Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl

Post by IP editor
I literally just discovered this whole other--administrative--aspect or section of Wikipedia. I must admit that until now, I have taken this website and its entries for granted, as though it was some modern-day bible of knowledge, such that it's almost always accessible, and that each page is a source of wisdom and understanding revealed and inspired by the divine, and merely recorded by people so that it's collective information may be passed from one generation to the next. Anyways, I apologize for my divergence, and just want to say that this canidate's work not only speaks for itself and it's intellectual prowess, it signifies the author's just manifestation as, "Da Bomb". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2E01:6120:8C33:FFA9:4A5E:EC6C (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Question 23 by John Cline
I was bold and stepped in to strike question 23 by User:John_Cline. I'm not exactly sure what to make of it, but the sign-off strikes one as highly unusual and inappropriate - "Will you do this for me?" I have had my deep concerns about the nature of RfA questioning over the years - the quantity, the hypotheticals, the litmus tests, the push polling, the use of the space as a personal single-issue soapbox. Something like this really crosses into hazing ritual territory. I'm bringing it up here for discussion and comment. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 00:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been settled in the brief period between your strike and this comment: User talk:John Cline GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 00:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Q28 (on "supervote") covers of what I believe John_Cline wanted to ask. Deryck C. 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Xxanthippe's oppose
Oppose. Although I have had an issue with the candidate's behavior before [1], and have been in disagreement with her here, I don't regard those matters as serious. The candidate is an amazingly hard-working and conscientious editor, but what concerns me is the extent of her passionate dedication to the cause of women's editing of Wikipedia and her intention to remain concentrated on that area. Because of this zeal, I am not confident that she will be able to use the powers that would be granted to her as an administrator in the balanced and impartial way that other editors of women's topics and outside them will feel comfortable with. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is clear consensus that this !vote is in the worst possible taste and should not be counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 19:48, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are going to clerk RfA, at least sign your posts, old man. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Highly disappointed in this oppose vote that is baseless and shameful. -- Fuzheado &::124; Talk 10:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors are entitled to !vote as they wish. It won't affect the outcome, so why make a big deal about it? bd2412  T 14:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AAAD is the current codification of the myriad of historically asserted reasons !votes get struck. The appearance of trolling is one of them. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - I have no desire to deny a user a vote. I wanted to make clear that the line of thinking is troubling and unwelcome, and that we must defend each other. -- Fuzheado &::124; Talk 16:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? She handled that amazingly. And although she has zeal, I doubt that she would recreate a page unless she believes that there are more sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 10:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I must also express my dissatisfaction with you Xxanthippe, first pointing out why you don't like the candidate, then saying it doesn't matter, then trying to come up with a reasonable excuse for your oppose vote when it is pretty clearly because you don't like candidate. I personally doubt that any administrator is so devoid of humanity that they don't have a favorite topic/subject area, and it is not reasonable to hold that against someone when they are clearly fair and impartial when dealing with it. You obviously speak for yourself when you say 'other editors' because this RfA is a landslide SNOW in favor of the candidate, and some others have already touched upon what you have said, but voted support because it is not an issue. Dysklyver  11:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should applaud the transparency in Xxanthippe clarifying that a prior conflict exists. Samsara 14:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think MLG is the one that comes off badly in that talk page conversation, you're living on another planet. You jumped on her for three perfectly innocuous comments she made over the space of two years (you must have invested some effort in searching for them!), and she bent over backwards trying to be conciliatory towards you, when most editors would have told you to piss off and stop being such a hypocrite. –&::8239;Joe (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Highly irregular question - practically a veiled attempt at doxing. The vote is pure Schadenfreude. Typical of the kind of things that discourages editors of the right calibre from coming forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to jump on, but I'm seeing bad faith from you right from the start, Xxanthippe. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Following the same logic, the Irish should not edit articles about the Irish, nor an editor of one race write about that race, nor should cricket articles be edited by an aficionado of cricket. This oppose is invalid and should be stricken.  Kablammo (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . When I have this many experienced editors telling me I'm wrong about something, it's all but certain that I am. So I will gently suggest that you rethink your oppose and consider striking it. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples to back up your assertion that Megalibrarygirl can't adhere to NPOV? And in fact, MGL's response to Q8 only strengthens her case IMO - she acquitted Wikipedia very well in that interview and we should be proud to have her as an ambassador.    Dr Strauss   talk   13:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Appalling oppose reasoning. What a disgraceful stereotyping of one of the most dedicated editors we have! You could as well have written that you don't like the shape of her nose... Sorry but this is silly.  Lourdes  14:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Only "he who must not be named" would dare say that he doesn't like the shape of her nose. Just saying... - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I posit that what Xxanthippe calls the "cause of women's editing of Wikipedia" is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS effort. But of course, any expression of disagreement is met with vitriol by those who think themselves paragons of Wikipedia. Shame on all of you. Let your fellow editors disagree; chide them on their own talk page if you must. I find your lack of AGF/ virtue-signaling repulsive. Go write the encyclopedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As always, I admire your passionate dedication against human empathy.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "against"? Was that a typo? Samsara 07:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring my enormous disagreement about your opinion of women editing Wikipedia, what's the benefit of someone who disagrees with someone at an RfA taking it to that person's talk page vs. raising it here? In my experience, said discussions almost always happen on the RfA page; what's different now? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to be the devil's advocate and say that oppose may have a point. The candidate has long been involved in a particular part of the project, with an associated WikiProject, it constitutes pretty much all that they do here, and signal their intention to keep it so in the future. One might be hesitant to throw a mop over the walls of a walled garden without any effective control of what goes within; maybe notability rules are much more lax, for instance.
 * However, (1) that is not what the oppose says, because as written it is about the candidate's personality rather than the WikiProject/the area of edits, and (2) considering that WP:WPWIR is one of the largest WikiProjects, if not the largest, I would expect to see some evidence of the risk of the walled-garden problem. Said otherwise, the priors for a project to be lax on notability/NPOV/whatever are higher for WikiProject Faith Healing than for WIR, so basing one's decision on that requires more evidence for the latter. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously--"pretty much all that they do here", ? Did you see the list of GA articles, DYK articles, and created articles on her user page? If writing quality fucking content is "pretty much all that they do here", I think they're doing pretty good. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. My point was that the oppose, read with benevolent eyes, was a correct reasoning based on incorrect facts. Hence it made little sens to criticize the reasoning, when it was the facts that were faulty. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you vote oppose for an admin candidate who expressed a "passionate dedication" to articles on video games or military history? Can you provide an example of where you have voted in this manner or expressed similar concerns?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes to the distinction between passion and/or expertise on one side and "bias" on the other. We need passion and expertise to write well on any subject.  as such, anyone with enough interest to write on a topic will have some potential for bias, but that's why we write with the NPOV tone... motives are distinguishable from product.  To build on what others said elsewhere, of course those who are passionate about cricket should write about cricket and those with expertise about iguanas should be writing about iguanas. Seriously, I do not know anything much about cricket and you most certainly don't want me writing about it, even if I am free of bias... unless lack of interest is also a bias...) We have WP:INVOLVED to help guide us all.  Montanabw (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is to avoid bias. I'm willing to accept almost any type of oppose including I just don't like the person, but we cannot tolerate biases against groups of people especially gender bias. The vote should be struck. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an oppose that it is written to make it seem a logical argument, thanks to its (complex) clause structure. Taking a different perspective, it isn't. And considering the amount of negative responses that this has received, it has certainly riled enough people. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly oppose the idea of censoring votes that we do not agree with, and I think it is against the entire idea of asking the community for their opinion on an issue. The oppose vote was not particularly offensive or wrong... Especially considering the candidate is guaranteed admin-ship at this point, I think it's absurd to strike out such a vote. After all, RfA is INHERENTLY subjective, and censoring an opinion on the issue is very Orwellian and turns me off of the entire idea of public voting, and the fact that the only dissenter was 'teamed up on' by several experienced editors, and that an admin then struck out the vote. We should not make people feel like they cannot express their opinions, even if we don't agree with them. The oppose vote was not gender biased, it was saying that the candidate may not have a NPOV when it comes to a certain issue. I am actually disgusted by what just happened. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with censoring votes that we don't like either. I don't agree with the comments made by Xxanthippe but the comment wasn't that bad from a mechanical standpoint (ie. Not overt trolling). I've reverted the last attempt to strike out the comment until further discussion is made on striking the vote. Thanks. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying this as the first non-nominator to endorse, and I continue to support very strongly, but I think that it's time to let this oppose comment stand and to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do not think there is any point in striking opposes (unless they are from ineligible !voters). I am sure the closing 'crats will treat this oppose with as much respect as it deserves. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So if the oppose had been based on religion or race, that would be ok? Let's quote the reasoning above and make a substitution: "The candidate is an amazingly hard-working and conscientious editor, but what concerns me is the extent of her passionate dedication to the cause of jews' editing of Wikipedia and her intention to remain concentrated on that area. Because of this zeal, I am not confident that she will be able to use the powers that would be granted to her as an administrator in the balanced and impartial way that other editors of jewish topics and outside them will feel comfortable with."--I am One of Many (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck again per, , , et al. Clear consensus to strike, and the oppose is based entirely on gender-coded language. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your strike, and it is not because I agree with the oppose rationale. Wikipedia is not (or should not be) a "safe space" from opinions that offend editors. The antidote to opinions one dislikes is refutation, not censorship, and there has been no lack of refutation here. It was not a violation of WP:NPA and it was not hate speech. Putting a strike through it does not make it go away, nor does it affect how consensus will be evaluated. There is an obvious consensus to disagree with it, but there is not a clear consensus to strike it. Trust the crats to evaluate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the real issue here is that people feel like they have to protect Megalibrarygirl, as though she is incapable of reading negative things about herself. You do not need to come to her rescue, she is a well accomplished editor and can well manage her own affairs. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  01:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right, and I would add that part of being an administrator is being able to brush off negative comments about oneself if they are not constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * True; but that doesn't make RfA a Dress rehearsal for getting slagged off all the time. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  01:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It probably shouldn't be such a rehearsal, but the vast majority of RfAs actually are. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant that we can't justify someone getting abuse on the grounds that it is somehow character building! :)  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  01:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with that. But it did not rise to the level of a personal attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First, that's a large assumption, el cid. Check out meatball:defend each other. Second, I'm disappointed to see that opinion, Tryptofish. Striking a comment is not censorship; it's still there for all to read. Moreover, it's an explicitly gender-coded comment, as several others have noted. I'm surprised to see you implicitly endorsing it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was gender-coded, and I am neither implicitly nor explicitly endorsing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And the way to defend one another is by rebuttal, not by striking through. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to stress that I'm writing here with absolutely zero malice towards you personally. I do see where you're coming from. Still, I would argue that you are implicitly endorsing it, regardless of intent. The way to defending each other is by not letting an editor permanently tar an RfA just because of their gender. (I'd also disagree with moving this discussion to the talk page and letting the !vote stand there unchallenged, but I've probably taken enough actions in this RfA already. :-) ) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I explicitly endorse the right of that opinion to be expressed, yes. And it's not a large assumption, I just know for a fact that she does not need you or anyone else to comb through content before she sees it to make sure nothing is even slightly offensive. There was nothing which counted as vandalism or trolling or hate speech. It was just an ill-reasoned opinion. Which, he/she/they were entitled to hold. fact. Striking it explicitly states "this opinion is invalid because I do not agree with it." It IS censorship, and I am glad this was resolved in a reasonable and rational manner. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Revdel is censorship: striking is merely invalidation. Striking it implicitly states "the community does not consider this a valid oppose rationale", similar to "this candidate's signature is too long". Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not censorship. Striking a !vote does not remove it from a page, nor make it unreadable. The reasoning remains on the while making clear that gender-fueled opposes, explicit or coded, have no place in determining an editor's competence. Post-edit conflict: Or, what just said. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! And I have zero malice towards you, if that needs to be made clear. I get it, that this is an emotionally charged subject. And if anyone thinks that I'm endorsing it, then they ought to have a bit less confidence in their ability to read my mind. If I wanted to endorse it, I would have said so. Really, no Wikipedia editors were injured in the making of this RfA discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with you right up until your last sentence. We cannot assume that no "editors were injured." To declare that as fact would be unwise. Best. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why I used implicitly, as I don't think there's any intent to endorse. :-) And I agree with . I'm in no way worried that MLG will take the comment to heart, but this project has a gender gap for many reasons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood all along that that is why you used "implicitly". Let me try to clarify, then. I cannot stop someone from reading into my edit anything that they want. But that does not mean that they are right. I could – strictly hypothetically! – read into your arguments that you might condemn the African-American football players who take a knee during the anthem, because it hurts the feelings of some white people. Of course, I don't take that as actually implied, and I would be atrociously out-of-line if I did. But once you start silencing what other people say, instead of refuting them, you can't have it both ways. Anyone who read my edit as implicitly saying that probably didn't read my earlier "support" comment, and that same comment tells you where I stand on the gender gap. But even if it did not imply what my beliefs are, could it imply what the beliefs of the community are? Could the "failure" (my scare quotes) of the community to leave the comment struck-through somehow imply a hostile environment? Only to someone incapable of reading the many replies that the oppose generated. Now as for the injured editors, sheesh, lighten up. In no way do I condone an unsupportive or incivil environment, and I think my track record demonstrates that, and I do not want to underestimate the seriousness of the harm that subtle prejudice can do to the people who are its victims. There indeed would have been injury had no one rebutted the comment. But as for the "injury" caused simply by undoing the strike-through (and by someone else's subsequent move of the discussion to the talk page), I doubt that it was severe. If I'm incorrect about that, please come to my user talk page for some grief counseling. { --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood all along that that is why you used "implicitly". Let me try to clarify, then. I cannot stop someone from reading into my edit anything that they want. But that does not mean that they are right. I could – strictly hypothetically! – read into your arguments that you might condemn the African-American football players who take a knee during the anthem, because it hurts the feelings of some white people. Of course, I don't take that as actually implied, and I would be atrociously out-of-line if I did. But once you start silencing what other people say, instead of refuting them, you can't have it both ways. Anyone who read my edit as implicitly saying that probably didn't read my earlier "support" comment, and that same comment tells you where I stand on the gender gap. But even if it did not imply what my beliefs are, could it imply what the beliefs of the community are? Could the "failure" (my scare quotes) of the community to leave the comment struck-through somehow imply a hostile environment? Only to someone incapable of reading the many replies that the oppose generated. Now as for the injured editors, sheesh, lighten up. In no way do I condone an unsupportive or incivil environment, and I think my track record demonstrates that, and I do not want to underestimate the seriousness of the harm that subtle prejudice can do to the people who are its victims. There indeed would have been injury had no one rebutted the comment. But as for the "injury" caused simply by undoing the strike-through (and by someone else's subsequent move of the discussion to the talk page), I doubt that it was severe. If I'm incorrect about that, please come to my user talk page for some grief counseling. { --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about all of you, but, all I'm reading from Xxanthippe's oppose is WP:INVOLVED. The whole mind-reading exercise some (and I stress; some) have taken to above, and the excessive liberties with the !vote taken as well, are as unimpressive as the oppose. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * comment can we please remove these "18 editors have opposed" and rebuttal messages (220 editors are supporting, I'm pretty sure they all disagree with "Oppose")? While this editor might not have gone about it in quite the right way, I think it is reasonable to be allowed to question the NPOV of a user who is very singularly involved in a particular topic (in this case women's articles), and also engaged in primarily arguing for one side of deletion on those articles (keep). Quit hounding the guy for being brave enough to raise a (semi-)legitimate concern, especially given the very large cohort of support votes. (Note that I don't agree with his opinion; she does vote delete on ones that need deleting, she probably just focuses her efforts on ones that meet GNG and should be saved, skewing the statistics, and that is admirable) —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It's interesting that you don't see that question come up for editors interested in military history, video games, hurricanes, or any other topic I can think of. Isn't it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you would actually address the merits of Insertcleverphrasehere's point. If a candidate is known to be heavily involved in a particular topic (could be anything), and if this candidate also happens to have a reputation for usually !voting keep on AfDs related to this topic, I can see where somebody might be concerned that the candidate would have difficulty closing such AfDs in a neutral manner. While Insertcleverphrasehere has sufficiently explained why this candidate's AfD stats seem skewed, I think it is possible that the lone oppose !voter did not follow the same line of thought and therefore ended up in the oppose section. It could be that the !voter never had any malicious or sexist motives in casting that oppose, but we'll likely never know given the immediate rush to condemn the !voter without almost any effort being made to first assume good faith and to try to get the !voter to explain his position more clearly. Lepricavark (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand your point here. You're saying it's reasonable to question MLG's NPOV because she is very involved in working on articles about women and often argues to keep said articles in deletion discussions; then you say that she votes delete on the ones that need deleting. How is her behavior (working on articles in [topic area] and giving reasoned opinions on deletion discussions about articles in [topic area]) different from any other admin who is interested in a given subject? Should we remove the admin tools from admins who have a particular interest in improving certain subjects on the encyclopedia? If so, you should recommend The ed17 first. Can't keep him away from his battleships, and who knows what will happen if we let that kind of interest dominate our encyclopedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that Insertcleverphrasehere was saying that if an editor was known for !voting keep in AfDs related to that editor's favorite topic, it would be reasonable to wonder if that editor could be trusted to close such AfDs neutrally. He seems to be arguing that this was the oppose !voter's position, and it could be a legitimate concern if it actually applied to this candidate. However, Insertcleverphrasehere does not believe that it does apply in this instance, although he can understand why the oppose !voter might think it does. At any rate, the latter portion of your response is, at best, awfully close to strawman territory. Lepricavark (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lepricavark is correct here. I find the rationale to be a perfectly valid oppose reason, though I do not personally share Xxanthippe's concerns. I am actually far more concerned by the out-of-proportion dogpile that has occurred as a result of Xxanthippe's oppose.
 * @GorillaWarfare, the reason that a specific focus is a potential issue here has nothing to do with the subject itself, or about having an interest in a particular area of the wiki. It has to do with the candidate's apparent bias toward 'keeping' articles in the particular topic (just go have a glace at her AfD !votes. I (privately) had a similar concern during her initial RfA candidate poll and I did some digging. After reviewing the candidate's AfDs, I came to the conclusion that the apparent bias is due to the candidate focusing her efforts on those articles that are worth keeping and ignoring many others (also, many AfD'ed articles can be saved if you are willing to put in the work, and MLG clearly is willing to put in a lot of work to save articles). Another user might not come to the same conclusion that I did. I am willing to assume that Xxanthippe was referring to a similar concern (I think that the mistake was made in not being explicit, and leaving the door open for the inevitable sexism argument to surface. See Hanlon's Razor). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, the template appears to be broken, as I was not pinged as a result of you using it (I just came back by to check). Weird. My preferred method of pinging is to copy a name directly like GorillaWarfare, or else bury it as the first punctuation mark in my reply, like I did at the start of this message. (i.e. , ) —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that you've opposed Megalibrarygirl on the basis of her interest in women editing Wikipedia. You're quite right; after all, our established group of Wikipedia administrators certainly have never been interested in specific topic areas. Meanwhile, folks like myself, who have no particular topic area of interest, remain among the most productive and least controversial administrators. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is indeed trolling, then you've all fallen hook line and sinker for what the troll wanted. Seriously, this isn't going to derail the process and I'm sure that the 'crats are going to treat this opinion with all of the weight and gravitas that it deserves. Why the lengthy and pointless discussion? Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Because it's worth visibly standing up for folks who do good work when they are denigrated by other folks on Wikipedia, trolls or otherwise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, Xxanthippe has over 14,000 edits and has been here since 2006, so if they are just here to troll, they're certainly going for the long con. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you GorillaWarfare. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The whole point is, that  crap votes like  this are not  only  mean spirited, but  they  are part and parcel  of the reason  why potential  candidates of the right  calibre won't  come forward. I should know -  I've been canvassing for candidates for years but discretion does not  permit  me to  post  their emails, so  sorry, no  diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I know you're acting in good faith, but you don't think drawing so much attention to this sort of thing, rather than just ignoring it, isn't actually causing some of the noxiousness? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC).


 * (Assume you're replying to me and not Kudpung; ignore if I'm wrong). The noxiousness was introduced by the original comment, not by my response. I could have not responded (making no difference in its noxiousness), supported it (increasing its noxiousness) or spoken against it (decreasing its noxiousness). I chose to speak out because I don't believe that sexist comments should just be ignored and allowed to fester; that normalizes them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, mostly. I'm sorry, I just don't think the fact that we're having this discussion decreases the noxiousness at all (and yes, I'm aware of the irony of saying this given that this is my third post here).  What would have decreased the noxiousness would be the 'crats confirming that they attach zero weight to groundless "votes" like this one, thus reducing the value of making them in the first place.  My fingers are crossed that that is what we'll get. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC).


 * , it's actually quite difficult to moderate a situation like this. The 'crats won't do anything because there's nothing for them to do without taking some flak themselves and as long as they can be fairly sure that any action won't change the outcome, they  won't do anything either. In my mind however, this is a totally mean spirited vote, and Schadenfreude at seeing an otherwise immaculate run for the bit. It's borderline vandalism like sauntering down the street and throwing mud at someone's freshly hung out clean washing; the actual rationale for the vote was totally contrived. First they come in with a totally inappropriate question, and when that didn't shake the candidate, they thought up some other reason to oppose. While a lone vote like that isn't going to make any difference to the outcome, the community has the right to show their distaste. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to know what anyone else really thinks, but I think that it's entirely possible that the oppose was intended to simply be about "involved", even though an objective reading of it (I think) finds it deeply troubling. It is entirely appropriate to condemn it, but having condemned it, there was no need to symbolically strike it out. The overwhelming comments of condemnation from the community speak very loudly and clearly. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Some editors are concerned by the move of the discussion, we have to understand that the critical comments are not germane to the candidacy but instead the oppose voter (and/or vote), so it is right to discuss it elsewhere (which in this case, is this talk page). It is only right that we do not clutter the RfA further as we can easily discuss it here. Just my two cents. A passerby. -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 05:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is germane to the candidacy though – they're explaining why the oppose was baseless. I don't understand why this was moved. The heading of the section is "Discussion" and I'm sure Xxan expected his !vote would provoke some discussion. ( ?) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense, there is nothing objectively correct here. Xxanthippe, said what they felt was correct in their opinion, while it's justified to say ask them about why their opinion was such, you cannot say it's any more/less baseless. Also, please, please assume good-faith about an editor, any editor. -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 19:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree that these criticisms of the "Oppose" voter are going way too far. Personally, I often feel uncomfortable voting for people that have 100% support (not that it happens often) because I keep wondering how they can be so perfect as to remain friends with everyone. I'd much rather vote for someone with a couple of unjustified opposes. The opposer already knows he/she is in a minority - why not just forget about it now? Deb (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is further discussion of this situation on WT:RFA. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is further further discussion at Requests for adminship/RfC vote validity. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I read this oppose as that there is a concern the candidate will not act with impartiality on the topics she is interested in, so therefore a worry that the candidate will somehow come afoul of WP:INVOLVED. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved discussion about moving the discussion
This discussion was posted to the main page after the section above was moved here. It's kind of too meta to be on the main RFA page, and was messing up the formatting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Link to the discussion. As of this writing, approximately eighteen editors have opposed this oppose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point of having the discussion moved, and the fact that dissent by necessity goes against the majority opinion... ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  02:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually what Ed is attempting to point out succinctly (here and on the talk page) is that if freedom of expression dictates that Xxanthippe's oppose should not be struck, then the same applies to the following critical comments, which should not have been shifted to the talk page unilaterally, especially when the criticism to the oppose is wide and pervasive. That's the reason he has – rightly – mentioned the number of editors opposing the oppose.  Lourdes  05:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * uh, but again, a lot of people disagree with all dissents, as they are dissents. If there was no opposition it would not be a dissent, but a majority. Pointing out how many people disagree with a dissent seems generally counter-intuitive, and dissents should not be stricken on account of being unpopular. And doing so in fact leads to an environment where people do not feel free to express their opinions, lest they be disparaged, which is why the 'outrage' was properly transferred to the talk page. But whew, I'm getting too involved in this, my point is clear, congrats on the forthcoming adminship Megalibrary ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  06:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I would have, but decided on collapsing instead since we had quite something regarding the move of the discussion itself. Thanks, . -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Q24/25 struck?
, you struck the questions What areas would you consider yourself to be WP:INVOLVED in? and What is your opinion on WP:PORNBIO? asked by. I fail to see how these could be considered inappropriate. The asker does not appear to be a sockpuppet or blocked, and I can see no discussion of that striking. Was that a mistake, or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigraan (talk • contribs)
 * See the following post. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Striking questions 24 and 25
I have taken the initiative to strike questions 24 and 25 by User:Feminist diff. The first one is so terse and vague that one has to question its good faith as a serious question. The second one as constructed is wholly unrelated to the job of being an administrator and quite possibly ventures into being offensive and casts even more doubt about WP:AGF. I have brought them here for discussion. Thanks. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't seem particularly good questions to me but can't we leave it up to the candidate to decide whether she wishes to anwer them or not? They are supposed to be optional, after all. Also I do think 25 questions for one RfA is a little excessive.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unstruck for complete failure to AGF with a long-term editor. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please leave the questions alone - I echo Mr rnddude's concerns about the clerking occurring here being excessive. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Crap questions though. One would've hoped that a long-term editor would have a little more respect when asking questions to another long-term editor. In any case, the most telling response User:Megalibrarygirl can make to them is no response at all. With 230+ supports, and less than three days to go :) who needs em. &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The PORNBIO question has some relevance on this occassion as it is a feminist/women's issue, "women as sex objects", and, I'm guessing, PORNBIO's on Wikipedia are dominated by women., I might advise you to be more specific with the question though. Are you interested in what MLG thinks of the standards, what she thinks of having PORNBIOs on Wikipedia, or something else. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

25 questions and counting... on an RFA at (currently) 246-1.
The last 10 questions were asked *after* the tally was already 128-0. Questions will not change the result here. So why are people still asking them? Do they like the sound of their own voice? Just because, until the RFA is over, the candidate is more or less obligated to address everyone's particular hobby horse? My RFA was a lot more controversial, and I only got 19. I know why they're being answered (MLG appears to be kind and respectful), but why are they still being asked? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The number of questions, especially on an RfA that is certainly going to pass, is absolutely ridiculous. I believe it's the highest number of questions I've ever seen on an RfA. Any more will be pure trolling or deliberate attempts to maintain RfA as a horrible and broken process. is putting on a brave show, and probably doesn't realise that she is not obliged to answer a single one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hardly a record. fielded 26 questions back in March, on an RfA that also had only one oppose. As did  in June 2013, although she had a whopping three opposes. And  had 30 in an unsuccessful RfA in September 2015. My own had 22 questions.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You might consider piling on and asking this question: Would you consider a plethora of questions, especially in an RfA that seems almost certain to pass, is necessarily constructive?   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly  looks as there is a trend: the more successful or popular the candidate is, the more questions they  get. There is also  still  flagrant  flouting  of the max. 2 questions rule. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can think of two legitimate reasons why a non-controversial RfA would get a lot more questions that a controversial one. 1) With controversial RfAs editors' concerns about a candidates's capacity as an admin are already being addressed, when it's non-controversial and there's little to no opposition, people have to go digging deeper to ensure that there isn't something that has been missed. Meaning the additional questions might be prodding for potential issues or red flags. In Headbomb's case the red flags were raised in Q4 and Q8. So why bother going deeper. and/or 2) A non-controversial candidate can safely be assumed to have a wide breadth of wiki-knowledge or wiki-experience, otherwise they wouldn't have 200+ supporters, so somebody might ask a question on the basis that they'd value the candidate's opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I had 16 questions at my RfA three months ago, and was not bothered by them at all. I would have been happy to have answered another ten or more. Part of the job of being an administrator is answering tough questions, and this is an "open book" exam. There is no time limit other than seven days, and candidates are welcome to research and ponder before answering. Accordingly, I would oppose limiting the number of good faith questions, and would construe "good faith" quite broadly. Candidates are free to diplomatically decline to answer any question, and that is a skill worth cultivating. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The questions are not really an issue, as they are constrained to two per user and the clerks do monitor them.  I found most that I received posed interesting issues and made me think about things that I would be facing down the road. The rest still made me think about things I would be facing down the road.   Montanabw (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My unsuccessful RfA had 27 in April 2017. Seems to be a trend this year that there are a lot of RfA questions. I could argue that it's good that the candidates are getting asked questions and demonstrating knowledge. Sometimes people change their positions based on questions (like at HeadBomb 4). TonyBallioni's RfA is currently at 15 and still has enough time to get into the mid-20's as well. --  Dane talk  04:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already said this off-wiki, but I might as well repeat it here : This is a request for adminship, not An Audience with Megalibrarygirl. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually think it's nice to have "an audience with [almost certainly successful RfA candidate]". It's like a press conference where the incoming admin is certain to have an audience and people who want to ask questions can also have an audience. Part of an admin's duty is to engage other editors in discussion in difficult situations, so a press conference style RfA question round is useful. Deryck C. 14:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose #2
Oppose (for now) – I'm all for positive discrimination. However, when becoming an admin one would need to make multiple judgement calls each day: such decisions affect male and/or female editors. I'm not completely satisfied by the answer to Q24: I get the impression (probably subjective, so I might change my view) that if the candidate would need to make a judgement call between favouring something a female editor did and something a male editor did, that in that case there might be a slight (probably unconscious) advantage for the female editor's action. Positive discrimination should not play a role (nor conscious nor unconscious) when making an assessment that should be solely based on the quality of the edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about moving discussion moved to the talk page - section title Oppose #2. Reason; shitshow impending, discussion ending. I apologize to both Gamaliel and Thibbs for this. Note: I've done an unfortunate amount of clerking for this RfA; unstriking struck comments, questions, votes and moving threads to talk pages. It is apparently that hard to get some level of decorum in here that this needs to be done, not just by me, but my a number of other editors as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Moved to talk, because if you read that last comment, you'll see where the shitshow begins and respectful disputation ends. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad. Next time I'll say "please don't be sexist." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Ed, please stop. You're bordering on NPA, you're definitely deep into ABF territory, and you're not contributing anything useful by being so vitriolic. I don't agree with any of the opposition and keep thinking of ABF in regards to it myself. That said, saying you're disgusted by the sexism, the presence of which is not obvious without some quite grand assumptions, and then reducing it to stop being sexist is worse than saying nothing at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are the sexist opinions of the opposes worth of defending and being unstruck, but Ed's objection must be hidden on the talk page and met with your disapproval? If they get a soapbox why should he be denied one?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One more time; because the claims to sexism require quite grand assumptions of bad faith that are not obviously present in the !vote. The only way to reasonably conclude that either oppose !vote is actually sexist is to begin with the assumption that the person making them is being sexist. Vote 1 is an issue of INVOLVED and Vote 2 is an issue of unconscious bias. Neither of those are sexism unless you assume they are. The only way out of this situation is to not oppose in the first place. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone can make a sexist comment without being sexist, just as someone can make a sexist comment because they're a sexist. I don't know Francis; he could be next best friend material. But what I do know is that the argument he's advancing is deeply problematic. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : They can make a sexist comment without being a sexist, but, not without being sexist. The act of making a -ist comment, is being -ist. You're being racist, is not the same as you're a racist. I've also responded well below to your last comment to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * - I'm confused about your stance regarding "positive discrimination". You suggested in your first sentence that you were "all for" it, and then in your last sentence you suggested that it "should not play a role". To meet your approval, what kinds of positive discrimination should the candidate be engaging in and which kinds are you concerned that she will be? Could you clarify? -Thibbs (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote "Positive discrimination should not play a role (...) when [remainder of sentence]" (emphasis added) – sorry to hear that you got confused before reading a sentence to the end. IMHO, positive discrimination should be left at the door for any specific admin task. A bit simplified, e.g., you can go around and !vote "keep" for every woman biography that hits AfD. You can't go around as an admin closing them all on "keep". That's why their answer to Q22 seemed very much OK to me, but not their answer to Q24: "I define women's topics as anything involving women at all ..." is what tripped me, i.e., why would anyone want to make such distinction? So a man's biography would become a women's topic if a wife is mentioned in the "personal life" section? Seems like some sort of prejudice to me. When assessing an article (e.g., when as an admin closing an RfC on its talk page) I'd think it preferable when such distinctions wouldn't cross the admin's mind (e.g. when the RfC is precisely about whether the wife should be mentioned or not in the article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my confusion, but the meaning of "I'm all for positive discrimination" still somewhat escapes me. To use your simplified example, are you saying that you would be all for the candidate !voting to "keep" every woman biography that hits AfD? Or are you saying that you are only all for positive discrimination in such a case if the !voter was a non-admin? -Thibbs (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * !voting in an AfD is not a specific admin task (so whether an admin !votes or someone else that shouldn't make any difference). Closing an AfD is a specific admin task. As I said, the example was a bit simplified. I've encountered editors who in their AfD !vote argue that Wikipedia has a male bias, and for that reason a woman biography should be kept. Good positive discrimination, it might incite others to improve the article, find additional sources for it, etc. The admin who closes it should be above the "but this is a woman biography" argument, and decide on content (e.g. giving precedence to policy-based argumentation, where the distinction woman vs man biography doesn't appear afaik). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you ever expressed any concerns about unconscious gender bias in the decision making of male editors? Can you provide a link to where you have done so?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong question: I don't care (and mostly don't know) whether an editor showing a pro-male bias is themselves male or female. So, if the question is reformulated as "Have you ever expressed any concerns about unconscious pro-male bias?", then the answer is simple: yes, as it happens, two days ago, before I knew I was going to !vote here (...and indeed in that instance I didn't have a clue what would have been the gender of the editor showing the pro-male bias). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Link? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sexism in your vote disgusts me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You still haven't, as far as I can tell, acknowledged the possibility that you were wrong about the first !vote, perhaps because it's really hard to back down after immediately jumping to a conclusion that required such a harsh assumption of bad faith. Instead, you've made another massive assumption of bad faith that carries with it a blatant personal attack on the !voter. Haven't we already had enough angry mob pile-ons for one RfA? Lepricavark (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I look forward to you also calling out the harsh assumptions of bad faith made in the rationales of the oppose votes.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There were no harsh assumptions of bad faith in those rationales; only in the angry, irrational responses to those rationales. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to see where you think I was wrong in my comments on the first oppose vote. :-) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I clearly delineated that above. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no you have not. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't WP:ASPERSIONS written for this exact reason?--v/r - TP 01:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't  . I'm  with   on  this - his comment was a statement  of fact. We don't  do enought  to  systematically  smoke out  trolls and socks on RfA. We  don't  do  enough  to  thoroughly  shame those who  come to  disrupt otherwise immaculate  RfAs with  contrived oppose votes for pure Schadenfreude. People are of course entitled to  their vote but  not  when it  is in  deliberate mean spirit and and puposeful endeavour  to maintain RfA as  '...a horrible and broken process'  as claimed by  Wales a few years ago. On  an RfA like  this, if they  haven't got  anything  nice to  say, as their vote won't  change anything, they  should shut  up - research  shows that  they  themselves are not  angels. RfA  has been relatively free of this kind of nonsense since the two  major perpetrators were blocked or banned a couple of years ago -  why  does it  now have to  start  all  over again, ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted, I'll have to recall that the next time you run for Arbcom. If you want to make a case that Francis Schonken is a sexist troll, take it to WP:AN with suitable diffs demonstrating a behavioral problem.  Until then, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA compels you to keep accusations to yourself.  When you devolve to ad hominems as a legitimate form of debate, we lose all credibility.  Neither you nor The ed17 have demonstrated an ability to handle trolls with your comments here.--v/r - TP 03:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * His comment was a statement of personal opinion, not fact. There is a very clear difference and it could not be more obvious. I appreciate your long-term efforts to rid RfA of trolls and bad actors, but unfortunately you've developed the tendency to see all minority opposition as trolling and bad faith. In this case, it seems clear to me that you, and several others, are wrong. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm with Ed on this one. I was going to say that maybe Francis Schonken worded his oppose in a way that was easy to misinterpret, but after mulling over it for a few hours I really cannot see how it could be construed to not be a sexist comment. I don't think WP:ASPERSIONS applies to User:The ed17's comment here. WP:ASPERSIONS is meant to prevent folks from making accusations without evidence or reasonable cause. I think it's pretty clear that The ed17 was referring back to the text of Francis Schonken's oppose, so as far as I can see that requirement is met, because that strikes me as both evidence and reasonable cause for the accusations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Manning naming dispute had plenty of behaviors that some would call transphobic present in the discussion and that didn't stop Arbcom from topic banning no less than two editors because they were making accusations of transphobia in the wrong forum and without diffs.--v/r - TP 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand why you're bringing that up. If it's to imply a four-year-old arbitration decision is relevant here, I'd argue it's not. If it's to show some inconsistency in my judgment, you'd be better off looking at my involvement in that discussion and not an arbitration decision from before my time on the Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not to imply, it's to state a fact. We don't ignore Arbcom principals when they are inconvenient.  But, I digress.  My point is made and at this stage, how everyone here behaves, when they feel they'll get a free pass from the community because of the topic, is telling.--v/r - TP 19:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * - replied on your  talk  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, hope you're well. I understand that you've made your comment based on a purely subjective interpretation of what Megalibrarygirl said as a response to Q. 24 ("I get the impression (probably subjective, so I might change my view)..."). You've mentioned that quality of edits should guide actions of editors ("...making an assessment that should be solely based on the quality of the edits"), but you're opposing the candidate purely on your subjective assessment, rather than the quality of her edits. May I request you to support your subjective assessment with past diffs where you feel MLG has made such errors in judgements; may I additionally request you to strike your !vote if you're not able to provide the same? I am thankful to you for discussing your point of view with editors here. Warmly.  Lourdes  04:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Admins ( and ) and sitting arb, I'm going to profer an alternative explanation to you. Tell me if it seems reasonable, and if not, why not. GW, you in particular said that despite trying you couldn't construe it in any other way, so I'll be particularly interested in your view. The basis for the oppose is this; Francis believes that MLG will display an unconscious bias against male editors. Period. That's it. That's the whole reason for the oppose. This is not sexism in itself, this is, at worst, bad faith. These are two different issues. You'd have to present evidence supporting the idea that this is being done only because or motivated by the fact that MLG is a female for it to qualify for sexism. You have not done so beyond exclaiming "sexism". I'd posit that the issue here is women's editing which biases some towards thinking that somebody is an advocate for a position and not a neutral editor. Still not sexism as this applies to both male and female editors. I wouldn't want an advocate for x to preside as a judge over x. Who puts the adjudication powers on the prosecution or the defence? The comparisons to interests in history (for example) is absurd, unless, you're talking about a pro-[insert stance here], or a nationalistic editor. Now, I don't hold these concerns at all with MLG and think that ABFing is needed to come to the conclusions that the opposition have, however, I think the same is required of your comments (honestly, significantly more). More importantly, proposing that you're correct on this, you're not going to convince anybody they are wrong by acting in this attacking manner. Nobody is going to read your comments and think "Gee, maybe I was wrong here" and nobody who isn't fully in agreement with your view already is going to be convinced by your comments either. There's absolutely no value to any of your comments except patting each other on the backs for virtue signalling that you're against sexism. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not one of the people you addressed this to, but as someone who is very happy to see admins leading the way on this: calling out sexism, or any other prejudicial behaviour, making it clear that it isn't appropriate, is essential in building inclusive community norms. If people just let it pass, especially people in positions of authority (e.g. Wikipedia admins), that sends the message that sexism is okay in this community. And accusing an editor with an interest in women's biographies of being biased against male editors―when do you hear an editor who primarily edits articles about men (i.e. most of them) being accused of the opposite?―is most definitely sexist. Regardless of the tortuous semantic distinguish you have concocted above. So please, put the tired alt-right dog whistle away. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't concoted anything . That's how I read the oppose, that's how I've read the comments in response to it, and that's how I see it. Put your personal attacks away. I'm not right-leaning, let alone alt-right. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said that I cannot see how it could reasonably be construed as anything other than a sexist comment. It is of course possible that Francis Schonken based his oppose on MLG's clear history of poor judgment on gender-related topics that he not only failed to link to but that was also completely missed by the other 262 participants in the RfA. As for convincing people about the sexism thing, two points: I almost always disagree with the "more flies with honey" thing when it comes up in disagreements, and I'm not so much concerned with convincing people that sexism is bad as I am making sure it's clear that it's not welcome on this project. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not the accusations are based on evidence... does it? If I say "you're probably abusing the admin tools on a regular basis", do you automatically assume I'm making that accusation on the basis of you being a female admin? or on the basis that I'm assuming bad faith? Conversely, if you say "you're probably involved in anti-woman editing" (for example), should I assume you're making the accusation because I'm a male? or because you're assuming bad faith. I can understand the former if this is part of a repeat occurence, but, one-off it just seems more likely that you've decided to be a dick to me than it does that you have a beef with men. Should I construe any comment you make about a man, to be a comment about men? These are serious questions as I'm not really following the logic of the comment. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, the distinction I'm seeing between your position and my position can literally be summed up by; "he's suggesting MLG has a bias against men because MLG's a woman" (you), and, "he's suggesting she has a bias against men and that's not assuming good faith" (me). It's entirely possible that FS is being sexist, but, I have zero proof that this is the case outside of one comment he made about one candidate having one bias in one RfA who happens to be a female editor with a primary focus on women's topics. The connection between sexism and that comment there is so strenuous to me as to be a non-sequitur. Though I can understand fully how you get from his comment to sexism, that's easy enough to do. That's just my opinion. I don't know anything about "more flies with honey", either as I'm not familiar with the expression. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The above comment has been modified to add the word being between is and sexist and to remove: Outside of one comment he made about one candidate having one bias in one RfA who happens to be a female editor with a primary focus on women's topics. Reason for modification: Implies I agree that the comment is sexist. I do not. I was simply pointing to the sole piece of "evidence" presented to make a significant value judgement. I can elaborate on this further if requested, but, the comment is long as it is. Time of modification: 17:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you'll re-read the comments above, has made a distinction between Francis' comment, which is sexist, and Francis. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh sorry . I'm revising my comment on re-read. I've said one thing that implies something different to what I do meant, and added the word "being" between is and sexist. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mr rnddude, I think maybe your sexism detection threshold is set too high. You insist that imputing sexism in Xxanthippe's oppose is "mind-reading", and seeing it in Francis Schonken's "require[s] quite grand assumptions", further saying that "[t]he connection between sexism and that comment there is so strenuous to me as to be a non-sequitur". Yet many other editors here read the comments as sexist. You have made comments in the past that seemed sexist to me (1, 2), which doubtless you would construe as not being sexist. I'd prefer not to speculate on your own unconscious biases, but I'd kindly encourage you to take a moment to self-reflect, and consider that even though GW's, Kudpung's, Gamaliel's, The ed17's et al reasoning might not convince you, you still might be wrong. I don't agree with Joe Roe's comment that you're choosing not to see sexism; I think you're unable to see it where others do. Warmly, Snuge purveyor (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible that it is set too high, but, I don't like to make assumptions that I can't show any evidence for. This is for me the distinction between AGF and ABF. Given a choice between assuming the worst possible malice (sexism) and the best possible malice (being a dick), I will generally choose the latter. The grand assumption I am referring to is that both comments are being made solely because MLG is female, which you could only know that by reading the editors' mind. I made a similar comment to FS's in my own oppose to Ivanvector's RfA (that is: I thought Ivanvector would be biased towards certain editors on the basis of outside factors; gender, race, etc), which you brought up in your first diff, and was directed at a male editor. With regards to the second diff, could you point me to the sexism? As far as I'm aware all I did was make statements of fact and suggest an alternate perspective to see it from. I do this when I am seeing people say things that make me think "wtf? how?". Actually that's why I'm asking you to point me to the sexism, give me your perspective. Seriously, if you have the time, please do. Here or on my talk page if you wish. I was rather unpleasant in re-affirming my oppose and I should apologize to Ivanvector for it. On the topic of being wrong, I have considered it, and of course I can be. The same is true of et al's reasoning. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason. It's also the crux of why I'm arguing with the admins and arbs above, they too could be wrong and it does not appear to me that this thought had ever crossed their minds. I didn't realize Joe was suggesting I was choosing to ignore it. You're indeed right, I don't see it. If I did see it, I'd call it out the same as everyone else. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I've considered whether I'm in the wrong. That's a pretty logical thing to do when people push back on your views. But subsequent reads of the original comments have not yielded any new revelations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not quite the same thing. There is absolutely no hint in any of your comments that you recognize that you could be wrong. That is, as of this moment, you could be completely wrong in anything or everything you've said. You speak with assuredness, there is no other alternative. If there were even a shred of doubt, you wouldn't make absolute judgements. You are absolutely sure that the comment is sexist. And what if it's not? Just hypothetically, what if it's not? What if, just for a second, FS is not discriminating against nor is prejudiced toward MLG on the basis of her being female. What if, her gender never factored into his comment. What if, his concerns were exactly as outlined, that she has an unconscious bias. Then what? That's why TP brought up ASPERSIONS; An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the "I'm all for positive discrimination" line (I don't believe in discrimination at all), but I honestly have had similar concerns to Francis and consider the rest of the oppose to be both reasonable and constructive. "Throwing the mop over into a walled garden" as it was put by someone else, is a reasonable concern. Question 24 also dissatisfied me; I personally think that anyone so involved in an obvious gender polarity should probably distance themselves from getting in involved in dishing out any gamergate-related discretionary sanctions, which is what I wanted to hear in her response to this question, and did not. However, I think that MLG will be a net positive and intends to use the mop for other stuff anyway, and I am also relatively satisfied by her answers to other questions, which is why I supported. But honestly I am not surprised that someone else opposed based on Q24, and I am also, sadly, not surprised by accusations of sexism as a result... —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Three points:
 * 1) Pre-empting admin misbehaviour where there is absolutely nothing in a candidate's history to suggest any, is total bad faith. Would you ban a motorist who always respects the speed limits, for going too fast just in case he might?
 * 2) Whether one labels it as 'sexist' or gives it any other terminology, it's a totally unacceptable gender related statement, and would be disapproved of anywhere else on Wiki.
 * 3) RfA has this sick tradition of being a  'horrible and broken process'  (Jimbo Wales) because it's the only venue where people are allowed to be totally disparaging and get away with it - and this is the very reason why even potential candidates of the right calibre won't come forward. Something has to be done about it, and at the moment the only thing we can do at the moment is speak up and shame the mean spirited participants. It's not ideal, obviously, but everything else we've tried has failed to get voters to clean up their act. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on points 1 and 3. Yes it is bad faith to just assume that somebody will misbehave on the basis that they hold a certain position or viewpoint. And yes, this is the only venue where people get away with these sorts of comments, but that's because its a venue specifically designed to discuss contributors and not content. Even the admin noticeboards have a higher standard in that discussion is supposed to be limited only to existing editor behaviour. RfA isn't. I don't see that it's gender related, unless you assume this stance only holds true with regards to women, in which case, it would be. I make no such assumptions and so run into no such problems. Take a moment to read this comment; it suggests that gender isn't the factor, perceived bias is. There's a right way and a wrong way to speak up against bad comments or !votes - in my opinion. The right way is to address the comment itself. The wrong way is to go at the contributor and "shame" them. That doesn't do anything. If your behaviour is worse (PA/ASP) than the behaviour you're addressing (ABF), then you'll just shift the focus onto yourself. I keep saying; I don't agree with the opposition and think it reads like bad faith. But, I agree even less with (some of) those opposing the opposition. Right now Lourdes is the only one displaying any level of decorum towards FS here, and though it's entirely possible they fully agree with you, they're being smart about their approach to it and not piling on abuse that detracts from the issue. What's the phrase here? Muddying the waters? I think. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ed isn't admitting he might be wrong because it's obvious. You say you're concerned about this user being treated fairly, but in this recent comment you actually concede in your second sentence that she holds a certain position of viewpoint. Therein lies the very problem. You acknowledge that it's bad faith to assume bias, but you're allowing the very premise that she holds a particular view. That's the problem. He accused, without evidence, someone of having an anti-male/pro-female bias, simply because she's a woman who writes about women, implying she's going to abuse the bit to conduct "positive discrimination". And then cites a diff where he points out an editor is female as evidence that he doesn't care about gender. The fact that you think the comment you linked to shows that it isn't a gender issue demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance on your part. It does you nor TP no credit to serve as apologists for this type of behavior, implying people who are calling out blatant sexism are casting aspersions without evidence, as if it should ever be reasonable or acceptable to express distrust towards an editor simply because she's a female. Really a poor show of you to be playing devil's advocate here. I advise you to pick your battles more carefully. S warm   ♠  12:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - to keep it short: a) I'm not playing devil's advocate, read my first comment here (in this section). b) I distrust this user cause she's a woman <- that's obvious sexism and no-one has said that. I distrust this user <- that's not obvious sexism, and three people have said that. I only agree so far as it being bad faith, not sexism. c) in your second sentence that she holds a certain position of viewpoint. Therein lies the very problem. You acknowledge that it's bad faith to assume bias, but you're allowing the very premise that she holds a particular view. Everybody has a viewpoint, what the actual fuck are you on about? and d) He accused, without evidence, someone of having an anti-male/pro-female bias, simply because she's a woman who writes about women <- wrong, just, plain wrong. He never, not once, said anything akin to it being because she's a woman or indicating that it was because she's a woman. In fact, not one person has said or indicated that. Find me where anyone here says anything even close to that, and I'd agree with you, and furthermore, I will personally denounce them myself, but, it isn't present in any of the comments that I've read. You're reading those words where they don't exist, or alternatively, imputing them yourself. On the one hand šah, on the other, I've had more than my fair share of comments here, so unless somebody explicitly needs me... buh-bye. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have a gender bias in Wikipedia. S warm   ♠  18:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahhh the ad hominem. Doesn't have an argument, so reverts to fallacy by attributing the issue to me. Bravo, maestro. You've given me nothing to think about and successfully wasted my time. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't some thought experiment, or exercise in rhetoric, where we logically duel in order to argue over some legitimate disagreement. The oppose was blatantly sexist, and we're all disgusted by it. Then we have you, fighting tooth and nail to defend/mitigate this user from the rightly-deserved outrage they've instigated. That is a problem. Any inkling of gender bias should be spoken out against, not justified by Wikilawyering or immature rhetorical maneuvering. Period. The fact that you're apparently just not seeing the problem that is obvious to all of us is actually concerning. I really don't know why you seem to be unable to comprehend why we're all so unbelievably outraged, but surely you have to understand how bad this looks on your part. Again, this isn't some content dispute with varying legitimate views, where we can just accept that you think differently. I suspect you've thoroughly discredited yourself in the eyes of many of us here, in defense of what is obvious to us as a manifestation of the gender bias that we all know plagues this project like a cancer. Stands like the one you've made against even speaking out are actually why the problem exists. This is a serious problem in the community and you've chosen the wrong side. S warm  ♠  03:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "... we're all ...": speak for yourself please, tx.
 * I found the talking above my (and more so above Megalibrarygirl's) head rather disturbing during the RfA, so ignored it then. You could have asked me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Swarm, I don't think you understand, I am not the only one who thinks you're wrong here. I've just had the most comments directed at me and replied to the most people. My comments present my view, disguised as a thought exercise to some extent to see if people can rethink their position. I found the behaviour of admins here more reprehensible than anyone elses. You may think its obvious, I don't. Ive made FS's exact comment about a male candidate at RfA (regarding bias and uneven treatment) nobody thought it was sexist then - two others went on to make similar comments as well and not a pip was heard. The only thing that's different here is the gender of the candidate. It was not a blind choice to defend FS here. I think you're patently wrong, the end. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your bad faith reasoning wasn't very helpful (while there was none, and none assumed), but at least you caught, correctly, that I had made no assumption whatsoever on the candidate's gender (would also not have made a difference). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. I did take note that a couple of other editors thought your concerns were reasonable. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggestion – maybe could amend their answer to Q24 a bit with a clarification? Doesn't seem impossible to make me change my mind. Like Mr rnddude seemed to say somewhere above, the display here thus far is however far from catching my attention in that respect. I intend what follows rather for Megalibrarygirl to make clear what sent a shiver down my spine when reading "I define women's topics as anything involving women at all ...": such approach would define Counter-Reformation as a Protestant topic – it isn't: Counter-Reformation is a topic relating to the Catholicism in the first place. I'd get the same shivers when someone would write that they define the Book of Psalms as a Christian topic, Klinefelter as a LGBTQ topic, Russia's foreign policies as an American topic, or American elections as a Russian topic. There's some overlap in each of these cases, but in none of them is the second topic covering the first topic entirely. The nature of such generalisations makes me apprehensive.
 * I have no problem with someone saying they'll only be editing Protestant topics. Maybe better if an editor came out of their comfort zone every once and awhile, but I can live with it that they say they'll stick to their comfort zone. It becomes a bit uneasy when they would for instance imply that Counter-Reformation "is" a Protestant topic in their view. That raises concerns whether they would be able to write neutrally in that area, for instance by giving too much weight to Protestant views on the Counter-Reformation. What I said in this paragraph is only about "editing" in topic area X, without being an admin.
 * Quality of admin work is often the best in topic areas in which the admin is least engaged. There's much admin work to be processed so I can live with the idea that admins may specialise in the area they're most familiar with. But some availability for the jobs no admin has a natural affinity with would be better imho, e.g. at WP:ANRFC there are always some entries listed that are tedious for any admin. In sum, some possible options where to take it from here may be:
 * Drop the awkward definition of women's topics, and make clear that this distinction doesn't matter much for you once outside unambiguous WiR topics (I had the idea that was what you were in fact trying to say, but that it somehow came out somewhat differently)
 * Keep the definition unmodified and commit to engaging in admin jobs completely outside your field of expertise every once and awhile: that would be much appreciated.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to respond to you again with what I think, without  being  accused again  of being  ungracious. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what said. But I will say that I think you're digging yourself a deeper hole, and that women's history is a thing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what said. But I will say that I think you're digging yourself a deeper hole, and that women's history is a thing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a rather silly dispute. For those that can't see where different editors are coming from probably should stop commenting.  Here's the 10,000 foot view.
 * 1. This RfA is going to pass.  There is not enough expressed concern to change it.  The candidate obviously is supported by the community and a SNOW close may be appropriate.  Opposing can be trolling and is best to ignore.
 * 2. The candidates interest in topics affecting women is not an issue.
 * 3. The candidates' expression of the topic area of interest is broad and vague as it relates to WP:INVOLVED. There are certainly topics/articles/content that are covered by WP:INVOLVED that are much narrower than the broad subject of articles relating, or of interest, to women.  Certainly, articles the candidate created or had disputes should not have administrative action taken by the candidate and they expressed it as editor conflicts.  It certainly isn't as broad as all topics relating to women nor is stating a wide article interest a way to circumvent WP:INVOLVED.  "I am interested in everything so I am involved in nothing" is not valid reasoning but by the same token, being INVOLVED in narrower categories may not be practical to list here.
 * 4. The question regarding "involved" is inherently daft as any competent candidate, like this candidate, just needs to academically repeat policy.  No admin is inherently WP:INVOLVED and decisions about it are case by case, first by the admin.  Scrupulous admins inherently understand the topics they are involved in and unscrupulous ones ignore it.  There is no test and each case is different. The presumption is that candidates are scrupulous and will not admin in topics they are involved.  Any answer beyond the academic is pointless and being offended by either the answer or the question is a waste of time and space. It is much like the legal axiom where INVOLVED is the law, candidate editing history is the facts, and anything else is just a lot of table banging.  Stop banging the table.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about this RfA. I'm worried about the next woman who thinks "I want to be an admin!," looks at this RfA, and decides that she doesn't want to deal with gender-fueled criticism. (Not all of us are public librarians used to gracefully disposing of offensive comments.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone is scared off by an RfA with a 264/3/0 tally, that individual is frankly not administrator material. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is as impeccably qualified as Megalibrarygirl. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - or as well known. But this sort of thing is certainly going to put well qualified female gnoming types off wanting to go through seven days of hell. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall that female candidates have frequently experienced opposition over gender–related issues. The issues raised in this RfA are unique to this candidate, and need not discourage others. Lepricavark (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with tally and everything to do with discrimination. It's unacceptable. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 02:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the editors who believe there is discrimination at play here. Lepricavark (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Discrimination is not only mentioned several times in this discussion, it's also literally mentioned twice in the oppose comment. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 23:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood you to mean that the candidate was a victim of discrimination, which I do not consider to be the case. Yes, discrimination may be mentioned in this discussion, but it should be apparent that I disagree with much of what has been said here, including the accusations hurled at the opposers. Lepricavark (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For me it's about the Peter principle ("... the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role"). So I tried to imagine how would function in their intended role. I fear this might be a promotion above their best level of performance. I fear this might all not work out the way it is intended, so also not doing Megalibrarygirl a favour. Currently Tatyana Divina has a PROD tag (see below). This edit by Megalibrarygirl makes me not too confident they would do what may be expected of them when wearing an admin cap. It feels like they are taking the "defeat" too serious (it might be meant tongue-in-cheek but the context does not seem to indicate that), and that might prevent them from proceeding with a delete of the article (if and when they were dealt the power to do so). Of course I can only "try to imagine" what it would be like if they were assigned admin powers (I can't prove anything because they don't have admin powers yet, do they?): that's the whole point of the Peter principle exercise. So I stand with my oppose !vote, based on a premonition of how this might turn out. BTW, current essays on RfA voting (Advice for RfA voters etc) might mention the Peter principle (might make us even eventually get rid of needing to repeat the 6-year old Jimbo quote on almost every such guidance page). How the candidate, bureaucrats or other editors react to this is not my decision, I can only try to explain it as good as I can. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "I tried to imagine how would function in their intended role", "I can only "try to imagine" what it would be like if they were assigned admin powers", "I can't prove anything because they don't have admin powers yet", "So I stand with my oppose !vote, based on a premonition of how this might turn out."... Francis, with no disrespect, is this the first time you're !voting in an Rfa? (as I said, I'm honestly curious and mean no disrespect).  Lourdes  09:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's say that until very recently I took Jimbo's "... broken process" adage for granted and never came here. No offence taken. That doesn't help Megalibrarygirl (nor the process for that matter). What did you think about my Peter principle approach? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The oppose presupposed that writing articles about women makes one "involved" when it comes to women, as though we're a special-interest group. But writing articles about men isn't even noticed, because men are viewed as the default. I believe that's what Megalibrarygirl was addressing in her answer to Q24. I think she was asking that women not be "othered". SarahSV (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "The oppose presupposed that writing articles about women makes one "involved" when it comes to women..." Err? Well, no, there's no such presupposition. Can't see where you got that either, but please explain. I do oppose ill-worded platitudes like "I define men's topics as anything involving men at all and since men make up about 1/2 of the human race, that makes for a very broad scope of topics!". Whether that's "men's topics" or "women's topics", it sounds equally bad to me. The only valid reason for the second variant would be affirmative action (...positive discrimination), but that should have been left at the door for specific admin tasks per what was answered in Q22. Reading the answer to Q24 I started to doubt whether that was really the case. I'd not support an RfA where the candidate wrote "I define men's topics as anything involving men at all..." (that would make even suffragette a men's topic while surely some men were involved) either, only, in that case, I suppose many more would feel the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The candidate could've said: "I'm equally interested in subjects where women's topics intersect with men's topics, and that makes a broad range of subjects". That would have avoided the awkward definition which tries to get it all under the women's topics umbrella (... which was the somewhat offensive part of that definition). Somewhat simplified: with the original definition Pierre Curie would've been a "women's topic"; with the proposed rewording I would have no problem with an admin holding that view closing an RfC on the topic whether that article should be merged in the Marie Curie article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * All said and done, mention of the Peter principle is quite the red herring .in this context Your participation is precisely the very reason why we keep needing to repeat the 6-year old Jimbo quote on almost every such guidance page. I don't understand your  motives in  wanting  to  maintain RfA as such an univiting  prospect  for  potential candidates of the right calibre, it seems to be counterproductive to me and IMO you need that guidance if you're going to take part in RfA again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, if we're going to advise Francis, it should also be noted that your assessment is not unanimous. I believe you spoke correctly in saying that you don't understand his motives, and I wish you would not have joined the rush to assume bad faith. Lepricavark (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose #3
Oppose. I am concerned that despite repeated entreaties for citations to independent sources here, the editor in question consistently failed to understand what a citation was. (Instead she provided deep links to database searches that she claimed required institutional subscriptions; but I do have an institutional subscription and her deep links persistently failed to work for me.) She decided instead to interpret these exasperated requests for citations as an attack on her good faith. I encountered a similar tactic here, wherein Megalibrarygirl did not seem to understand what an independent source was (i.e., an independent scientific assessment of individual significance). Since Megalibrarygirl has enjoined me to assume good faith on her part, I can only conclude that Megalibrarygirl doesn't know what either a citation or a source is. I find these especially troubling from someone who purports to be a librarian, and who claims to be a "good researcher". Since a good deal of what her presumed activities as an administrator will involve assessing citations and sources, I think Megalibrarygirl's lack of understanding of these two fundamental aspects of Wikipedia editing urge strongly against consideration for the tools of administration. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved to the talk page - section title Oppose #3. Reason; Discussion getting lengthy, talkpage move appropriate. Montanabw (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By contrast, consider Talk:Tatyana Divina. I hoped I could find some sources to save this article, but found nothing, so asked Megalibrarygirl. Her response was, "I have to admit defeat, Ritchie333 .... She does not seem to be notable. :(". So the PROD on the article stands. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that failing to appear on a search engine is a sufficient condition for a prod to stand. But, conversely, mere mention in articles indexed by a search engine does not consistent a sufficient condition for an article.  That requires citations to independent sources.  Megalibrarygirl apparently does not understand how to write citations, or what sources are.  She does know how to conduct a database query, I do not dispute.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in that discussion to indicate that this editor, who has a graduate degree in library science, has no idea what a citation is. It does indicate that you have no idea what a citation is, however, and it indicates you are unable to distinguish between a Google search and a citation to an article in Nature, one of the world's leading scientific journals.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel, would you consider this to be a "citation"? ""? Since the Nature sources is obviously an important one to you, perhaps you could elucidate the sense in which  this is a citation to that esteemed publication? (Hints: It's not even a url to the alleged paywalled article, and it cannot be viewed even with an institutional subscription.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the discussion you linked to, Megalibrarygirl already explained this to you at significant length. I will try to do so myself though I lack her reserves of tolerance and patience.  This is a link to a database which contains an article from Nature, a premiere scientific journal.  Since Nature is not an open access publication, it is necessary to use proprietary databases to read most of the contents of Nature.  Some editors will have access to these databases, others will not.  I do and I'm reading the article, which is called "Best gauge of exoplanet size", right now thanks to the link from Megalibrarygirl.  If you do not, that does not place any particular burden on Megalibrarygirl or disqualify this article as being used as a source according to Wikipedia policies.  Despite this, she took the time to patiently explain to you how you could access this article via a database account of your own from The Wikipedia Library and for her trouble you accused her in bad faith of fabricating the existence of a journal article.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this patronizing reply that completely misses the point. "This is a link to a database which contains an article from Nature, a premiere scientific journal."  Is it?  With my institutional subscriptions both to Nature and EBSCO, I am unable to retrieve anything resembling a citation to an article from that link.  Are you?  What about the Highbeam link?  Are you actually able to view that with an institutional subscription?  And why is it so damn hard for someone with a "graduate degree in library science" to write citations in a way that other editors can easily check?  (Or, that even other editors with institutional subscriptions can check?)  Folks seem to be so eager to defend this questionable use of deep links to databases, but I am very curious if anyone is actually able to check any of MLG's links in an AfD discussion.  I have extremely good library access, and I am unable to.  If no one is actually able to check these, then the practice of using such bare deep links in AfD discussions is highly problematic, and cuts directly against soundness of judgement, transparency, and technical competency required of someone in an administrative position.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the link didn't work for you, why didn't you ask for the title of the article? Instead, you replied by saying "," which is an almost comical lack of good faith on your part. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I had been asking for specific sources and citations. But MLG seemed only able to give links that lead to "Page not found", despite my having institutional access.  That is obviously a problem.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * She was trying to find a way, any way, for you to access the article. Unfortunately, that failed. It happens. But instead of asking for clarifying information that would have allowed you to try to find the article through your own ways, you saw blood and went on the attack. I refer again to your statement: "" After that astoundingly bad-faith accusation, you then later had the gall to accuse her of "petty sniping." I'd continue, but Megalibrarygirl already made my point in the AfD: "" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The practice of using deep links to databases that cannot be accessed by others with institutional subscriptions, despite pointing that out, is the problem here. My intemperate remarks are not.  I am not seeking to become an administrator; MLG is.  Let's focus on that practice.  Do you think it acceptable to use links that only you can access, and know full well that only you can access them, in a discussion about those sources?  How is hiding one's citations behind a paywall consistent with WP:V?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You have clearly never read WP:PAYWALL, even though it's part of WP:V, so I'll quote it for you: " Given a choice between a link to a paywalled source and no paywall at all, I'll take the former every time. And I would commend Megalibrarygirl for her effort in trying to get you access to that source, even as you essentially said that you refused to take her at her word. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you know the difference between a citation and a source? But just so we're clear: MLG was hiding citations behind paywalls, that could not be accessed by other editors with institutional subscriptions.  WP:PAYWALL is about paying for access to sources.  I'm talking here about paying for the right to know what the sources are at all.  And, furthermore, I did "pay" for access&mdash;through my institution.  The links she uses in support of her arguments are quite simply broken.  Hiding citations behind paywalls is completely incompatible with WP:V, and this is only aggravated by the fact that the links don't work even to someone with a subscription.  I'm gobsmacked that an editor doesn't think this is a problem.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I know the difference. But you yourself said "" in the AfD. (Much later, you said that this was just a "reasonable request" for a citation. Can't say it looks very reasonable to me.) And above, you said "" This was about a paywalled source and you dropping a savage attack, especially given her profession, instead of calmly asking for the additional information you needed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What paywalled source? I never saw a citation to a source, just a "Page not found" error.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I protest this unfair characterization of User:Megalibrarygirl in your voting rationale. I'm not asking for User:Sławomir Biały votes to be struck, but simply to provide context and balance to a very distorted representation. I examined the AfD as described, and what you fail to mention is:


 * 1) You accuse MLG of faking a reference to Nature which is completely baseless, even when she gave a hyperlink to the source. As it was paywalled, you said, "I am not even convinced that the alleged Nature article that you have presented as a secondary source even exists," even though MLG explained that you can access it via The Wikipedia Library project for free. You essentially weasel-worded calling her a liar and cheat. You then say without any justification that she was employing a "standard trick" in pushing back on your aggressive behavior, all while claiming you are "assuming good faith." No, this is the very definition of bad faith.
 * 2) You make the bizarre argument that the subject of the article, Sarah Ballard, needs to have the same level of sourcing and prominent coverage as a male Nobel Prize winner Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran. When MLG pointed out problems with this, you go on an extended illogical argument: "The sources you found are in no way comparable to a centennial article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, book chapters, and a Nobel Prize." It is not, and has never been, the standard in Wikipedia that every new biography must attain the same level of notability and sourcing as a Nobel Prize winner. If it was, we'd be 1/100th the size we are now.
 * It is against this backdrop that you appear to be intentionally daft in manufacturing an untruth, saying MLG, "failed to understand what a citation was." That is a blatant mischaracterization that should immediately discount your credibility. Your behavior at that AfD was reprehensible and it's hard to interpret this vote as anything but harboring a continuing animus towards this user. We don't strike votes here, but I ask that this comment be left to stand as a finding of fact, even if the resulting stream of comments is moved to the Talk page. Letting character assassinations like the above stay without comment is cancerous for this process and our community. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I ask that the above personal attack be redacted, and the editor warned if not blocked. This gross mischaracterizations of the AfD discussion, and my frustration at having to deal with MLG's belief that database search results with non-functioning links are the same thing as sources/citations.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was any (baseless) personal attack, it was you. My advise is to re-read the comments given to you above and disengage now. Alex ShihTalk 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1-2. Deep links to database searches are not sources or citations. This is not a citation to Nature, despite two editors apparently convinced that it is.  A citation has title, author, date, and page numbers.  Someone unable to produce citations, despite apparently needing to work with them in her administrative duties, and instead relying on deep links to databases that do not actually work (even for someone with institutional subscriptions) is a non-starter for me.  3.  Another editor suggested comparing the subject of Sarah Ballard to a Nobel winner, not me.  So this is simply a lie.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've worked with editors who use offline sources or sources I don't have direct access to lots of times. I've been able to interact with them and ask questions about the source without accusing them of fabrication, which is what you did. Given that paywalls and databases are restricted in access and make it difficult to provide links for that everyone can access, why did you believe it was more likely that the source was made up? <b style="font-family:Garamond; color:green">I JethroBT</b> drop me a line 21:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about access to sources. It's the citations.  MLG does not think it is necessary to say what her sources are in the first place.  Her (alleged) citations are frequently hidden behind a paywall.  My institutional membership delivers me to a "Page not found" error on all of her Highbeam/EBSCO links.  So... where is the citation to the source?  It's a bare link that leads nowhere.  Wikipedia is based on sources.  Database queries, whether behind a paywall or not, (especially ones that are not even functional) are not the same thing as sources.  Astonishingly, people in this discussion seem to think that they are.  I did not accuse her of fabrication, I merely said that I couldn't even verify the existence of the source because of her inability to provide a proper reference to it.  It wasn't my intention to accuse her of fabricating the source, but it sure seemed like she went out of her way to conceal the source's identity.  That was quite irksome, and most certainly incompatible with fundamental Wikipedia policies (WP:V).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings, . At the beginning of this RfA, I had read that entire AfD discussion and was actually in full agreement with ; walking away from that discussion, I was convinced that you were questioning the validity of sources that were not readily accessible, which I firmly believe are perfectly acceptable. It is only as I read through your comments here that I think I finally understand what your issue was: what you were looking for was the magazine's issue number, date, and page numbers so you could potentially go find the magazine yourself at your library or another source. I would not be shocked if Megalibrarygirl didn't understand your request either, as she kept providing a database search link in the hopes you could use that to find it. So I wouldn't necessarily blame it on her unwillingness to provide them; it could be (like me) she merely misunderstood what you were asking for.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi What you wrote is exactly what I think had happened. At the AfD, Megalibrarygirl wrote: Ballard is mentioned (not any other scientists) in different articles about astronomy and exoplanets here: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]" — These are not "citations" but raw links for a quick confirmation of fact in a discussion. Everybody knows that. Real citations have article titles and authors, not only dates and names of magazines which (incidentally) can also be drawn from the urls. External links like this "" (one among several good ones) are just external links, for God's sake. I have no idea what all the fuss was about. Wouldn't it be easier to just ask each other what they wanted? Ballard is obviously notable by our own standards.  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  05:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If raw links are "for quick confirmation", shouldn't they point somewhere other than a "Page not found" error, for someone with institutional access to EBSCO and HighBeam? This is setting aside the question of whether links to citations behind a paywall is a good idea for "quick confirmation" involving wider community involvement in a deletion discussion among editors who may not have ready access to these resources.  It shows a gross lack of good judgement to use such links, particularly when it is pointed out that they are broken (even for those with access!)  Hopefully this clarifies what "all the fuss was about".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not even convinced that the alleged Nature article that you have presented as a secondary source even exists is an accusation of fabrication. I don't know why you thought that was helpful or necessary to say that; it is a sure way to create a battleground. My read of this situation was that you incorrectly assumed the candidate was acting in bad faith, and it pretty deeply colored your understanding of the rest of her behavior and competence. That understanding has apparently not changed, and I am not convinced you have reviewed the rest of her contributions. You should consider reevaluating your understanding of this situation and your conclusions about the candidate overall, because they are not credible nor are they taken seriously. <b style="font-family:Garamond; color:green">I JethroBT</b> drop me a line 02:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, access to the database that Megalibrarygirl was using is freely available through The Wikipedia Library (see WP:EBSCO and WP:HighBeam). Alternately, sources from EBSCO are commonly requested and obtained simply by making a request at WP:RX. -Thibbs (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have access to EBSCO and HighBeam (as I said). Deep links to databases don't work.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Deep links to databases don't work if you aren't logged in to the database. Had you been logged in, the link offered by Megalibrarygirl to Nature that you found to be "broken" would have brought you to an abstract for the article she was citing with links to download the full-text version. -Thibbs (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So why didn't you just say "That link comes up with a 404 error, sorry"? Also, I can't help noticing that this is an article you originally wanted to delete, but then changed your mind. If you were arguing that an article was kept that you didn't think should have been, then you'd have had a fair point, but since that's not the case, this just seems to be a category 5 hurricane in an industrial-sized tea urn. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)