Viridae Talk 05:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support User has been around since August 2004 and has shown commitment,dedication and user is track and checking and rechecking clearly feel the project will not lose anything with the user getting tools.If the user has waited nearly 5 years for the 1st RFA it clearly shows the user is not after tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support : I think she will be trustworthy with the tools and see no reason to oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.163.72 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I request that this anonymous, unsigned vote is not counted. doxTxob \ talk 08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indented. Sorry, anonymous users may not comment at RfA. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I have been busy travelling and almost missed the chance to offer my support here. Do not judge my tradiness as any hesitance.  Orlady can be depended upon to do necessary tedium.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose - From her comments at DYK, I have not seen anything to suggest that she respects standard consensus procedure, tradition within DYK, nor would I trust her having access to update the mainpage in any way, let alone having the ability to properly discern what could go on the mainpage especially in regards to fairness, appropriateness, or monitoring for articles with plagiarism. I will add other concerns for other areas shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lengthy discussion moved to talk page. iMatthew : Chat  12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady - Which has far more opposition points including her AfD record. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the lengthy discussion is moved back here. Ottava Rims's opinion is important to the topic. Just today, Orlady has added HER user statistics at the top of the talk page for this RfA and pushed Ottava Rima's opinion way down the page, I moved her statistics that are available to anyone here to the bottom of the talk page as it is the usual procedure to add new posts at the bottom. I do not like that information important to the discussion is displaced some place where no one finds it. Is my objection or doncrams the next that is going to be put on the talk page? I would suggest in that case that the unusually many support votes are put on the talk page too, just to keep the balance right! doxTxob \ talk 04:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is plenty long enough without including the full text of Ottava Rima's comments, which another user (not me) judiciously moved to the talk page. (It might be appropriate to move a few other conversations, too.) As for the user statistics, AFAIK the usual custom is for those statistics to appear at the top of the discussion page for an RfA. The talk page for this RfA had a heading for user statistics, but no statistics were displayed, apparently because the utility was down at the time the statistics were requested. After seeing that someone had cited insufficient experience with content creation as their reason for opposing this RfA (a strange allegation, considering that I have nearly 20,000 edits in article space), it dawned on me that the statistics were missing, so the user might have mistakenly thought (based on the talk page) that all of my contributions were to AfDs. Therefore, I took it upon myself to replace the dysfunctional empty template at the top of the talk page with an actual set of statistics. I am going to restore the list to the top of the page. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, move the valid arguments you don't like and the lengthy opposition far down on some talkpage where they are not read and dump your lengthy statistics on top of it. Just leave the support votes here and the nice comments, it looks that at least one supporter did not even sign their vote. Hey, that still counts as a vote? Wow! See Q 10c to see how Orlady got her first support votes for this very RfA more than 5 weeks ago! Support is welcome whomever it is from, opposition is nothing she want to hear about. doxTxob \ talk 07:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment is crossing the civility line, doxTxob. Please remember that this is supposed to be a civilized discussion, not personal bickering. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Saw her actions at a recent AFD, and reading what she wrote about recognizing invalid arguments and ignoring the opinions of anyone who disagrees with her when forming consensus for an AFD, is rather troublesome. Is there a way to list every single AFD she has participated in?  I think that is the best way to judge someone's character in these things.  If the majority of editors in an AFD state something should be kept, they believing it meeting all requirements, would she ignore that simply because her opinion was different?  We need administrators who listen to the consensus formed by editors, not just decide on their own straight away what should be done, and dismiss anyone else's opinion as invalid.   D r e a m Focus  19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to this query, a few days ago I added a list of one years' worth of AfDs I participated in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady. (I'm sure I left a note here regarding that list, but trying to figure out what happened to that note would be pointless right now...) --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering how much of your userpage is dedicated to vociferously opposing article deletion, I have to wonder what articles you would actually be OK with having deleted. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have in fact voted to delete articles in the past. I believe in reviewing things case by case though, not just trying to delete something outright because it didn't get mentioned by a third party media source. The guidelines are just suggestions, to be ignored, if the consensus of the editors in the AFD say so. Only policies have to be enforced no matter what. People have to remember that, and accept the consensus of all editors, not just ignore them automatically, determined to delete something they don't like, no matter what.  D r e a m Focus  00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Stong Oppose - I intended to stay out of controversial issues on Wikipedia. As my username is mentioned above in the Type 3 conflicts I will take a few minutes to describe why I am opposed to Orlady's adminship. First of all I must say that I appreciate her contributions to Wikipedia and see her as one of the best editors we have. I cherish her skill with words, she is an excellent writer. When it is about conflicts, however, she lacks what it takes for an admin, in my opinion, to solve a conflict in a fair and neutral fashion. She stated her common practice herself, if she has a conflict with a Wikipedia member who is established, she cannot "shrug them off", like she does with new editors who have not established many contacts on Wikipedia yet and therefore no-one to stand in for them and support their view. Those newbies are bombed with WP policies or are shrugged off as vandals, their edits reverted and they leave Wikipedia discouraged. doxTxob \ talk 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Established editors who she can not easily shrug off are treated differently. She withdraws for a while and in later discussions she claims that these editors still have a "grudge" against her stemming from a former case. Thereby, unfairly and wrongly, implying that she was right in that former case. I am glad that she mentioned the case we discussed, about article rating in which she and I were of different opinion. I need to go into a little detail here, I hope you excuse that. When this occurred, I was very familar with the 2000+ Tennessee related articles because I had rated them for "quality" a while before this controversy. The incident Orlady refers to above started when I rated Tennessee related articles for "importance", following the written rules on the assessment page of the Tennessee project strictly and applying the standards for the importance ratings as stated on that page. The page states that every member of the WikiProject can rate articles, without prior discussion, and examles are given to make sure that the rating structure can be understood easily. I rated more than 2000 articles at that time to provide an overview of the quality and importance of all Tennessee related articles. Obviously I made a few mistakes, maybe half a dozen complaints came in which I fixed. Six wrong out of 2000 is not too bad in my opinion and in my ratings I relied on people watching the articles they have created to complain if my rating was too far off the point. Except for these six mistakes, the rest of the 2000 ratings are still like they are, showing that I could not have been so wrong, after all. In the discussion that followed, Orlady expressed her general opposition to my actions, accusing me of applying "blanket ratings" obviously after having only checked a few articles I had rated. I explained to her that not at all I was applying "blanket ratings", just to have the articles rated. I tried to explain to her that of 2000 articles, of course, the vast majoity will turn out to recieve a low ranking. Instead of considering my valid arguments and discussing a solution she claimed that she did not like the articles rated at all. In the discussion she did not respond to my arguments but stubbornly insisted on her opinion. During the discussion I had the impression that she did not even care to read and understand my objections. The problem was never solved, a solution was never found. Later, she accused me in another situation that I still had a "grudge against her" as if she wanted to imply that she was right in that old case and I was just pouting. Not solving problems does not bring Wikipedia forward.
 * Orlady's way to respond to negative comments is done in a fashion that the thread of the discussion is concealed and very hard to trace. When a topic is raised somewhere, she likes to respond on the talkpages of the involved users and that destroys the thread. So if you want to follow one of her controversial discussions, you would have to stitch together discussion fragments from the article page, the talkpages of users involved and her talk page. This becomes increasingly difficult if the discussion is older and some fragments are achived already. Well, that bad habit can be changed if there is not a reason for this concealment.
 * In a recent case of New Rochelle sockpuppets (discussed on AN) she accused User:Umbarella of sockpuppetry although no harmful edits emerged from that account.
 * Summarizing the above, it seems to me that in certain cases Orlady takes personal possession of topics and articles without regard to the quality of material provided by other editors and discusses problems in a way that conceals her mistakes. Take care, doxTxob \ talk 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the importance ratings discussion on WikiProject Tennessee, it was you, not Orlady, who took the argument personally. Orlady was simply wondering if assigning importance ratings to Medium and Low priority articles was useful, and you somehow construed that to mean she was attacking your ability to apply such ratings.  You then threatened to leave the project if she remained.  Bms4880 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I left the project because the problem was not solved at all. I acted according to established, accepted and documented community rules as outlined on the assessment page, which allow every member of the project to assign ratings if the documented standards are followed, that is what I did. The standards do neither explicitly nor implicitly require or suggest a previous discussion because the standards are well explained and easy to follow. Orlady preferred to take the interpretation of community standards into her own hands and replace them by her own. Under these conditions I rather withdrew from the project than accepting Orlady's rules. This entry on my talk page documents that Orlady, called my 2000+ edits "arbitrary" and "meaningless" without checking them properly before commenting about them. You would not take that personally? I was also falsely accused by Orlady for rating something wrong that had been rated by someone else. Again, she did not check the facts before criticizing.
 * No, I wouldn't take it personally. She simply misinterpreted what you were saying (I made the same error in assuming you had arbitrarily assigned these ratings, based on what you had written), and she apologized for it.  It wasn't lack of fact-checking, it was misinterpretation.  You communicate with long posts and responses, and you're easy to misinterpret. Bms4880 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect: She only appologized for one rating I was falsely accused of, which was applied by someone else. You are right, I sometimes answer in some length to make all my arguments clear and easy to understand. If you don't want to spend the time to read and understand objections, what is the use of discussing them? That is exactly what I pointed out. I try to express myself in many words sometimes to avoid misunderstandings. She did not read my words, thus did not understand my arguments and preferred to replace my arguments with her imagination. I do not see any admin quality here (or I might expect too much from an admin). doxTxob \ talk 04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But that was not my point, if Orlady accuses editors of wrongdoing without checking the facts properly, she is not equipped with the right mind set for an admin, at least not in my view. She resopnds impulsively and judges prematurely without checking and thinking before criticizing, but is rather driven by an "impression" she has. Furthermore, the way she formulates criticism can easily be taken personally, I can list more examples here if requested.
 * The key phrase is can easily be taken personally. Any criticism or questioning of one's actions can easily be taken personally, regardless of how many smiley faces and warm fuzzies are attached to it, and in that exchange on the TN project last year, no one could post anything without you flying off the handle.  Huntster had to reassure you that no one was attacking you.  Orlady has a dry, cold rational style that is mistaken by some (not most) as "confrontational."  Through it all, her singular focus is on the health of an article or the encyclopedia, and in the end, that's what's important.  Schoolchildren will be reading these article years from now, they won't reading about the egos that got bruised in the article's making.  Bms4880 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My ego is not bruised. Hunster was not attacking me, he asked a question about my ratings and I answered it. Orlady's "dry", "cold" sarcastic style, as you perfectly decribe it, insisted on her version of accepted standards. I am bi-focal, as opposed to Orlady's singular focus: (1) To bring the Wikipedia project forward and (2) not to shrug off anyone whose opinion I don't like but to listen and find a solution instead. doxTxob \ talk 04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a single occurance, in the Jvolkblum sockpuppet case Orlady is quick to add new "sockpuppets" to "shrug" new users "off". On Feb 23, 2009 Orlady presented this evidence against a registered user: "I just added MagdaOakewoman to this report. This user registered within the last hour, has a user name that appears to refer to my user name (compare "Oakewoman" to my user name "Orlady", which is short for "Oak Ridge lady") and has a total of four edits (...) I can't imagine who but Jvolkblum would follow me around in that manner." All four edits good additions to Wikipedia, in my opinion, and the alleged similarity of the usernames would require a lot of vivid imagination not to be called far fetched. Blocked indefinitely after four good edits for arbitrary reasons and something in Orlady's imagination. I do not see any admin qualities here.
 * A sockpuppet investigation against Orlady was filed by User:MagdaOakewoman on Feb. 24, 2009 and quickly deleted without much ado, it seems: Sockpuppet_investigations/Orlady. Is it possible to un-delete that page so that every participant in this discussion can make up their own mind about this acusation of sockpuppetry against Orlady? This accusation was made pretty recently and before voting in a new admin it should be made sure that there are no skeletons in the closet.
 * [ Insert Orlady's response from above (Answer to question 10 to the candidate) ]: "That case was not deleted. It was renamed, because the accuser was found to be engaged in sockpuppetry. See Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)" (PS - I added followup questions 10a and 10a to this question above. doxTxob \ talk 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Here is another example from the "Jvolkblum casefile", dated March 27, 2009: "I just added new user User:Umbarella to the case, based on duck-like edit activity. This user's 3 edits all have been to tweak minor historical details in articles about New Rochelle topics." This user was not blocked but reported after 3 edits for duck-like activities in a field of articles that Orlady seems to claim her own. For minor tweaking of historical details? I do not see the oversight necessary to become an admin here, either.
 * These new users did not have a chance at all to establish a reputation on Wikipedia because they were appended to Orlady's sockpuppet case after 3 edits and shrugged off as vandals, as she formulated so perfectly herself. Change my "oppose" to "strong oppose" doxTxob \ talk 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Point of information for those who are concerned about the fate of User:Umbarella, that account is listed as part of a checkuser request, but it is not blocked, and it is not even labeled as a suspected sockpuppet. I have no idea whether a checkuser has looked at the accoun, and as far as I know, nothing prevents this account from editing and "establishing a reputation at Wikipedia". --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your followup 10a, you might want to see this edit; the edit summary explains the move was to reflect the sockmaster. Shubinator (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the edit summary but the change of titles was not discussed by the community to be shifted from the accused to the accuser. That would be like re-naming the "JFK asassination case" to the "L.H. Oswald asassination case" without any further comment. It does not make sense and it looks like there is something to hide. The question remains: Where was the change discussed in the community that so conveniently keeps Orlady's name out of the spotlight? I am curiuos to learn the answer! doxTxob \ talk 07:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are asking to have the checkuser results published here for the whole world to study. That's a bad idea. Checkuser data are subject to privacy restrictions, for valid reasons and in accordance with WP:CHECKUSER. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The request might be unreasonable if it was about a regular editor who has an account in good standing. As you are proposed as an admin, I do think that an accusation of sockpuppetry against yourself is quite a serious accusation, and honestly - if I was in your position - I would want any possible stain on my record be checked, to make sure for everyone about my integrity.
 * I do not distrust the general process, however, I am always suspicious if the facts are not laid out openly. Wikipedia is a cummunity of volunteers and I feel very strongly that secrecy needs to be reduced to the absolute minimum level.
 * Look further down at Doncram's comment. There, User:Deskana who also is a checkuser, mentions my name and Doncram, implying improper behaviour or possible sockpuppetry based on uncommon formating errors without even bringing it to the point. Wow, that is bad! Is that a method to get rid of uncomfortable opponents? And as you asked about trust in the process, that user would be one I could not trust. I demand that this accusastion against me and Doncram is checked and cleared and I demand an apology for that. Here and ASAP!
 * I do absolutly value the rights that every user has and I am aware that personal data can not and should not be made public, not here and not elsewhere. My suggestion would be that one or two users not related to this case get temporary checkuser rights. That could, of course, not be you, me nor Doncram. It should be someone who be both trust and whose word be would both be willing to accept. My suggestion would be User:Huntster, we both know him. My alternative suggestion would be User:Otto42, he followed up well on a disruption by an IP user on the Talk:Memphis, Tennessee article. I have no idea if they want to get involved and are willing to do that, but both seem to be technically savvy and established enough on Wikipedia to be trusted by the community to absolutely ensure the privacy of the results. Would you agree that this could be a solution to ensure enough privacy but still get an outside opinon? doxTxob \ talk 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the sockpuppetry charge were in the slightest way credible, Wikipedia has plenty of systems in place that could be used to investigate and adjudicate. The charge was not credible. As near as I can make out, the allegation was that User:Director Magda was my sockpuppet. That user's entire contribution history consists of this diff. If you can find a credible basis for linking those edits to me as a sockpuppeteer, I think you have a brilliant future as a fiction writer. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [unindent] I am not satisfied with your answer, your involvement was not checked. However, I consider the question as answered noting your refusal for a possible solution. doxTxob \ talk 04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC) PS - I prefer facts over fiction and over friction caused by sarcasm, by the way. Sarcasm and friction does not bring the project forward. doxTxob \ talk 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither does beating a dead horse repeatedly. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record: Note the candidate's answer to question 16. "Why do you wish to be an administrator?" "A: I don't actually "wish" to be an administrator." doxTxob \ talk 07:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to fit this extremely plausible answer (given that Orlady has been around since August 2004, making 29,000 edits in the time, and this is her first RfA) into you conspiracy theory? Or is there another reason for repeating that response here? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been on Wikipedia since 2005 with 13,000+ edits so far. Does that allow me to voice my opinon? doxTxob \ talk 07:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look like a response to the argument (proffered by someone with only half your WP editing experience) that an editor with Orlady's experience and background and no previous RfA obviously isn't particularly keen on becoming an admin. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have come to this RfA from a matter concluding at ANI - the disruption that is centred around User:Jvolkblum, the editing of New Rochelle related articles, and too many editors ignorance of the situation relating to WP:BAN; Edits by or on behalf of banned users are summarily removed upon detection, and edits by new accounts (no matter how innocuous) in areas especially targeted by a banned user are to be scrutinised. Individuals who fail to understand that Orlady is abiding by policy in those actions in these matters are providing evidence they do not understand WP policy themselves, and thus diminish the effect of their similar complaint against the candidate. If, as is possible, one or two legitimate editors have been dissuaded from further editing Wikipedia because of Orlady (and others) correct application of consensus derived policy in having probable sock edits removed and accounts blocked, then the approbation should be directed at the puppetmaster and their divisive actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion relating to DougsTech's vote can be seen at WT:RFA--Iner22 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose Orlady routinely deals with newbies and less experienced editors in rude, sarcastic terms and with the opposite of AGF.  For one example, consider the treatment of relatively inexperienced editor who posted recently at User talk:Orlady.  O's very first interaction was to assume bad faith and make an unjustified accusatory suggestion with this edit summary in this diff.  In followup at User talk:Rumblebee she used sarcasm "Perhaps you are clairvoyant, but I'm not...";  she accused the person of edit warring (unfair in my view, the person suggested a Prod and reverted Orlady's rude dismissal once).  In the Talk:Suffolk University exchange, O strongly objects to the editor posting some rewrite-needed-type tag, but, later in a separate section O acknowledges that some Yale Daily news material is indeed inappropriate to have included in the article (I agree with both Rumbletree and Orlady that the material should be removed).  However the removal of that material is done in a way to negate any credit to the Rumbletree editor, and the net effect is that the editor has been threatend by Orlady and chastised by someone else for not assuming good faith.  It is also ironic that Orlady's treatment of the editor is heavy-handed, while the editor explains he/she was trying to force some development/improvement of the article by a 5 day Prod, given that I have seen Orlady try to force changes of other articles by use of AfD nominations.  This is just one small example of Orlady's participation causing bad feelings and collateral damage. Orlady is a powerful person within wikipedia already, as she has writing skills and attention to detail in sourcing, etc., as well as skill bringing to bear Checkusers and others to support her in enforcement actions.  I consider her to be a bully, and while I don't myself need extraordinary protection to stand up to her occasional attacks at my Talk page or elsewhere, I think it would be a gross mistake to give her Administrative powers. Also, she is embroiled (as am I) in a running lowgrade war on articles concerning the New Rochelle, New York area, the subject of two recent wp:an discussions that i opened, here at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187 and  here) and a request for arbitration (that was denied as unsuitable for arbitration).  The situation was not fully discussed in any of those, but relates to what is reportedly the largest-ever sockpuppet case in wikipedia, which has consumed a large amount of Checkuser and other administrative resources and has cost a lot of good will.  Dispute about this has seems to have caused more than one good person to retire from wikipedia, at least temporarily.  Others opinions may differ, but I blame Orlady for a large share of responsibility of aggravating and extending the situation.  Her use of sarcasm and heavy-handedness and open scorn for the person or persons involved seems to encourage and perpetuate a big game.  After a year of involvement in New Rochelle area articles, an area which she states at my Talk page that she personally dislikes, it seems reasonable to conclude that she is enjoying playing the whack-the-mole game and is proud of being involved from the beginning.  The collateral damage involved seem unimportant to her and she seems to have disdain for whether or not there are more than one person unfairly caught up in it.  An arbitrator, while declining the case, cited wp:DENY (which has to do with downplaying rather than exalting in size of sockpuppet cases) and commented "it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master", which in context refers to Orlady's involvement.  The final arbitration discussion is available here in this version of page (next edit was clerk's removal as rejected).  I don't think it appropriate to promote her to Administrator at this time, without resolution of this problem, which she has, in my view, largely caused. doncram (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. She has a sharp tongue and a knack for insulting. I think her characterization of me in her Type 3 section is grossly insulting.  Rather, as she speculated elsewhere, i am in fact motivated by her bullying.  I am in touch with that and can sympathize with others damaged by her, because of her involvement with me and wp:NRHP in many matters, not just one featured list nomination. Unfortunately, to stand up to a bully involves, somewhat, being seen as negative and perhaps bullying back.  I don't take on this role lightly. doncram (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How curious that both you and DoxTxob have both made the same uncommon formatting error when expressing the same opinion. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it your comment is just a belligerent jab? To take away, in some way, from what i write about, above?  It takes an extraordinary situation to attract my interest in sharing what I know about a candidate here, so I may not observe indentation formatting or some other conventions here. doncram (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum Some reviewers here are not readily seeing the bullying which I and some others have noted and/or experienced. Reviewing past interactions which I recall as frustrating or annoying, I don't find single individual remarks by Orlady that are outstandingly uncivil.  I can point to many individually sarcastic remarks, but they don't look that bad on their own.  It's more a pattern of jabs in edit summaries and scattered across user talk pages, project talk pages, that is hard to reconstruct and to show.  When you experience it, the simplest interpretation is that it is malicious, and you are getting a brushoff if you try to reason with her.  I am a patient person, and I gave her AGF benefit of the doubt for a long time, but i eventually cannot do so any longer.  So I realize I now interpret some of her new comments as snide or otherwise objectionable, but I see that they may not be so obviously that to an outsider.  To respond to the reviewers' requests, three examples:
 * 1. this discussion at NRHP wikiproject. This was in the middle of a running discussion about a big issue for the wikiproject, a change in article naming practices.  Search on "intellectual sloppiness"  to see her repeating an insulting summary of the Featured list nomination of mine that her comments helped to derail, see her extending the insult to the wikiproject membership as a whole, at the NRHP wikiproject talk page, see my mild response, see her repeating the insult, see another person, Sanfranman59, coming back to comment on still being stung by her remarks.  Orlady largely got her way in the naming convention decision eventually taken, but the process destroyed a lot of goodwill and drove several persons away permanently.
 * 2. Another interaction was about the naming of one article, William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures.  This was at a time when Orlady acknowledged following me around, and she renamed, without discussion, this article which i had created earlier and had just touched.  I eventually opened a Requested Move discussion at Talk:William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures, to bring in others' perspective and actually with hope to show her the wp:RM tool, which I had seen to work well in heading off disputes elsewhere.  I was actually embarrassed at how it continued, with Orlady not budging.  I think it was in fact obvious to her that the article was worthy as describing a U.S. National Historic Landmark district and that the only available name for the district, the title given by the U.S. National Park Service, should indeed be used as a proper noun title.  No one remark of hers appears impolite, and I may have been too polite myself for it to be obvious now to others, but in this case O's obstinacy was frustrating and out of line with reason.  Embarrassed to be exposing this in front of others from outside the NRHP wikiproject, and finding i could move it back without an admin's assistance, i myself closed the Request move discussion and restored the original name.  There was some followup at User talk:Doncram/Archive 6.
 * 3. I opened User talk:Orlady/Archive 5 and continued here: User talk:Doncram/Archive 7. She acknowledges using sarcasm with me and at the NRHP wikiproject: "Yes, I have gotten sarcastic with you recently, (emphasis added) but I believe that your behavior toward me in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (e.g., changing the subject of the conversation) has been trolling, and that my response has actually been pretty mild."  I expressed mystification that she would misinterpret what happened as she did, and she saw her way to reinterpret what i had said.  Her apology was two-edged: "I now recognize that what I interpreted to be malice was merely lack of awareness."  Reading the discussion now, it seems i got the brushoff in all that.
 * My point is that she takes a position and will not back down. She always has some legitimate point, but in my experience she will not acknowledge others' legitimate views and she effectively derails efforts to find common ground for a solution.  It's as if winning each fight is what matters.  And she has increased her ability to win fights, and she has gravitated to areas where others are less powerful than her, and she often gets her way, at cost of feelings and normal consensus processes.
 * I once suggested that she apply her skills at Peer Review, where editors were actually asking for others' opinions. She just replied back with some sarcastic remark.  Note the RfA nominator suggests you won't know her work, because she works in out-of-the-way areas of wikipedia, often with new users and vandals.  Note also the absence of support here from wp:NRHP, one of the wikiprojects where she has spent time (Elkman's support vote is an exception to note).  I am not clear where the early votes of support were coming from.  I suspect that a few were based on not knowing her, but seeing a lot of edits and no blocks on her record.  It's certainly fair for people to make a judgment based on what they can see, but I think it would be a mistake to give her administrative tools, against the considered views of some who have had extended interactions with her. doncram (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose I've had disagreements with Orlady, but "disputes" that were just strong-yet-calm disagreements about how to describe different types of settlements on templates really aren't significant. Granted, they're more significant than the "too many administrators already" argument above (why shouldn't everyone be an admin who is qualified to be one?), but that's no reason to oppose.  Orlady has been involved in enough situations that I've seen to make me uncertain: she seems to fit every positive bit that we need — experienced with Wikipedia in general, familiar with policy, firm in fighting vandalism, technically capable (probably more capable than I, an administrator, am), and likely to continue editing for a good while — but I'm uncertain about her being perhaps overeager/hasty to enforce policy.  As an outside occasional-observer in this long-running Jvolkblum sockpuppet case, I've been concerned about her manner of seeking to enforce a justly-imposed ban: no complaints about her motives, but I fear that her methods made it more likely that innocent new editors could have been caught in the crossfire.  Bear in mind that this is not a deep concern (otherwise I'd be opposing much more strongly), and I've not been closely enough involved myself to speak for certain, but everything that's occurred with this case has made me uneasy with enabling Orlady to have tools that might (I don't say "would") be misused.  In conclusion, the fact that this good editor is receiving such strong opposition from other good editors means that her administrative actions might be fraught with controversy, and I don't think it would help Wikipedia at this time.  If this case ever blows over, or if the disputes related to this case calm down, I'll be more open to a new RfA; but right now I don't think it's the best idea.  Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose - Unlike other opposing editors who have had long term experience of Orlady's style, I have had only one central encounter with her, which culminated with this exchange (bottom half). So the exhanges I am reacting to can be followed though from there. I notice that defenders of Orlady are defending her actions. I don't think her actions are what is at issue here; it is her tone. She has an exceptionally confrontative style, the style of a zealot who becomes swept away with her cause and feels no holds are barred. Once she gets her head of steam, she tries to flatten everything in her path. Orlady is intelligent, and if she becomes an administrator, I do not doubt that she will pursue transgressors relentlessly and run them into the ground, and do it in a way that does not violate the Wikipedia guidelines. But I think, and this may be a minority view, that an administrator should also posses some pastoral and communication skills, including core respect and sense of proportion when dealing with other people. I would support Orlady in a future RfA if she showed, in the intervening time, that she was aware of these issues and was making progress in that direction. In fact, if she developed more appropriate communication skills, she would make an excellent administrator. But as it stands, she would be a disaster, leaving a trail of unnecessary wreckage in her wake. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC). Addendum: Not to mention motivated sockpuppets. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose. I know this user does good work, and I believe she would defer to consensus when push comes to shove. But her abrasive and sometimes sarcastic style of communication make me worried she might misuse her tools if provoked. – Quadell (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does a "sarcastic style of communication" lead you to believe she will abuse admin tools? That seems to me a non sequitur.  Have you seen her abuse Wikipedia in any regard, or do you simply have a problem with her style of communication?  Bms4880 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been on Wikipedia for five years, and in that time I've seen a number of admins do a lot of harm. Nine times out of ten, the trouble starts when a difficult user provokes an admin, the admin overreacts. In my experience, the way a candidate has treated attacks and accusations from difficult users is the best indicator of whether the admin will abuse their tools. – Quadell (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example from one of her posts where she uses a tone you find "abrasive," and thus indicative of someone likely to abuse admin tools? Bms4880 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine Orlady ever interacting with another user with an "abrasive" tone. Indeed she seems to have a gift for maintaining calm and patience in the face of persistent antagonism. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Kaldari (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of imagining, you should look dispassionately at what she actually does. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked dispassionately at what she actually does, including the commentary of concern listed above, and I do not see anything I would find abrasive. Can you give us an example of her "abrasive" commentary, or evidence of her abusing Wikipedia in some regard?  Bms4880 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (In regard to Bms4880's question above) Yes, I think this (mentioned above) could be fairly termed "abrasive" and "sarcastic". – Quadell (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the worst you can find of her thousands of posts and the hundreds of conflicts in which she has been involved, you've got nothing. Bms4880 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are from Tennesse as well, and write Tennesse articles like Orlady, and she scratches your back and gives you barnstars. Bur this needn't blind you to the dark side of Orlady, her very different treatment of people outside her fields of interest. The most causal perusal of exchanges on her talk pages will provide you with many examples of her abrasiveness and lack of a wide perspective. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You see, Geronimo, that is a personal attack. You're accusing me, who you don't know, of a quid pro quo, based on nothing more than the fact that Orlady gave me a de facto Barnstar last year.  Thus, you've shown me you're willing to make personal attacks, but you haven't shown me Orlady does.  I perused her talk page, and I still do not see any evidence of abrasiveness (or at least from anything she wrote).  If you can find a few traces here and there out her thousands of posts, kudos to you, but such posts appear to be the drastic exception.  Bms4880 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So let's get this straight, Geronimo20 plagiarizes material from treehugger.com and spacedaily.com for an article that he wants to get featured on the Main page. Orlady brings attention to Geronimo20's shenanigans (rather than simply banning him from Wikipedia). Geronimo20 then announces that because of this he is going to oppose Orlady's RfA. If it had been me, I would have been a lot worse than sarcastic in that case. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tennessee cabal. So this is the second time Kaldari that you have stated that you are more tendentious than Orlady. This raises issues about your own fitness to be an administrator. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone asks above why the use of sarcasm suggests someone would abuse their authority. Because there is a power imbalance between administrators and non-administrators, any administrator who is sarcastic, while exercising administor powers, is abusing their authority.  Doing so is a lapse from WP:BITE.  I would encourage all administrators who can't curb their sarcasm to consider resigning.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you guys take this somewhere other than my vote's comments? Thanks. – Quadell (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose per comments above, does not appear to be admin material, nor have the temperment of a desired admin. Ikip (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) * Oppose, for example for her "understanding" of notability . NVO (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) wrong example, discard for now. NVO (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose moved from neutral. Three Two reasons a/ the totally unsatisfactory answer to my follow up Q at Q8. though she does not say she intends to work in that area, deleting articles by Speedy is such a basic function of any admin--because, do what ever you do, you will come across them. Rereading the discussion of the proposal for what areas the candidate plans to work in, I notice the "to be honest, I dont know what I will do." -- a good indication of insufficient preparation for this role, regardless of the skill in article writing. b/ the exchange with another editor, O.R., in the "neutral" section in which the candidate does not recognize having had  any problems with him, though he keeps pointing them out--and I was quite aware of them myself as a bystander   c/ the various answers unfortunately do show a tendency to push other people a little too hard. DGG (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Both Orlady and Ottava Rima denied having much personal interaction - and you are deciding for them that they did? I think you should reconsider that comment. Gatoclass (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I stated that I never had a direct fight. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be very curious to see some diffs for this history of conflict that Ottava Rima and I are supposed to have. Other than (1) the one thread I posted a link to and (2) the fact that I !voted "oppose" on his recent RfA, I don't recall any direct interactions with him prior to his vociferous opposition in this RfA. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be synthesizing my impressions of other conflicts involving--quite separately--two editors who independently get  into a good deal of contention. I've struck that reason, and my apologies, but my general view remains. DGG (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Aside from not meeting my personal criteria for content building, looking through some of the (occasionally overhyped) charges I do feel the user has a bit of an abrasive tone, and does not use proper discretion in being sarcastic or not. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your "personal criteria for content building"? You realize she has nearly 20,000 edits to article space I hope? And that she's also contributed to several featured articles? I'm not sure I can imagine what content building criteria she could fail. Kaldari (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked in vain for documentation of David Fuchs' "personal criteria for content building." Seeing his FA and GA work, my best guess is that he feels admins should have extensive experience with that type of content-building. --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose In my view, an admin needs to be able to communicate with maturity and respect, even when dealing with people that could make the saints go ballistic. However, Orlady’s putdown of Geronimo20  and her insistence that Doncram is being played for a patsy  are too obnoxious to be ignored.  I am also getting the impression that she is very uncomfortable being called to task for possible faults in judgment, as witnessed by the flippancy in her answer to Question #3 when she claims three of her Opposers “nurse deep grudges” – which is strange, since none of these individuals have Wiki-histories of antagonistic behavior – and in her continuing refusal (as of this writing) to answer Question #6 about putting forth Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School – which not only shows a lapse in understanding copyright violations, but also finds her nominating an article for deletion because it is Orphaned and Unreferenced. Furthermore, her launch of Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) suggests she would rather delete worthy articles in order to one-up a persistent sockpuppeter.  I am sorry, but I cannot support this RfA. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think this is too harsh. Orlady's "putdown" as you call it came in response to Geronimo's accusation of "extreme high-handedness" on Orlady's part - an accusation to which anyone would be likely to take offense. Orlady however did not engage in any kind of personal attack in response but just noted, as she was fully entitled to do, that she had raised legitimate concerns about the article in question and actually helped to improve it (which indeed Geronimo had earlier thanked her for doing). Characterizing Orlady's nuanced commentary about a particularly skilful sockpuppet as an "insistence that Doncram is being played for a patsy" is also quite unfair in my opinion.
 * I should also note that Orlady's nom of St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School was in fact successful, and that the nom of Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) was perfectly legitimate under - ie deletion of articles by sockpuppets. In fact, Orlady was only obliged to nominate it for speedy deletion, but she arguably showed excessive caution in only nomming it at AFD instead. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just being polite about Orlady's improvements. She did fix a typo... so I was grateful for that. It was the one positive moment in all our exchanges. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, she tried speedy deletion first and was reverted. doncram (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. However, it doesn't alter the fact that she was entitled to speedy under the usual policies. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, Orlady put St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School up for AfD while another user gave it a G12 tag; it was speedy deleted as G12 within two hours of being tagged and Orlady was told in the AfD that she didn't understand G12 procedures. As for her exchange to Geronimo20, "taking offense" is the very worst response to a heated situation -- pardon the intrusion of my "day job," but the concept of turning the other cheek is not a sign of weakness. Orlady may not have started the fire, but she's not putting out the flames with sarcastic sneers that well-regarded editors "nurse deep grudges." Pastor Theo (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I just do not feel confident at this time that this candidate has the necessary understanding of guidelines and policies at this time. The answers to both mine and others questions above did not increase my confidence any. Of note, I feel the candidate needs both a better understanding off and a respect for WP:COPYVIO and its importance. I get the impress the they feel its really only relevant for commercial interests, which is a slap in the face to many creative individuals (such as myself) who may not be commercial intenties but are still the target of content thieves and still copyright holders (by law) nonetheless of anything they post. While I do not share the concerns over some of the AfDs brought up above, particularly those where she was not the nominator, and outright over dramatization over the New Rochelle articles noted by others,  I do feel that she did go overboard in trying to clean up behind a persistent sock and should have made more effort to evaluate the individual articles before trying to delete, particularly when the CSDs were denied. The Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) frequently cited above, would be an example of one where clean up/maintainence tags and appropriate project notifications requesting assistance would have been the better solution.--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be correct that clean/up maintenance tags in that particular instance "would have been a better solution", but I doubt there are too many users on Wikipedia who would be able to maintain total objectivity in the face of persistent sockpuppetry and harassment by one particular user. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been there myself more than once (still there really), so yes, I know. However, for someone who is an administrator, I feel they should be one of those few users who should at least attempt to have enough objectivity to not "punish" articles on potentially valid topics purely because of the creator, without at least trying to ascertain if they are valid or not. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked for speedy-deletion of that Holy Sepulchre Cemetery article (and later started an AfD after Doncram removed the speedy-deletion template) was to enforce WP's banning policy. This was not a situation of a newbie editor needing encouragement and advice on article cleanup. Instead, this was one of a large batch of articles about relatively trivial topics created and edited by confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user. I agree that AfDs such as the one for that article do over-dramatize the New Rochelle/sockpuppetry situation, but the best way to deny attention to the sockpuppets is to quietly speedy-delete the articles. I sympathize with the idea that every article deserves attention, but the large volume of material uploaded (repeatedly) by this group of sockpuppets and the complex ways in which the copyvios in that material have been disguised make it utterly impractical to clean it all up on an individual-article basis. These articles need to be researched and rewritten from scratch. When the major articles, such as New Rochelle, New York, that have been the focus of this banned users attention are full of content that is clearly copyvio but that volunteers have not managed to deal with, it is excessive to insist that volunteers devote time and attention to rewriting articles about marginal topics (such as articles about individual cemeteries) that were contributed by that same banned user and received no substantial attention from any other user (although there may be a half-dozen different user names in the article history to suggest multiple contributors). --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Persistence harassment from one user would be a strong enough reason on its own not to allow using of sysops because this user is more prone to reprisal and destruction resulting from that long term conflict. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, mostly per Q4-Q6 and Q8b (full disclosure: I am guilty of the same things myself when on NewPage Patrol). Needs more improvement in the deletion area. Probably also bad timing due to the recent Jvolkblum debacle. MuZemike 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Whilst others have raised valid concerns, I'm more concern about the inability to respond to the questions about determining consensus and BLPs, both of which, in my mind, are crucial areas. Minkythecat (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled by your reasons. Are you talking about long response times or do you disagree with her answers? She has given "real life has been getting in the way of this..." as a reason for not responding immediately to all questions. She has answered one question on evaluating consensus (Q8e; note that Q12 is also related) and two on BLP (Q8c, Q8d). Open question Q14 relating to consensus and Q17a-17d relating to BLP were added by jc37 and jennavecia less than 36 hours ago.   Given that Orlady is currently subject to an off-wiki harassment campaign connected to her admin activities at the Open Directory Project, do you think she is taken an unreasonably long time to respond? --Hans Adler (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I haven't responded to all of the questions yet, but (as Hans Adler has so kindly pointed out) I do have a real life (job, family, etc.) and I have been significantly distracted by the discovery of that attack page (including the time required to send notifications to the other people swept up in the attack, etc.). I expect to type up my answers to the rest of those questions soon. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just commented on her response to Q12 as an odd claim of consensus processes awareness. I don't think it has been asserted that the static attack page, which apparently has existed for a while, has cost her any time.  I thought her posting its link here was rather more indicating that she wasn't going to do anything else with respect to it. doncram (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, Doncram. After seeing that attack page late last night (what DoxTxob had alerted me to was the hosting site for the images on the page, which was not nearly as disturbing as the complete package that I found on my own afterwards), I burned the midnight oil posting the link here and sending a message to Lycos asking for it to be removed from Angelfire, but I did not fully review the site, much less take all the steps that I thought appropriate to respond to it. (And, BTW, it's not a completely static page -- it has been modified since the Google cache version.) --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the answers, I see no reason to remove the oppose. Using a non-BLP example of vandalism doesn't help... I personally find some of the answers too generic and wishy washy in an area that is THE biggest problem area Wikipedia has which WILL result in a user facing legal action. Minkythecat (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose In interactions that I've been involved in or observed, Orlady exhibits arrogant disregard for views in oppostion of her own, and I've never seen her back down and admit that the position she started with wasn't the only "right" answer. Lvklock (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about, , or ? Kaldari (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kaldari, for those examples. I did not claim to have reviewed her edit history in search of such instances, but stated that I had personally never seen them. With that said, the instances you provided do not change my mind.  I read 11 as, yes I made a mistake, but it wasn't my fault.  On 12, while she eventually conceded that it was notable, I would not call a "reluctant keep" for a "dreadful article" a graceful concession.  I do very much appreciate that she took a great deal of time to improve that article to an acceptable condition, and do very much appreciate the work Orlady does in many ways. In 13, I read I made a mistake about the sockpuppet charge, but my opinion still stands.  As I said, I do appreciate the work Orlady does in improving articles.  However, I do not believe she has the tact or temperament to make a good administrator. Lvklock (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your concerns,Lvklock. I now recognize that you and some other Wikipedians place great significance on certain conventions of etiquette in talk page communications, and that I have inadvertently offended by making direct statements instead of including formalities. You have my apologies. With regard to the specific examples that have received much attention here as evidence of mistakes by me: (1) This (with an incomplete title and minus the citation error template, which did not exist back in January, but would now prevent the type of error I made) is what the Our Lady and St Margaret's article looked like when I reviewed it, a couple of days after it had been listed at AfD by someone else. I guess I did not see it necessary to provide an elaborate apology to Terriersfan for having overlooked that, and I think my subsequent actions in the AfD and the article spoke louder than words by helping out with rescue of the article. (2) The Tariq Farid article is another one that I did not nominate for deletion, but was aware of because of my encounters with the other poorly written and blatantly self-promotional articles that were being persistently created about this person, his business, and his personal interests. Although I found the spammy nature of the article annoying and I had "prodded" this article (hoping its creator would fix the issues with it), I actually was the one who removed the speedy-deletion template that had been placed on the article prior to the AfD, and I took it upon myself to "rescue" the article. (Earlier I had rescued Salma K. Farid Academy, but I recall that I had sought speedy deletion of Dipped Fruit and a couple of other contributions from the same source.) My comment about "reluctant" in connection with my "keep" vote reflected my irritation at having to defend the topic as notable and at going to the trouble to rescue it. (3) As for this diff, the pages have been deleted so I cannot provide evidence for why I was confused, but I recall that it was a talk page with a complex history of unsigned comments and page blankings, which made it hard to figure out who had said what when. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose pending further investigation. Looks like a good candidate at first, but the arrogant attitude and rudeness shown in discussions is a bit of a worry.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC). Moved to Neutral.
 * 1) Oppose. I have had very little personal dealings with this editor, so I have had to go into her edit history to get a clear idea of who she is. That combined with the information presented above does not give me a great deal of optimism toward this editor. The majority of her edits are excellent, but she has a troubling tendency to get rude and condescending, almost to the point of sheer comedy. We have too many hot-headed admins as it is, we don't need another. Trusilver  18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. This is about speedy deletion—there's the fact that she started an RFA without a clear understanding of the way speedy deletion works, and there's the fact that she seems to have answered a direct question about it at her RFA before gaining that understanding. I realise Orlady says she doesn't intend to do work with speedy deletion, but unfortunately, admins have tenure, it's unreasonably difficult to get rid of a maverick one, and once given the tools, there's nothing restricting what work they do; so I feel it's only prudent to assess my !vote as if she were proposing to work with speedy deletion.  To me, the fact that Orlady is trying to answer speedy deletion-related questions without understanding the consensus about how it works doesn't bode well at all.  It suggests that as an admin, she would do as she feels is right rather than in accordance with the community's normal procedure, and I'm afraid that's a very grave concern to me.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Concerns about abrasiveness, sarcasm and arrogant attitude. My observations of her editorial judgment at DYK do not allay my concerns. Too many red flags in the comments of others on this page. I'm sorry. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose. I've been going back and forth on this one for some time, over whether the concerns outlined above are really worth opposing over; Orlady is clearly generally a good user, with a decent understanding of the rules and a history of useful contributions, and that counts for a lot. Moreover, she has faced some truly unreasonable opposition above, which I don't feel too happy about joining. But I just can't get over my reservations about this user's attitude and manner of communication, as shown in edits like this one ; that's really not how an admin should behave. I think Orlady could make a good admin at some point, but from what I've seen I just don't think she's ready yet. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) oppose abrasiveness in writings on this page indicate to me a poor temperament for this role. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Per above combativeness in this RfA, but also the lone interaction showed a lack of knowledge or lack of conforming to a well established guideline. Either one is not someone who should be given the admin tools. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know what you identify as our "lone interaction," Aboutmovies. I've "seen you around" in a diverse variety of places. I'm sorry to hear that you remember me in a negative light, and I'm wondering what you might be referring to as our "one interaction". Was it this AN discussion?, this talk page?, or this discussion? Or was it a page we both edited? --Orlady (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you reverted the removal of a category an artilce should not be in as the property was removed from the NRHP list. That is it violates WP:CAT (there must be support in the article to justify an article being in that cat, and here there is support in the cat for it not being in there since it is not on the list, as the category itself says for inclusion criteria is: "Properties in the U.S. state of Tennessee listed on the National Register of Historic Places." (emphasis added)). The fact that it was still in Category:Houses in Knoxville, Tennessee means it was still in a Tennessee category, thus defeating the argument given in the edit summary. I informed you of this and your first reply still shows you either didn't see the city specific cat or want the article in as many cats as you think is best. Your next reply is that you still think it should be in the category for articles listed (not de-listed) articles for apparently in part for your convenience. It may be convenient to keep the Sacramento Kings in categories related to sports in Kansas City and Cincinnati for some people, but we don't since they are no longer in those cities. Same thing with the Category:Living people category, once they die we remove them, despite anyone's convenience or how related the article was to the topic. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain. I remember that as a confusing interaction. Interestingly, although that demolished house is no longer included in a geographical NRHP category, it is still listed in two geographical NRHP articles: National Register of Historic Places listings in Tennessee and National Register of Historic Places, Knox County, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, changed from support, due to conduct in this RFA. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I have to echo the concerns others have raised about abrasiveness. Administratorship on wikipedia involves interacting with many new and troubled users, and it is very easy to escalate conflict unnecessarily or drive editors away permanently unless a patient and explanatory approach is taken. Orlady is a fabulous editor, so I feel bad about opposing, but I do not feel it would be in the best interest of the project to make her an admin at this point.  henrik  • talk  11:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Showing frequently rudeness, abrasiveness, arrogance is far from what I expect from admins. We have many such already.--Caspian blue 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - per Stifle. AdjustShift (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, moved from Neutral. Per Stifle and Henrik, among others; Orlady clearly does good work, but may not have the temperament for adminship. I feel obligated to voice this concern since this RfA seems to be coming down to the wire. Glass  Cobra  14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What has she done in this RfA that strikes you as combative? She's simply answering questions.  Bms4880 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - When I originally looked at this RfA I was not sure if I was going to go with an oppose, or a neutral. After looking over some of the other opposes, they seem to be concerned about the same things I am and as such I must oppose. Because this (like Cobra said) is coming down to the wire, I feel I needed to voice my opinion. Should this still be open when I get home today I will add more. For now, the basis for my oppose is based upon my overall impression of Orlady. That being, I fear she will be heavy handed when issuing blocks, protecting articles, and dealing with sockpuppets. Also, I get a feeling that she feels this site is a battle ground and to be honest I am a bit curious as to why Orlady posted a link to attack page about herself. On top of that some of the concerns brought up about her AfD participation worries me, and leads me to believe there is a potential for drama surrounding closures that she would make. Finally, Stifle brings up a good point. The interaction with others in this RfA only reinforces others concerns about temperament and abrasiveness. Tiptoety  talk 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dislike drama, try to avoid it, and agree that it seems odd to have posted a link to a website created to attack me. I am pleased to say that the page and its associated files have been taken down by the free services that hosted this garbage, so I have now removed most of the comments I made here about it. I posted information about that page here because I learned of the page's existence from a Wikipedian who had found it when he "investigated" me on the web, which I believe he did partly in connection with this RfA. He was horrified by what he read on that site, but was prepared to believe that it might be based in reality and had made a couple challenging comments here that did not make much sense to me until I saw what he had seen on that website. I thought that if one Wikipedian had found the page in that manner and thought it was credible, others might do the same, so I posted about it in hopes of preventing other people from taking it seriously. I don't know who created the webpage, but I believe it is connected with some vandalism that I have "interacted with" here at Wikipedia (e-mail me if you want details), and I think it likely (this is based on the dates of some of its content) that it was intended to attack me in connection with this RfA. Whatever the motive, someone went to a lot of trouble to "out" and attack the character of my "Orlady" persona -- and along the way managed to libel an unassociated person who was identified by her real name. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm concerned about your abrasiveness and conduct during this RFA and before the RFA as well. The link that Robofish provided above is a major concern. Icestorm815  •  Talk  19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I mentioned that link (and the history behind it) in Q3. It's also discussed under Geronimo20's and Quadell's "oppose" !votes. --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Candidate doesn't have the attitude that I'd like to see in users, let alone an administrator. —  Σ  xplicit  19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose While Orlady is an asset to Wikipedia as an editor, however, her responses to other editors during this RfA raise concerns about her temperament when dealing with other editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Orlady does very, very good work and I have been vascillating for some time about where to voice opinion. I have had to decide on this section, however.  I agree most with Pastor Theo, probably, and agree that this exchange with Geronimo20 is excessively antagonistic.  Contrary to others who have said that Orlady was justified in responding testily to Geronimo20's "offensive" comment, the mistake Orlady made was in her assumption of what the problem was in the first place.  She could have started with a question, or even an apology, without the sarcasm (it wouldn't have cost her much, I promise).  I could have understood, perhaps, if her response were short, quick, and snappy.  It's easy to be uninentionally sharp if you're saving your first, quick reaction.  But her response is long, and she simply must have previewed, and searched for all of those diffs.  That she didn't, at some point during all of that, think, "maybe this is just a little bit of the wrong approach . . ." shows a lack of restraint and self-awareness, in my opinion.  Her answer to question 3 is troubling.  And, for the record, I find Kaldari's actions regarding this RfA disappointing.  I would like to support, but there is too much that doesn't seem right.   Mae din \talk 13:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Some of the well reasoned opposes above concern me enough to oppose at this time.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I can not seem to decide if she should be an administrator or not. From the looks of it, it seems she would be a good one but then their are also things that others say that make me uncertin. so i am neutral.Hawkey131 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pending answers to the questions above, for now I'm neutral, leaning towards oppose. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC) - moved to oppose
 * Moved to oppose  #It's not all that common that I agree exactly with Collectonian,but I do here, word for word. I'll just add that Orlady and O.R. have come into conflict a number of times; I regard it as a matter of two strong people pushing against each other in an equally stubborn manner, and I'm not sure either one of them has the temperament for being an administrator. I   definitely do not endorse all of O.R.'s charges, but he correctly points out the general manner. DGG (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you confusing one of us with someone else? I don't recall having conflicts with Ottava Rima. I've been aware of him (and presumably he has been aware of me) for quite some time, but I don't think we've had much direct interaction. We both participated in this this heated discussion about DYK, but I was a pretty minor contributor there, and that's the closest thing I can recall to a "conflict" with Ottava Rima. --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been no direct arguments between Orlady and myself. My comments about DYK dealt with her response to the consensus proceedings (a stray comment about unwritten ideas being consensus, which I find troubling) along with a lack of rigor in the areas that separate a reviewer from an admin who adds hooks to the mainpage. I am highly concerned about what admin put on the mainpage and have made an issue about many stray hooks that had major problems with them. I have not seen the same from Orlady, which is why I made the statement about not trusting them in such a role. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, regarding quality control at DYK: In my activity at DYK, I focus on reviewing hooks before they get to the main page, although I sometimes have pointed out main-page errors at WP:ERRORS. If you don't believe that I have been involved in quality control at DYK, you might note that one of the people who has registered strong opposition here formed his negative view after I objected to a DYK hook due to serious problems with the article. (See DYK nom, my talk page, and the other user's talk page, and a more recent message on the same topic.)
 * Many people have verified pages. I just haven't seen enough from you to make me feel as if you would be able to review for -all- of the very tiny stuff that is very important, nor do I feel that you have an eye towards spotting certain things. You have not spent a lot of time with high end contributions nor do you have experience in reading content of that type in which you can spot many of the problems - this is why Awadewit, Jbmurray, Mattisse, and myself are easily able to spot problems like plagiarism - we are able to see changes in language or things that stick out because we have so much experienced with the heavily polished pages. We need DYK admin with such ability. That is why I would easily support someone like Awadewit for the position, but I don't feel as if I can trust someone without her background. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I've seen impressive work from her and lean towards supporting, but some of the opposers allege incivility or heavy-handedness in incidents that look like they'll require a deeper investigation. So neutral until I get time to dig a little deeper there and see if there's anything worth being worried about. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Though others seem very impressed with the nominee's content-related work, various drama situations at WP:AN/WP:AN/I leave me with questions (beyond my regular ones). But as this RfA already looks like a run-away support, I won't bother asking. I'll be content if those "voting" support, will be on hand to help coach/council the nominee in the future (presuming the nominee is receptive to such), should the need arise. - jc37 02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind and decided to at least add the regular ones. - jc37 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes, you certainly seem to have made some vociferous enemies, Orlady! Neutral per Olaf for now; seems like a good candidate intially, but concerns from opposers merit investigation. Glass  Cobra  11:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Moved to Oppose.  Glass  Cobra  14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Orlady is excellent with controversial articles, and she should be commended for her work in those areas, but the abusive and sarcastic tone pointed out by the opposers is too much for me to consider supporting. --<font face="comic sans ms"> Dylan 620  Efforts · Toolbox 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Concerned about civility. Editor's excellent record otherwise balances that.  And since I tend to be a bit sarcastic sometimes, who am I to oppose based on that Changing to supportWehwalt (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (Changed from support) Orlady is a dedicated contributor, but the concerns brought up in the oppose section are too strong to ignore, I'm afraid. Remaining neutral so as not to pile on. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, having looked a bit further, the incivility appears to be isolated incidents rather than a constant feature of this user's editing. I hope that if promoted they will take the concerns raised here to heart and be careful about what they say and think about how their words might be perceived by others.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 20:49, 14 April 2009 (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.