Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/BethNaught

Editing stats
 General statistics

User ID:	20800274 User groups:	filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed First edit:	Feb 17, 2014, 11:17 AM Latest edit:	Dec 14, 2015, 11:14 PM Live edits:	22,281 Deleted edits:	2,298 Total edits: 	24,579 Edits in the past 24 hours:	25 Edits in the past 7 days:	317 Edits in the past 30 days:	1,225 Edits in the past 365 days:	8,631 Ø number of edits per day:	37

Live edits: Unique pages edited:	15,601 Pages created:	2,831 Pages moved:	461 Ø edits per page:	1.4 Ø change per page (bytes):	extended Files uploaded:	4 Files uploaded (Commons):	75 (Semi-)automated edits:	14,077 Reverted edits:	39 Edits with summary:	22,163 Number of minor edits (tagged):	8,453 Number of edits (<20 bytes):	extended Number of edits (>1000 bytes):	extended Actions: Thank:	225 x Approve:	354 x Patrol:	658 x Admin actions Block:	0 x Protect:	1 x Delete:	0 x Import:	0 x Article: (Re)blocked:	0 x Longest block: – Current block: – SUL editcounter (approximate):	latest ► enwiki	23,664	+2 minutes commonswiki	883	+23 hours wikidatawiki	319	> 30 days metawiki	47	+14 days mediawikiwiki	6	> 30 days dewiki	4	> 30 days nowiki	3	> 30 days nlwiki	3	> 30 days plwiki	3	> 30 days frwiki	3	> 30 days enwikibooks	3	> 30 days 183 others	13	> 30 days Total edits	24,951

Namespace Totals

Article	11,870	53.3% Talk	279	1.3% User	1,616	7.3% User talk	5,763	25.9% Wikipedia	1,348	6% Wikipedia talk	220	1% File	825	3.7% File talk	101	0.5% Template	137	0.6% Template talk	45	0.2% Help	1	0% Category	23	0.1% Category talk	6	0% Portal	3	0% Book	1	0% Draft	42	0.2% Draft talk	1	0%

Year counts

2014	14,179	2015	8,102

Time card

Timecard Latest edit (global) - Edits in the past 30 days, max. 10 / Wiki

Date ↓	Wiki  ↓	Page title  ↓	Comment  ↓ 2015-12-14, 23:14	enwiki	:BethNaught	Replies 2015-12-14, 22:26	enwiki	Larsemann Hills	Fix typo 2015-12-14, 22:24	enwiki	Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2015)	/* September */ fix typo 2015-12-14, 22:22	enwiki	2014 American raid in Libya	Fix typo 2015-12-14, 22:21	enwiki	Houston, Texas Proposition 1, 2015	/* Reaction */ fix typo 2015-12-14, 22:20	enwiki	Equality Act of 2015	/* Support */ fix typo 2015-12-14, 22:19	enwiki	Gilmore Guys	/* Season 5 */ fix typo 2015-12-14, 22:18	enwiki	Dave Sharma	/* Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet */ fix typo 2015-12-14, 22:17	enwiki	Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security	Fix typo 2015-12-14, 22:16	enwiki	Katia Sycara	/* Awards and Recognitions */ fix typo 2015-12-13, 23:21	commonswiki	:Quality images candidates/Archives November 04 2015	File renamed: [[File:Brtish Museum July 2015-2... 2015-12-13, 23:21	commonswiki	:Alvesgaspar/Places/United Kingdom	[[COM:FR|File renamed]]: [[File:Brtish Museum July 2015-2... 2015-12-13, 23:21	commonswiki	:Quality images/Subject/Architecture/Public Buildings	[[COM:FR|File renamed]]: Brtish Museum July 2015-2... 2015-12-13, 23:21	commonswiki	:Alvesgaspar	[[COM:FR: [[File:Brtish Museum July 2015-2... 2015-12-13, 23:21	commonswiki	:British Museum July 2015-2b.jpg	BethNaught moved page [[File:Brtish Museum July 2015-2b.j... 2015-12-13, 23:21	commonswiki	:Brtish Museum July 2015-2b.jpg	BethNaught moved page [[File:Brtish Museum July 2015-2b.j... 2015-12-11, 20:40	commonswiki	:Medscrib	Notification about multiple possible copyright violations. 2015-12-11, 20:28	commonswiki	:Cool syed	[[:File:Raza Naqvi Wahi.jpg]] has been nominated for dele... 2015-12-11, 20:28	commonswiki	:Deletion requests/2015/12/11	Listing [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raza Naqvi Wahi.... 2015-12-11, 20:28	commonswiki	:Deletion requests/File:Raza Naqvi Wahi.jpg	Starting deletion request 2015-11-30, 17:45	metawiki	2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Editing	/* Votes */ s 2015-11-30, 17:43	metawiki	2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Bots and gadgets	/* Migrate dead links to Wayback Machine */ s 2015-11-30, 17:42	metawiki	2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Special pages	/* Improve Special:Log */ s 2015-11-30, 17:41	metawiki	2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Multimedia	/* Votes */ s

Month counts

2014-02	393	2014-03	1,866	2014-04	3,219	2014-05	2,403	2014-06	919	2014-07	1,292	2014-08	1,497	2014-09	1,326	2014-10	154	2014-11	304	2014-12	806	2015-01	514	2015-02	322	2015-03	591	2015-04	164	2015-05	20	2015-06	6	2015-07	64	2015-08	1,855	2015-09	1,888	2015-10	1,102	2015-11	986	2015-12	590

Top edited pages

Article 41	Jessie Bonstelle 35	Ukraine 33	Maine Mendoza 30	Frozen (2013 film) 21	Jane Egan 21	Eric Bullus 20	Malala Yousafzai 18	Meggan Dawson-Farrell 18	Democracy 17	Samantha Kinghorn 16	Julius Caesar 16	Cyril Townsend 15	Alastair Simms 14	Subrata Roy 13	Ian Grist

Talk 8	Talk:Same-sex marriage 8	Talk:Jessie Bonstelle 7	Talk:2014 Ukrainian revolution 6	Talk:Main Page 4	Talk:PM (BBC Radio 4) 4	Talk:Tony Attwood 3	Talk:Frozen (2013 film) 3	Talk:Ukraine 3	Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014 3	Talk:Jesus 3	Talk:Jessie Bonstelle/GA1 3	Talk:Cina Lawson 2	Talk:NGC 1398 2	Talk:Ethel Bellamy 2	Talk:List of Serbs

User 1238	User:BethNaught/CSD log 151	User:BethNaught 35	User:BethNaught/BethNaughtNav 21	User:BethNaught/PROD log 19	User:BethNaught/common.js 16	User:Darkwind/Typos 13	User:BethNaught/Awards 12	User:BethNaught/twinkleoptions.js 9	User:BethNaught/vector.js 7	User:BethNaught/Userboxes 6	User:BethNaught/vector.css 4	User:BethNaught/huggle.css 4	User:Judae1 3	User:Jimbo Wales 3	User:Darkwind/Typos/066

User talk 240	User talk:BethNaught 81	User talk:Jimbo Wales 23	User talk:ClueBot Commons 14	User talk:Katieh5584 9	User talk:Sfan00 IMG/Archive 22 9	User talk:BethNaught/Archive 1 9	User talk:Jmt0905 7	User talk:Smalljim 7	User talk:Manjinder3 7	User talk:Kintam 6	User talk:Mystywave18 6	User talk:Cfa560 6	User talk:Dieterdelavega 6	User talk:TonyIsTheWoman 6	User talk:Fram

Wikipedia 182	Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 62	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 61	Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects 41	Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 39	Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention 22	Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) 22	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 21	Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 20	Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9 19	Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 18	Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell 16	Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 13 15	Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BethNaught 13	Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson 12	Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/Zach Vega

Wikipedia talk 60	Wikipedia talk:Flow 22	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation 19	Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship 18	Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion 10	Wikipedia talk:Notability 9	Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard 8	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive 7	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TypoScan 7	Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos 5	Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not 4	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script 3	Wikipedia talk:Username policy 3	Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll 3	Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard 2	Wikipedia talk:Typo Team

File 3	File:Saints Peter and Paul Church, San Francisco, California.jpg 3	File:Limestone cliffs seen from Highway 99 in Marble Canyon Park.jpg 3	File:WBBLlogo.png 3	File:Surfing in the Air (Christine Guldbransen album).jpg 3	File:Deirdre Barlow Coronation Street.jpg 3	File:Wanted book cover.jpg 3	File:Shame (Monrose single).jpg 3	File:CKEditor logo.png 2	File:Marvel Comics Ghost Rider.jpg 2	File:Spectral (Skyfire album).jpg 2	File:Icicle DC Comics.jpg 2	File:The Eleventh Hour (Jars of Clay album).jpg 2	File:Red Card (Streetwalkers album).jpg 2	File:The Brand New Heavies (North American version).jpg 2	File:Nikopol Secrets of the Immortals cover art.jpg

File talk 2	File talk:Shame (Monrose single).jpg 2	File talk:World population density map.PNG 1	File talk:World-cannabis-laws.png 1	File talk:Short Circuit (1986 film poster).jpg 1	File talk:Overkill.jpg 1	File talk:Spaces (Mac OS X software).png 1	File talk:Creep (2014 film) poster.jpg 1	File talk:Sasha.jpg 1	File talk:Canada-Germany locator map.png 1	File talk:Svetinja.jpg 1	File talk:Wikipedia profile photo (User KoRnOnThEeKoB).jpg 1	File talk:Kagbeni (2008 film poster).jpg 1	File talk:Pathway (The Flaming Stars album).jpg 1	File talk:Belmont High School (Massachusetts) logo.png 1	File talk:Saipa Logo.svg

Template 11	Template:Vandalism information 5	Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Bullus 4	Template:Did you know nominations/Cyril Townsend 3	Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Grist 2	Template:Doctor Who episode list 2	Template:Centralized discussion 2	Template:Did you know nominations/Eclogue 4 2	Template:ShadowsCommons 2	Template:Infobox American championship car race report 2 2	Template:Useronline 2	Template:User autistic 1	Template:International dinghies 1	Template:Infobox OS/doc 1	Template:Malaysian protests and rallies 1	Template:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh

Template talk 9	Template talk:Did you know 3	Template talk:Doctor Who episode list 2	Template talk:Collapsible archive box 2	Template talk:Infobox road 1	Template talk:Useronline 1	Template talk:Campaignbox Northern Ireland Troubles 1	Template talk:Bgafd name 1	Template talk:Infobox royalty 1	Template talk:Bgafd movie 1	Template talk:PlanetMath 1	Template talk:Edit semi-protected 1	Template talk:Egafd name 1	Template talk:Admin request 1	Template talk:Egafd movie 1	Template talk:Infobox person

Help 1	Help:Magic words

Category 4	Category:Database management systems 2	Category:Education in Italy 2	Category:Suicides by jumping in the Philippines 2	Category:Visitor attractions in Krishna district 1	Category:Panadura Royal College 1	Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago 1	Category:Suzanne Collins 1	Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures in Australia 1	Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures in France 1	Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures in Panama 1	Category:New Zealand criminals 1	Category:American pies 1	Category:Walloon people 1	Category:Municipal corporations in Andhra Pradesh 1	Category:Visitor attractions in Vijayawada

Category talk 1	Category talk:Unbuilt buildings and structures in Australia 1	Category talk:Unbuilt buildings and structures in France 1	Category talk:Unbuilt buildings and structures in Panama 1	Category talk:Suicides by jumping in the Philippines 1	Category talk:Visitor attractions in Krishna district 1	Category talk:Municipal corporations in Andhra Pradesh

Portal 1	Portal:Pokémon/Templates 1	Portal:X-ray astronomy/Intro 1	Portal:Arts/Featured article/30

Book 1	Book:Bob Dylan

Draft 3	Draft:James Compton House 3	Draft:Chairman (President) of the People's Republic of Bulgaria 2	Draft:Susan Margaret Watkins 2	Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano 2	Draft:Kingsley Ben-Adir 2	Draft:Leah Jaye 2	Draft:CHRISTINI All Wheel Drive Motorcycles 2	Draft:Marc Vidal 2	Draft:National Oilheat Research Alliance (NORA) 2	Draft:University College of Engineering (Kerala) 2	Draft:Sarah Sharp 2	Draft:Android Braille Slate 2	Draft:Howellsville, North Carolina 1	Draft:Karysse Trandem 1	Draft:Odes (The Flowers Of Hell album)

Draft talk 1	Draft talk:Chairman (President) of the People's Republic of Bulgaria

(Semi-)automated edits (approximate)

6,185	Twinkle 4,911	Huggle 2,426	AutoWikiBrowser 494	Articles For Creation tool 40	STiki 21	Igloo 0	HotCat 0	NPWatcher 0	WPCleaner 0	Popups 0	FurMe


 * These stats say I have made one protection. This must be a bug; obviously I have no ability to protect pages at the moment. BethNaught (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad: I once moved a protected page, so I have a log entry for migrating the protection settings. BethNaught (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked, shocked, to find this user abusing their power before they even have any. Have they no sense of decency?!? Drmies (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Permit me a LOL. Irondome (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

RfA policy RfC Closed
This RfC has been closed and the following changes will go into effect, effective immediately: If there is a problem with my close, please let me know.
 * 1) RfAs will now be advertised on watch list notices.
 * 2) *There will be a waiting period of 12-24 hours. Admin discretion may be exercised, before the 24 hour waiting period.
 * 3) *The usernames or the details of the RfA are not to be revealed. A short and simple one liner such as, "There are RfAs open for discussion."
 * 4) RfAs will now be advertised on Template:CENT.
 * 5) *Some desire to use on the template has been expressed, though it is not a requirement.  Cyberpower678 is willing to make changes to the template as needed, if desired.
 * 6) *The advertisement on CENT does not carry the same restrictions that watch list notices have.
 * 7) There is now a limit on the number of questions a specific user can ask a candidate.
 * 8) *The limit is 2 questions.
 * 9) *Appropriate relevant follow-up questions are allowed.
 * 10) *Obvious gaming should be dealt with accordingly.
 * 11) The discretionary range is now 65-75%.

I thought I would post this here, since this change now applies to this RfA as well.—cyber power  Merry Christmas:Unknown 08:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's leave that to the bureaucrats. Jonathunder (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion of opposed vote by Andrew D.

 * 1) Oppose I like what I see of the candidate's work – quaint articles such as Alastair Simms. And I have a vague awareness of seeing them around and being generally sensible.  But it's a shock to find that Beth is not a personal name and that the candidate is explicitly not saying what gender they are.  I look at their early edits and these indicate that this is an experienced editor making a fresh start of some kind.  The nominators don't say anything about this and seem quite tentative in their knowledge of the candidate.  This doesn't feel right.  Arbitrators have to declare exactly who they are and they only get a limited term of a year or two.  Admin is a lifetime position and so similar standards should apply. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to assure you that I am not a fresh start account. Apart from one inactive acknowledged alternative account, this is the only account I have edited with on Wikimedia. My initial edits can be explained by the fact that I started out as an IP for about two months before registering. As an IP I made gnomish edits, such as adding links and fixing typos, and indeed reverting vandalism, and I continued these things on registering. BethNaught (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, but Arbitrators are under no obligation whatsoever to divulge their gender, name, or anything else to the community. They are also explicitly allowed to use any user name within Username policy. 'Doesn't feel right' and the rest of this vote is not something I would expect from a mature, experienced, well educated user who promotes Wikipedia in real life. I have expressed my concerns at the long-term pattern of your participation at RfA before. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't take an oppose vote such as this seriously - why does the user's non-disclosed gender sway your opinion of their admin suitability concern you? -- samtar whisper 11:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you concerned that GorillaWarfare is not a gorilla, Flutternutter may not be a sandwich, Opabinia Regalis may not have five eyes, Berean Hunter does not hunt ancient Greeks and TimTrent's real name may not actually be "Fiddle Faddle"? I've done more than a few GA reviews with one editor not actually sure of what gender they were, and not caring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My own user name is equally ambiguous and no one has expressed a query about my gender. Can the thread be moved to the TP by someone who knows what they are doing? Leaky  Caldron  11:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved hope that's okay -- samtar whisper 12:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To say that the "user's gender sway[s his] opinion of their admin suitability" is an unfair oversimplification of 's stated position. I didn't read from his comment that the user's androgynous gender is the primary concern driving his oppose vote, but rather that the deliberate ambiguity, taken with an early editing pattern that seems to indicate more experience than usually seen out of brand-new contributors, makes him uneasy.   Hi DrNick ! 14:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted, that was a little unfair of me. I've struck and reworded -- samtar whisper 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it matters that anyone identifies as any gender here at all. That aspect of someone's life makes no difference in their capability to edit, so what do we care what they pass themselves off as? I can see if the concern is that maybe they'll be disingenuous elsewhere, but considering that BethNaught has openly declared that the username is a reference to a cardinal number, the argument for dishonesty can't even be made. &#160; Discant  X  15:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what gender anyone identifies as here at all. It is inappropriate to want to find out this sort of private information. The idea that one gets to know exactly who an admin candidate is it an invalid one. This vote should be given zero weight. HighInBC 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it'll help alleviate everyone's concerns if you remember some of your edits as an IP editor so that we can evaluate your contribution to Wikipedia before you started using the username BethNaught. Deryck C. 15:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but that might be the proverbial needle in the haystack. I know I made a few IP edits before I made an account, and I'll be damned if I know where I put them. &#160; Discant  X  15:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look but couldn't find any. Since I didn't have an attachment to any particular article then, I don't have anywhere to start looking, and I'd seriously impress myself if I could remember 32-bit numbers for two years. Sorry. BethNaught (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The first edit with the BethNaught account had the summary "revert unexplained blanking". This seemed a sophisticated usage for a new editor.  The second edit used features like a section heading, the subst function and was signed with tildes.  I'm still not understanding how an IP editor would get to be so proficient. Andrew D. (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My 53rd edit was to create a redirect, and my 93rd was summarised by myself as "Rationalised headings and paragraphs, brought text more into alignment with Wikipedia style, and added links", so it doesn't seem to me that Beth Naught's first edits are beyond plausibility for a new editor with some IP edits under their belt. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators have to declare exactly who they are . Pldx1 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBPOL states "Candidates must: Meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data..." That policy states "Only persons whose identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be permitted to have access..."  The candidate on their user page states "My real name is not Beth Naught (and no, I won't tell you who I am)."  The issue of gender seems marginal but I'd always supposed that Beth was a name such as Elizabeth and so was surprised. Andrew D. (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear user:Andrew Davidson. There are 15 arbitrators. There are 1330 admins. The 15 must register their identity to the WMF. Not to anyone else. The 1330 are not required to identify. May be I am wrong, but this is how I read the book. Concerning this amusing divination problem called 'let the names speak for themselves'. Writing $$\beth_0$$ suggests some maths. Reading $$\beth_0$$ as Beth Naught rather than Beth Zero suggest UK rather than US. Concerning your reading of Beth as Liz, may be it's about you, may be it's the ultimate key when reading Mc$\beth$.  Pldx1 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment . The way I see it, after reading this thread, is the exact opposite of what is being claimed here in defence of this particular user name. The problem is not that BethNaught has no obligation whatsoever to divulge their gender, name, or anything else ... but that BethNaught is a strong, clear and outright implication of being a female and bearing the name Beth, which may or may not be true. In the thick of things, as an administrator (arbitration administrator notwithstanding), BethNaught is going to be honestly and spontaneously assumed to be Beth by most unsuspecting parties because that's how Wikipedia works ... A rude awakening for those who get to dig deeper while referring to Beth as a lady in their own cases, with the best of intentions. — On at least one occasion, I had to tell a valuable female Wikipedian to stop calling a man, her new woman-friend, on his talk page. I did it very quietly not to embarrass her any further.  Poeticbent  talk  16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ..."a strong, clear and outright implication of being a female"? What about Bethlehem, Bethnal Green, Bethesda? They are applying to be an Admin. btw, not an arbitrator. Leaky  Caldron  17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one have always taken the Beth here to be a Hebrew letter or word. And so what if people take it to be short for Elizabeth? We have an administrator who goes by the user name of 'Amalthea' and identifies as male. Should he be desysopped for deception? Peridon (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And if we had a French male editor called Jean who chose to use his real name? Would that be a "a strong, clear and outright implication of being a female"? Pam  D  17:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Ashley used to be a popular name for boys and didn't enter the top 1000 girls name list until 1964. It left the top 1000 boys name list in 1994. Lauren has gone back and forth up until the 80s. Other notable switches in the last 80 years are Annie, Claire, Dorothy, Carol, Sandy, and the list goes on. As for Beth, in 1962 it climbed as high as ranking 1842 for boys name. It's noteworthy to mention this because Beth in 2014 ranks only 3526. Mkdw talk 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I know a good friend whose name is Madison. He's a guy.  I also know a guy whose name is Jamie.  Never judge a book by it's cover.—cyber power Merry Christmas:Unknown 18:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I find this comment very sexist and frankly this is exactly the type of comment we've all talked about needing to be clerked out of RFA. The editor isn't "shocked" to find out Beth isn't "a personal name". No more shocked than they would be to learn "Leaky Caldron" isn't their personal name either. They're shocked because the editor hasn't specifically disclosed their gender to which any editor, ArbCom or not, are not required to do, nor should they because any sort of requirement only equates to gender bias and prejudice. If the part about the gender isn't removed then I move for a motion to have the oppose struck. Plain and simple. Mkdw talk 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait!! Leaky Caldron isn't their real name??? Get me my pitchfork, this is clear deception. :p —cyber power Merry Christmas:Unknown 18:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is one of the more shitty threads I've come across in my time here. Can we please move past this? BethNaught has a right here as everyone else does to not disclose their gender, and that extends to not having a discussion derailed while a bunch of other editors quibble about the implications of nondisclosure, something which we would not be talking about at all if some users hadn't mistakenly assumed that their username was an indication of female gender. We're all just talking circles around why it's important or not that a user is female or not. Just shut it down and move on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyber power <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Merry Christmas:Unknown 18:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just what I was about to say. This is not worth further discussion. We all know that Andrew comes up with unusual and sometimes very strange reasons to oppose at RfA. In this case, way too strange to influence anyone else's !vote. The point has been thoroughly made that gender does not have to be revealed, even if someone's name implies a gender that may or may not be their actual status. (Heck, that's the case for all of us; I identify as female, but none of you actually know if that's true.) And there does not appear to be any solid basis for the suspicion of a previous account, which would become a personal attack if pursued as an accusation. Both the gender and the "previous account" bases for this oppose are invalid and borderline offensive, but I say we just move on and leave the !vote there to be ignored. The only pity will be if it turns out to be the only "oppose" !vote, spoiling a unanimous outcome. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Debate about gender revelation in online communities has merit. But this isn't really the best venue for such discourse. North America1000 18:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * North America, I'm disappointed you haven't written it yet! Drmies (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not related to gender, but regarding 's comment about sophisticated early edits with section headings etc.: I can point out that my third edit was an article creation which used not only section headings, but also piped links and fairly complicated wikimarkup (note the special character in Erd&#337;s). (The article still stands by the way, with much better referencing). I don't think I even edited as an IP before I made my account. I think I am not a sockpuppet, but one can't be sure, of course. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Pure bad faith opposition?
Is asking for a checkuser to be conducted here, or simply assuming bad faith and tacitly accusing BethNaught of being a liar? Either way, that !vote needs clarification in order to resolve it without leaving a bigoted stain on this otherwise flawless request for adminship. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If he has any sense of decency at this stage he would indent and strike his vote considering he has already removed the thread that was developing on his talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew has not removed the thread, but moved it higher up the page. However, I agree that his oppose vote here might benefit from clarification, or indeed scrutiny, but perhaps this page is not the most suitable venue. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It may not be the best venue, but at least it is a venue to determine whether is calling BethNaught a liar or something else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Summarizing someone's contrary opinion as a "bigoted stain" is a clear personal attack. Could you kindly consider refactoring your comment?   Hi DrNick ! 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not until I understand whether Davidson is accusing BethNaught of lying or just assuming bad faith. It's not a personal attack because it's actually true, until proven otherwise.  (But thank you for the opportunity to refactor my comment, nevertheless). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , can you link to where Andrew Davidson asked for a checkuser to be conducted or implied such? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the implication that he believes BethNaught to be a "fresh start" editor despite that being disputed by BethNaught themselves. That seems pretty obvious to me that either he's looking for some concrete evidence (since he doesn't believe BethNaught). Clearer? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Bigoted (adjective) Utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." I'm curious about what part of Andrew's oppose comment, specifically, you find to be "bigoted."  What did Andrew actually say that so offends your sensibilities?
 * "But it's a shock to find that Beth is not a personal name and that the candidate is explicitly not saying what gender they are." I'm a mathematician, so yes, I understood the reference --- but beth numbers occupy a somewhat obscure place in set theory (so obscure that I just created three redirects), so you can hardly blame any given editor for not being in on the joke.  Some editors are more sensitive to gender issues than others; an editor who attempts to hold themselves out as a gender that they are not might rub someone the wrong way.  But read on...
 * "I look at their early edits and these indicate that this is an experienced editor making a fresh start of some kind. The nominators don't say anything about this and seem quite tentative in their knowledge of the candidate." This is a perfectly rational concern! You might not share it, but why would you come down on an editor for saying so?  Pointing out that this editor started with an unusually high amount of wiki-know-how is reasonable due diligence.  And this provides a lot of context for the gender comment as well.  Andrew seems to feel that something about this candidate just doesn't add up.  And editors are free to support or oppose at RFA for almost any reason whatsoever.
 * "This doesn't feel right. Arbitrators have to declare exactly who they are and they only get a limited term of a year or two. Admin is a lifetime position and so similar standards should apply." Also perfectly reasonable.
 * In this thread, assorted editors have said that "this vote is not something I would expect from a mature, experienced, well educated user". Someone else opines (later refactored) that the "user's gender sway[s Andrew's] opinion of their admin suitability", which is just not what was said at all.
 * This vote does not say, or mean "Oppose, candidate has female naughty bits" or "Oppose, candidate refuses to describe their naughty bits in sufficient detail." And yet, later on, another attack: "It is inappropriate to want to find out this sort of private information. The idea that one gets to know exactly who an admin candidate is it an invalid one. This vote should be given zero weight."  Andrew simply does not say what you all are pretending he did.  The heft of the oppose doesn't appear to be driven by gender --- it's just one thing that is contributing to Andrew's general unease.
 * The only behavior that I've seen displayed in this thread that shows utter intolerance of others' opinions is coming from those descending here to attack Andrew with straw men (straw people?).  I don't understand how is it acceptable to refer to a good-faith contribution as a "bigoted stain."
 * No wonder participation at RFA is dismal.  Hi DrNick ! 00:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon my confusion...but is the frustration here because Beth will not reveal their gender or because thinks the account is a fresh start account? The gender should not matter, period. And just because an editor seemed to know what they are doing when they register for an account could mean a variety of things, included they they edited for some time as an IP so had a grip on things. Remember, newbies aren't always clueless.  T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * However one tries to parse the syntax and semantics to pull something positive out of it, is not a good faith vote and it's the kind of thing that has brought the RfA process into disrepute discouraging potential candidates, and requiring all kinds of other RfC to try and find a solution to it.. Andrew has been doing this kind of thing for years. No strawmen, it's part of a pattern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's pure bad faith on behalf of Davidson to tacitly accuse BethNaught of sockpuppetry.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Adminship is not "for life" as people say. How many people have been desysoped compared to how many have taken the bit to their grave. I suspect that the living ex-admins well outnumber the post-living ones. <b style="color:Chocolate">HighInBC</b> 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion of neutral vote by Carrite

 * 1) Neutral - Obviously a landslide and probably for good reason, but the very dramatic "I'd rather not reveal my gender identity, so call me they" bit is a good enough reason to land here. I hope they doesn't feel too badly that I am crabby and old and hate lack of transparency. They has a right to they's opinions on these things, as do I. Moving on. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and you know, this one doesn't provide useful input either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't help and it's embarrassing that someone with Carrite's experience and standing would even express themselves like this. Good to know that this is the kind of stuff we can expect from Carrite going forward I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we moving forward? That's nice to know... xoxo, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Emphasis on the word dramatic. Don't you think that was? Carrite (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Just no. All I see here is pointless neutrality to make a non existent point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 December 2015‎
 * I find a lack of gender identification the furthest thing from dramatic I can think if. The word uninteresting comes to mind. I do find all the fuss about it rather dramatic though, much ado about nothing. <b style="color:Navy">HighInBC</b> 15:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to think of what went through your mind when you made your comment. The only thing I can think of is that you suspect that one hidden thing will lead to another, revealing ones gender is helpful but not required in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy moly Tim. Gender does not stand in the way of transparency. I mean, if someone had like a huge shower curtain of pubic hair obscuring their computer screen, maybe. I know you as a bigger person than this. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I now see that this discussion may turn into a repeat of the hatted one above, I would take it to Carrite's talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep--I just wanted to get mine in before it closes. :) Drmies (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A huge shower of pubic hair? Great, I have that imaged burned into my mind now.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyber power <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Merry Christmas:Unknown 18:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion of Optional RfA candidate poll

 * Comment The way this discussion is going seems to suggest that Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll worked as intended in this case - namely, by encouraging a good candidate to go for it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I was going to remark to that effect too. I think we may be able to expect one or two more RfA's in the coming months as well thanks to WP:ORCP and some discussions there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. The primary value of that page is to deter individuals whose candidacies would fail not to put themselves forward, thus improving the "success rate" statistics and giving the illusion of a higher candidate success ratio. I don't think it really has much to do with candidates succeeding; those who succeed would have succeeded whether or not they had played the "What do the RFA gatekeepers think?" game. Indeed, I suspect it's deterring candidates who may well have succeeded but averaged only 7/10 on a handful of comments, making it seem that success is unlikely. On the other hand, the candidate poll does reduce the likelihood that an editor will put themselves forward at RFA only to be sorely disappointed, so it does serve a useful purpose in that sense. Risker (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think MelanieN has it right – an ORCP candidate who gets 9/10's across the board, as BethNaught did, might be more encouraged to run for RfA than they otherwise would have been. So not only can ORCP serve to "weed out" WP:NOTNOW candidates (and we've seen at least half a dozen of those at ORCP already...), but it may also encourage editors to run in RfA's who really didn't intend to and only throw their names up at ORCP "on a lark" and are pleasantly surprised at the assessment of their RfA chances... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How will we know? Both make sensible points. A positive response at ORCP may encourage a reluctant candidate, but a lukewarm response at ORCP may equally put off a good candidate. ORCP will encourage more of the sort of candidates that ORCP participants think ought to be running & would succeed at RfA. The issue is that ORCP may not be representative of all RfA participants (in the same way that frankly I don't think RfA participants reflect the expectations of candidates held by the wider community). <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if a candidate as good as BethNaught comes to the conclusion that the route to a successful RFA is getting an 8/10 or 9/10 when pre-screened by the tiny number of editors who participate in the candidate poll, then we've failed to solve any problems and have created new barriers for good candidates. I can already see the reason for opposing: "Did not go through candidate poll before initiating RFA." Anyone who's been around here long enough already knows this is inevitable. Risker (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say more people are going to leap if they can look before they leap and see that they don't land anywhere too bad. As for people opposing for not taking an optional poll, I would hope the 'crats would give such a vote very little weight.
 * If someone does vote in such a way then several people will respond saying it is a poor vote, it will get moved to this talk page, the opposer will say something about "badgering" then it will get hatted. Such people will just make up another reason to oppose if this reason is not available, I think it is more about the attention for them. Some people like badger. <b style="color:Chocolate">HighInBC</b> 15:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued comment by Softlavender

 * Comment: While I agree that gender is and should be completely immaterial for RfA (and for normal editing by non-admins), if this candidate is elected, I very strongly encourage them to choose a gender and stick to it. For several reasons: Admins are expected to be transparent and easily accessible, and hiding or deliberately obfuscating one's gender while using a screen-name that is assumed to be female is excessively confusing and non-transparent. This is confusing both to experienced editors and also most particularly to newcomers. Asking the community at large to refer to an admin as "they", "them", "their" is unfair, in my opinion, particularly as admin actions are frequently discussed, and because "they" and its constructions are plural pronouns, and thus very confusing and often misleading, and because newcomers, who are the people admins mainly have to deal with, should not be put through that communication difficulty. None of this would matter if the user were not running for RfA, but since they are, they need to conform to a higher standard of accessibility and transparency, in the same way that difficult or improperly linked signatures (or sometimes even usernames) are of little consequence in non-admins, but in admins need to be fixed for accessibility. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to stir up further drama that would have died down on the TP but for a couple of overly excited Admins who decided to throw petrol on the embers, I disagree. BethNaught will probably be referred to as "she" most of they time. If they are happy with that we have no good reason to dictate that they should reveal anything. Leaky  Caldron  07:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if BethNaught is fine being referred to as "she" if this RfA is successful, then that settles that. And I never required anyone to reveal anything; I requested that they choose a gender so that the community, especially newcomers, are not forced to refer to an admin as "they" which is a plural pronoun and thus too misleading and confusing. If English had a genderless third-person singular pronoun for a person, that would work, but it doesn't. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Newcomers? You're worried about newcomers? Newcomers can't even tell who the Admin is or even what they do. In fact, I'd say the only group that despises newbs more than Wikipedia might be video gamers. --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 15:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , the English language (and subset dialects) do have a genderless, third-person, singular pronoun: it is called Singular they. Seriously, it only requires some basic changes in how people phrase sentences but it is a simple thing. At any rate, what if is transgender or feels outside the binary gender system? Then they may prefer to not use either "he" or "she" because of personal reasons related to their IRL life. Honestly, way too much drama for a simple request to keep personal information off the Wikis - regardless of editor level. I'd put a vote of confidence but I doubt it would make much difference at this point and I am lazy. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 08:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Singular they is used for unnamed nonspecific generic persons and single members of generic groups of persons. We are talking about a specific person here. If the candidate, if this RfA is successful, is going to require people to call him or her "they", I don't personally think that is fair, wise, or suitable, although it would to my mind be perfectly acceptible for a non-admin to request that. Again, if in the absence of further information BethNaught is OK with people naturally referring to him/her as "she", then all is well. If the candidate is adamantly not OK with that, s/he might want to switch usernames to something that does not begin with a female given name if this RfA is successful. Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And there are those of us who don't care at all whether someone addresses them as "he" or "she" or "they" or whatever. I (like many others) choose not to disclose my gender on Wikipedia (just like most of my personal information, apart from my country and language), and live with the (not really problematic) consequence of being adressed with the wrong gender sometimes. The only "requirement" we should make is that if one doesn't indicate a gender, one shouldn't complain when being addressed incorrectly as he or she. Apart from that, leave well alone and focus on important things. Fram (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure BethNaught realizes that they are - and will continue to be - assumed to be female from their username and likely to be addressed as "she", and don't think they have expressed any problem with this. They have disclosed that their gender may or may not be female, which doesn't strike me as particularly problematic given that usernames are, after all, pseudonyms. I seem to remember that admins/bureaucrats Deskana and Cecropia were often mistakenly assumed to be female, presumably because their usernames ended in "a". I don't think it caused any issues. If I put a notice on my talkpage saying that I would prefer to be referred to with the singular "they" than as "he", would I need to resign as an administrator? I can see a problem if I started to fly off the handle every time someone referred to with "he", but otherwise does it really matter? As a final point, we might want to pause and reflect about how editors who are not cisgendered might be reading these discussions. Whilst I'm sure everyone means well (and a lot of the points are about confusion potential not trying to impose a requirement to self-identify gender), we're risking looking very unfriendly to people who have difficulty fitting themselves into binary gender classifications. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a comment from an old fashioned person, just from reading Beth's page, it's not that Beth doesn't identify a gender due to a transgender issue, but it's due to a safety/security/privacy issue. In the English language, when the gender is not known, the neutral gender term is used. That is he. It might be unfortunate, or politically incorrect but English doesn't have a true gender neutral term. It would be different if someone were a transsexual and requests to be identified as a specific gender. In this case, I think Beth just realize that having a "female" screen name will most likely get female pronouns. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I think my comment made clear, I was concerned about how this discussion would read to an editor who isn't cisgendered - not necessarily BethNaught. Such a person shouldn't be left thinking that they would have to disclose their status in order to "justify" not being addressed by a particular gender. Indeed, they may have difficulty identifying with either gender, or identify with both. The idea that such personal issues about a candidate might be explored - very publicly - at RfA is bound to be off-putting to some... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been 35 years since Kate Swift and Casey Miller published The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing (highly recommended) ; they put forth a rather cogent argument for singular they, which I've used here on Wikipedia for nearly ten years -- I don't recall it ever being a problem. Furthermore, as the wmf:Privacy policy clearly states we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement, I can think of no better way for an administrator to uphold the ideals of the movement than by modeling dignified refusal to succumb to badgering by editors to reveal irrelevant personal information. NE Ent 03:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion of support vote by Davey2010
Support - As I said here I actually thought she was already an admin so was rather surprised to see she wasn't, Quite honestly I couldn't think of anyone better to be an admin!. Obviously great candidate, No issues, Good luck :) – Davey 2010 Talk 20:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One small point: BethNaught hasn't identified as a "she", so using "they" is probably the safest bet. Check out User:BethNaught for some more details. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wow brilliant!, Well I don't mean this in a nasty way but if they don't want to be referred to as a she then the obvious start is not to have a female (and perhaps misleading) name.... – Davey 2010 Talk 14:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Before we start this again please see the ridiculous discussions which have been taking place on the talk page (where I will be moving this in a moment) -- samtar whisper 14:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion of opposed vote by SuperCarnivore591

 * 1) Oppose You know, they say the past is etched in stone, but it isn't. It's smoke, trapped in a closed room, swirling, changing, buffeted by the passing of years and wishful thinking. But even though our perception of it changes, one thing remains constant: the past can never be completely erased, it lingers, like the scent of burning wood. As such, I cannot support someone for adminship who is clearly using a fresh start account and not being upfront about it. That is all. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly using a fresh start account? What makes you think that? -- samtar whisper 20:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should present proof to support this allegation, enough to support an investigation. If you can't, than this should be considered a baseless personal attack, as well as an appalling lack of good faith and you should apologize as well as strike both your vote and your remarks. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like another -attempt to tacitly request a checkuser. If either of these opposers are serious, then they should do that with some evidence to kick it off, or else both of their positions are absurd and offensive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's literally a "damned if you do, damned if you don't " scenario. It's actually quite common for new users to make mistakes because they don't know any better, and it's just as common for experienced users to bitch and complain about these 'newbs', saying they should read all the policies & guidelines and know what they're doing before they contribute. Here you have a user who has obviously taken the time to grasp the basic fundamentals of how the project works right at the beginning, and people still aren't happy, complaining that they are "obviously" a problematic prior user that needed a fresh start and are now hiding it. It's ridiculous. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't we all drop this ridiculous discussion? BethNaught's gender is irrelevant to his/her ability to contribute to Wikipedia and is none of our business. As for Andrew Davidson and SuperCarnivore, let's just ignore their whining. Discussing a non-issue with people who think of nothing better to do is a waste of time. David Cannon (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not whining. My oppose had nothing to do with the issue of BethNaught's gender you see. I'm just being a realist. Wikipedia isn't a caterpillar. It doesn't spin a cocoon and wake up a butterfly. In a perfect world, it might, but this isn't a perfect world: the past can't be fully erased, it will linger, just like the echo of a car backfiring. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you just get to the point, and please provide us with some evidence that this is a fresh account? As far as I can see it is a baseless argument that wastes other's time without any evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I support BethNaught's candidacy, but only b/c I think being a "fresh start" editor should mean exactly that, being afforded a fresh start, and not having to answer certain annoying questions about one's past. Since BethNaught has absolutely edited in good faith since Feb 2014, I support her candidacy (and please pardon my pronoun). But that said, those two "Oppose" voters are not idiots, and they have to vote according to their conscience and allegiance to the letter of the law &mdash; I admire them for swimming against the tide, that ain't easy. I would only encourage you to look back on Beth's earliest edits (just 21 months ago) and think about how a new editor could so knowingly post messages to new IP editors, initiate AfD discussions, know all the jargon and shortcuts w/o seemingly having to ask questions or seek advice. Why, it really is a miraculous thing, a wonder! Do you really need diffs? You are intelligent enough to read for yourselves. But please, just stop piling on these conscientious objectors (silly as their mannerisms are). To the basic point, they have reason to doubt. As I said, they're not idiots. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Do you really need diffs? - Yeah, I want diffs. The candidate has clearly stated they are not a fresh start account. So the same applies to you as SC591. Prove your accusations or strike them. You are openly calling a widely respected editor a liar, during their RfA no less. That is a personal attack and an appalling lack of good faith on your part. -  the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please, stop with all your honor talk, your demand that I strike my comment, etc. This is a Talk Page on an RfA, and I have voted FOR the candidate. You want diffs? Well, how about the candidate's use of a Template on only her second edit? So many knowing and helpful edits right off the bat, and seemingly no need ever to seek advice, counsel, or tutelage in the arcane arts of content curation. All I'm saying is, it's OK that some people here don't quite think this passes their sniff test. But please don't make me draw a sword, I'm not looking for a duel. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Honor talk"...? You called her a liar. I simply asked that you refrain from such insults and support your accusations, which you still have not done. She stated that she has contributed as an IP editor prior to creating an account. This certainly is not uncommon and therefore does not make her "new". As I said above, perhaps she took the time to actually read through policies here, (like what one would find at 'getting started' on a welcome template (ie: .) Maybe she's just a quick learner. The point is, this is obviously the kind of editor we want (and now admin as well). We don't need people like you and SC591 possibly driving them away by insulting them and treating them like shit. "Honor" indeed... since you brought it up, there certainly is a lack of it around here. -  the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between constructive criticism, and trolling. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply, put, Knowledgekid, I've seen the future. I've glimpsed it through the eyes of every creature dead, living, or yet to be. This is the beginning. The beginning of the end, if people like BethNaught are granted adminship. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

- Did you even bother to read this thread? It has nothing to do with the so-called 'gender issue'. And it's not "ridiculous". I see nothing wrong with calling SC591 on his silly and pretentious hyperbole and asking him to support his accusations or strike them. If this page bothers you sooo much, feel free to ignore it. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Easy. WP:DENY, collapse, block if needed, and move on. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 02:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SuperCarnivore591 is just trolling, left a nearly identical vote at the other RfA. I have left a message on their talk page explaining how the community feels about people screwing around with RfAs. If they keep it up I am sure they will be blocked. <b style="color:Chocolate">HighInBC</b> 02:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * is there a way to topic ban this user from RfA? Again I do not see this user's edits being constructive here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It has happened more than once that a topic ban against RfA was decided at ANI for disruptive behaviour, though I think blocking is more likely if they continue. It tends to be the outcome with future seeing people who bring us Truth. <b style="color:Chocolate">HighInBC</b> 02:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The vote has been hatted and struck so I guess this can be hatted here. Yes the cards do lean in favor of blocking to those who disrupt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SC591 has since reverted the hatting and re-added his vote to the total. The last we need in an RfA is an edit-war. That said, I'd like for SC591 to respond here to the request for him to support his accusations, and barring that, remove his vote and remarks on his own. Same for Vesuvius Dogg. On a side note, perhaps an admin can clarify whether it's allowable to hat and remove people's comments and votes at RfA? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reported this user to ANI. It is acceptable to remove an obvious troll's vote per WP:IAR. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 03:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

— I don't dispute your right to call another user on his childish and irresponsible behaviour. But I question the wisdom of giving his rants a lot more publicity than they would have got, had he just been ignored.David Cannon (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I only did the same as others before me... or had you not noticed all the other similar threads on this page? So now you are "questioning the wisdom" of multiple editors. (Lemme guess... everybody is wrong but you?) I gave SC591 a chance to do the right thing... he didn't. And now it seems the "publicity" I created has lead to a well-deserved block. This is hopefully a learning experience for both SC591 and any others who might seek to booth disrupt the RfA process and smear another editor with their trolling nonsense. This can only improve the project. So considering the matter has been dealt with and this thread has since been closed, I suggest you let this go now and move on. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note from beyond
Out here in the real world, no one much cares whether BN passes 166/1/2 or 169/0/0. The sysop bit, by definition, only has two states. It's farcical to think an editor is going to be like "Oh, if the admin who blocked me had passed 169/0/0, I'd accept it and change my behavior, but since they only passed with 99% of the votes, I'm going to rant and rave." Fussing about outlier votes only gives them more credence than they deserve. NE Ent 03:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Whether their oppose makes any sense or not is entirely moot and can be safely, completely ignored. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with this, an oppose opinion can have a lot of weight if the support votes are all saying the same things. Oppose opinions that are trolling/disruptive should be hatted, and ignored. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but only partially. I think there may be times when it's important to address these oppose votes. For example, it was important for Beth Naught to get on the record that they were not a fresh start account. It was also important for the community to respond to the gender comments, to demonstrate that that type of nonsense is not acceptable. Other stuff, like fortune-telling through dead animals and the like, can certainly be ignored by users in general and are best left for admins to deal with, (if their willing.) - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can ignore, or you can hat, but you can't do both. There is no more powerful rebuke than wikt:deafening silence. Unfortunately it requires a setting aside of ego and a trust in one's fellow Wikipedians that they, too, will recognize the lack of quality of a comment without you pointing it out to them. NE Ent 13:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit - Unfortunately, some people view silence as implying the affirmative, or approval. But your point is taken, hopefully by many. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)