Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady

Orlady's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC) http://stable.toolserver.org/editcount/result?username=Orlady&projectname=enwiki (stats) and http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Orlady&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia (Logs) as of 10 April 2009:

Username: 	Orlady Project: 	enwiki Total edits: 	29,326 Groups: 	user, rollbacker Image uploads: 	11 (11 cur, 0 old) Distinct pages edited: 	9,281 Edits/page (avg): 	3.16 Edits/day (avg): 	17.32 Deleted edits: 	1,504 First edit: 	Aug 21, 2004 6:58 PM

Edits by namespace Article 	19437 	66.28% Talk 	2350 	8.01% User 	427 	1.46% User talk 	2473 	8.43% Wikipedia 	2009 	6.85% Wikipedia talk 	462 	1.58% Image 	86 	0.29% MediaWiki talk 	6 	0.02% Template 	707 	2.41% Template talk 	777 	2.65% Help talk 	3 	0.01% Category 	326 	1.11% Category talk 	8 	0.03% Portal 	253 	0.86% Portal talk 	2 	0.01%

Logs Pages moved: 531 Pages patrolled: 191 Files uploaded: 16

Top edited articles Article

* 300 - List_of_settlement_nicknames_in_the_United_States * 233 - List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning * 217 - List_of_colleges_and_universities_named_after_people * 169 - List_of_bow_tie_wearers * 144 - Purple_drank * 139 - Warren_National_University * 120 - New_Rochelle,_New_York * 105 - World_Wide_Association_of_Specialty_Programs_and_Schools * 95 - Knoxville,_Tennessee * 90 - List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning

Talk

* 85 - Warren_National_University * 78 - List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learni... * 75 - Warnborough_College * 45 - List_of_museums_in_the_United_States * 39 - Family_Foundation_School * 33 - Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill * 25 - St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine * 23 - Tennessee * 21 - Columbia_Pacific_University * 17 - Grace_Moore

User

* 141 - Orlady/Stuff_I'm_working_on * 47 - Orlady * 22 - Orlady/Useful_Wikipedia_stuff * 17 - TonyTheTiger/List_of_the_Day/voting/200803 * 14 - TonyTheTiger/List_of_the_Day/Nominees/200803 * 13 - Jvolkblum * 12 - Orlady/Stuff_I'm_working_on/NCPAC * 11 - AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult * 10 - TonyTheTiger/List_of_the_Day/voting/200802 * 9 - TonyTheTiger/List_of_the_Day/voting/200804

User talk

* 106 - Orlady * 26 - Doncram * 21 - Nyttend * 20 - Bms4880 * 18 - Dryamaka * 18 - DoxTxob * 12 - TonyTheTiger * 10 - 151.199.250.29   * 9 - 74.8.3.2    * 9 - Enric_Naval

Wikipedia

* 92 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 91 - Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum * 78 - Sockpuppet_investigations/Jvolkblum * 38 - Requests_for_adminship/Orlady * 35 - Requests_for_checkuser * 31 - Requested_moves * 27 - Categories_for_discussion/Speedy * 26 - Requests_for_page_protection * 24 - WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/N... * 24 - Administrators'_noticeboard

Wikipedia talk

* 113 - WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places * 58 - WikiProject_Tennessee * 53 - Did_you_know * 27 - WikiProject_Universities * 22 - Sockpuppet_investigations * 22 - Featured_list_candidates * 16 - WikiProject_U.S._counties * 14 - WikiProject_Cities * 11 - Categories_for_discussion * 9 - External_links

File

* 5 - Tennesseestateseallrg.png * 3 - Deroyal_splint-cropped.jpg * 3 - FirstPresbyterianChurchKnoxville1906LOC.jpg * 2 - Rickredfern.jpg * 2 - Schmidt-Nixon-Clark-Good.jpg * 2 - Georgeengleheart.jpg * 2 - Draught_of_the_Cherokee_Country.jpg * 2 - EABirge.jpeg * 2 - Deroyal_splint.jpg * 2 - EyeTestPoster.jpg

MediaWiki talk

* 6 - Spam-whitelist

Template

* 491 - Did_you_know/Next_update * 27 - Did_you_know/Next_next_update * 13 - New_Rochelle,_New_York * 6 - U.S._Belt_regions * 6 - Citation_broken * 5 - Cumberland_County,_Tennessee * 5 - Cheatham_County,_Tennessee * 5 - Tennessee_Valley_Authority_Facilities * 4 - Anderson_County,_Tennessee * 4 - Knox_County,_Tennessee

Template talk

* 735 - Did_you_know * 15 - Infobox_University * 8 - DYKsuggestion * 4 - Youth_Empowerment * 3 - Infobox_Law_enforcement_agency * 2 - Dmoz * 2 - Current_Speakers_of_U.S._state_Houses_of_Represent... * 2 - Convert * 2 - New_Rochelle,_New_York * 1 - University_of_Saskatchewan

Help talk

* 2 - Starting_a_new_page * 1 - Watching_pages

Category

* 7 - United_States_Census_Bureau_geography * 6 - Cemeteries_on_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places * 4 - Professional_certification * 4 - Tennessee_Association_of_Christian_Schools * 4 - Unincorporated_communities_in_Tennessee * 4 - Unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning * 3 - Learning_disabilities * 3 - Boarding_schools_in_Utah * 3 - Christian_universities_and_colleges * 3 - School_accreditors

Category talk

* 1 - People_from_Knoxville,_Tennessee * 1 - Bible_colleges * 1 - Universities_and_colleges_affiliated_with_the_Sout... * 1 - Urban_townships_in_Ohio * 1 - Archaeological_sites_in_Tennessee * 1 - Monongahela_National_Forest * 1 - George_Washington_and_Jefferson_National_Forests * 1 - Great_Smoky_Mountains_National_Park

Portal

* 21 - Tennessee/News * 12 - Tennessee/Selected_anniversaries/August * 11 - Tennessee * 10 - Tennessee/Intro * 9 - Tennessee/Selected_anniversaries/October * 9 - Tennessee/Selected_anniversaries/July * 9 - Tennessee/Selected_anniversaries/March * 9 - Tennessee/Selected_anniversaries/November * 8 - United_States/Related_portals * 8 - Tennessee/Selected_anniversaries/February

Portal talk

* 1 - Featured_content * 1 - Tennessee

AfDs

 * Articles for deletion/List of university and college band directors and conductors in the United States
 * Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)
 * Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York)
 * Articles for deletion/Ohio Wesleyan Sweetly and Strong
 * Articles for deletion/Antioch Baptist Bible College Institute and Seminary
 * Articles for deletion/Topper's Pizza (American restaurant)
 * Articles for deletion/Consumers of The Coca-Cola Company
 * Articles for deletion/Max H. Larson
 * Articles for deletion/Larkspur Elementary
 * Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Insights
 * Articles for deletion/Concert Guy
 * Articles for deletion/Institute of Nuclear Materials Management
 * Articles for deletion/Northeast Primary Elementary School
 * Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School
 * Articles for deletion/Flandreau Cemetery
 * Articles for deletion/List of future football stars
 * Articles for deletion/New Vision School ‎
 * Articles for deletion/Tariq Farid
 * Articles for deletion/Our Lady and St Margaret's
 * Articles for deletion/Lancaster Country Day School
 * Articles for deletion/List of wind turbine manufacturers
 * Articles for deletion/List of hispanic neighborhoods
 * Articles for deletion/Langtoft Primary School
 * Articles for deletion/List of abbreviations in the CIA World Factbook
 * Articles for deletion/College Scholarship Penalty
 * Articles for deletion/RMK Residential School
 * Articles for deletion/The Living Word Fellowship (4th nomination), *Articles for deletion/The Living Word Fellowship (3rd nomination), *Articles for deletion/The Living Word Fellowship (2nd nomination), *Articles for deletion/The Living Word Fellowship
 * Articles for deletion/Banksia Park International High School
 * Articles for deletion/Ivy plus (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of hobbies
 * Articles for deletion/Oak Bay Police Department (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of ice rinks in Australia
 * Articles for deletion/List of record labels (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series) and *Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (Online series)
 * Articles for deletion/University of California, Berkeley student admissions
 * Articles for deletion/List of people killed because they were transgender
 * Articles for deletion/Brodie's Little Brats
 * Articles for deletion/List of notable people who wore the bowler hat
 * Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination), *Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
 * Articles for deletion/New York United States Senate Election, 2012
 * Articles for deletion/Caylee Anthony disappearance
 * Articles for deletion/Brainerd Baptist School
 * Articles for deletion/The Windscale Fire
 * Articles for deletion/Southern Military Institute
 * Articles for deletion/London College of Spirituality
 * Articles for deletion/New Horizon Christian Academy
 * Articles for deletion/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts
 * Articles for deletion/Green Bay (town), Wisconsin
 * Articles for deletion/Steve McQueen (rat)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
 * Articles for deletion/College Square Mall
 * Articles for deletion/List of people of Indian origin to be featured on the cover page of Time magazine
 * Articles for deletion/Jana Van Voorhis
 * Articles for deletion/Bayberry, New York
 * Articles for deletion/Bristol Mall
 * Articles for deletion/William McCracken
 * Articles for deletion/Henry Barnard School
 * Articles for deletion/Fraterville, Tennessee
 * Articles for deletion/Palmer elementary school
 * Articles for deletion/Point Rock, NY
 * Articles for deletion/Starwood Preferred Guest
 * Articles for deletion/Hilton HHonors
 * Articles for deletion/LGBT rights in Tennessee
 * Articles for deletion/Teddy Harris
 * Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Washington by WIAA league alignment
 * Articles for deletion/George Van Horn Moseley, Jr.
 * Articles for deletion/List of elementary schools in the Peoria Unified School District
 * Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic missions in Hanoi
 * Articles for deletion/elc International school
 * Articles for deletion/Girard, OH Fire Department (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Alex Turner (slave)
 * Articles for deletion/Thomas Wm. Hamilton
 * Articles for deletion/List of municipal parks in the United States
 * Articles for deletion/Jim David Adkisson
 * Articles for deletion/Blountville Middle School
 * Articles for deletion/Bank Street (Manhattan)
 * Articles for deletion/Car shipping
 * Articles for deletion/Oulu International School
 * Articles for deletion/Yale Child Study Center
 * Articles for deletion/Independent Party of Connecticut
 * Articles for deletion/St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine 2
 * Articles for deletion/Kathryn Faughey
 * Articles for deletion/Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Castle, New Rochelle
 * Articles for deletion/Pensacola Christian Academy
 * Articles for deletion/List of homeschooled individuals (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Nicholas Mikel
 * Articles for deletion/New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York
 * Articles for deletion/Famous People With Allergies and Ashma
 * Articles for deletion/Landon Austin
 * Articles for deletion/Larry Woody
 * Articles for deletion/Accidental pedagogy
 * Articles for deletion/Megan Marshak
 * Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (second nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/A. C. Wharton
 * Articles for deletion/Tony Turner
 * Articles for deletion/Elan School

Above list is about one year's AfDs. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's oppose lengthy discussion
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose - From her comments at DYK, I have not seen anything to suggest that she respects standard consensus procedure, tradition within DYK, nor would I trust her having access to update the mainpage in any way, let alone having the ability to properly discern what could go on the mainpage especially in regards to fairness, appropriateness, or monitoring for articles with plagiarism. I will add other concerns for other areas shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Challenging traditions and standard procedure is hardly a reason to oppose in my opinion, but nonetheless can you provide some diffs to show us what you mean?  Flying Toaster  16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is clear that people are supposed to discuss major changes, instead of just ignoring years of precedent and acting unilaterally without going through the proper channels to discuss changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look closer at the New Rochelle, New York page, you see selective edits like this, which she reverts when nothing else is cited -in the lead- in any of the sections. As can be seen, the Dick Van Dyk Show is listed below, as with the rail road information. This act of reverting goes against WP:LEAD, which says that a Lead summarizes information in the article. This shows that she does not understand WP:LEAD or is edit warring. Edits like this brought on comments here about topic banning Orlady, which is troubling, and the issue was not particularly dealt with as the other matters brought up. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After skimming the WP:AN discussion you linked, I can only agree with the opposition votes to the proposal and to the outcome. The proposal of unblocking a prolific sock and topic banning Orlady seemed a particularly ill-planned one, as every person coming to the discussion pointed out.  I remain unworried about Orlady's potential performance as admin.   Flying  Toaster  16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing content from a lead that is used within the article is never acceptable, regardless of personal vendettas against blocked users who may or may not have added it. Damaging articles in the pursuit of an individual is never appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit you pointed out looks completely valid to me. The section she removed from the lead sounds like it was pulled straight from a promotional brochure. The first 2 sentences are copied verbatim in the article text and are uncited there. The 3rd sentence is dubious and doesn't summarize anything mentioned in the article text. And the fourth sentence just repeats a piece of trivia listed in the "New Rochelle in film, music, television and fiction" section. It seems like the lead would be better off without that content, IMO. Of course, under AGF circumstances (which I'm not sure were applicable in this case) it would be better to discuss removing such content on the talk page. Kaldari (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it" is not a valid excuse to remove text. Claiming that it is too "promotional" is not a valid excuse. Articles are not supposed to have only negative commentary. Furthermore, there are no peacock terms so it is hard to argue that it is promotional in any way. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Over zealous pursuit of a "sockpuppet" led to discussions like this in which she pursues deleting articles on subjects that are useful and can be notable. Note how many times DGG points out this fact in most of the AfD that she is a strong supporter in removing (1, 2, 3, etc). With the tools, how can we be guaranteed that she wont just start deleting them on her own, claiming "sockpuppet creation" and will never be seen as doing this? The damage potential to the encyclopedia is through the roof. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * excuse me for breaking in here, but since my opinion was mentioned, this may be the best place to say that for the 3 examples cited I do not think her comments unreasonable. DGG (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say you did, but I do think that looking back on all of the AfDs that all have the same trend, based on the same set of issues, and all have the same problems is troubling, especially if this user would have the power to enforce deletions or CSDs in such cases. Do we need more admin that will just have DRVs put up because they lack a strong understanding of our policies? I sure hope not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some more - "I never heard of it", not understanding copyright, "I see no point in allowing the article proponents any more time to establish notability", "Reluctant keep - I unsuccessfully prodded the article earlier. The article is dreadful", etc, all suggest that she wants pages removed because they aren't of a high enough "quality" or wants to get rid of them before they can be improved. This is not what AfD is for. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If nominating copyvios and cruft for deletion are Orlady's worst crimes, I don't understand why that would merit opposition to her adminship. If anything, it shows that she has an unrelenting drive to improve Wikipedia to a higher standard. Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That said, I'm curious about your other reason for opposing. What "comments at DYK" did Orlady make that were controversial? Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a bad understanding of AfD and deletion in general combined with an enthusiastic desire to pursue what the user feels is a sockpuppet and having these two areas merge in so many AfDs shows that the user has a major potential to start CSDing articles and avoiding the process in general and deleting valuable encyclopedic content. The user has not demonstrated the ability to have a NPOV and is too invested in their pursuit of the "sockpuppet" to be a third party in any of these dealings. The DYK comments suggest that the user was unwilling to hold consensus base discussions on changes at DYK. Lack of willingness to participate in consensus along with the above is an extremely dangerous combination. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A potentially damaging mistake with linking an IP to a user. Identifying an image as free when it was clearly not and deleted as unfree. Another quick to judge AfD. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This stuff has been flogged to death in the two weeks at WP:AN by Doncram and DoxTxob; their view of Orlady's role received no support from the 20+ experienced editors and admins commenting on the matter. To the contrary, there was a rising sense of exasperation with Doncram along with praise for Orlady's diligence.
 * First AN proposal to sanction Orlady -- 15+ editors commented with strong support for Orlady's position. Multiple checkusers confirmed her assessment of collective sockpuppetry as well as the individual cases cited in that discussion.
 * 2nd AN proposal, based on the notion that the first was "not much discussed" -- still more confirmation of Orlady's position.
 * As I noted to Doncram, the string of AfDs and other prior discussions about this stuff had already established consensus around these articles as well as supporting Orlady's handling.
 * Through this stuff, Orlady kept her cool as she always does -- a good example of just why she'd make a good admin.
 * There is a major difference between being blocked and/or topic banned and with being an admin where you could make damaging deletions and blocks in relationship to a topic that she is overly invested in. We have enough CoI admin and her actions make her completely untrustworthy. Her understanding of the deletion policies and copyright policies further removes any trust that can be invested in this user. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, these accusations you're making just don't add up. For example, your complaint of Orlady identifying an image as free is anything but that. She clearly states in that discussion that the image "may or may not be free." In fact she seems to be quite patient and diligent in explaining the potential licensing issues surrounding that particular image. I can't imagine any editor handling that situation more appropriately than she did. Most of the other examples look like differences of opinion or honest mistakes that Orlady later corrected. Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Base apologetics do a disservice to your nominee. She made a mistake just recently. She made a lot of mistakes just recently. She has not learned from them, and people like you are reinforcing these mistakes. Thus, she has a major potential of forcing more DRV and taking valuable time away from the encyclopedia. This is a major net loss. Wikipedia does not need more admin to walk behind and clean up their mess. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Orlady opposed your own failed RfA just a week ago, commenting negatively on your own behaviour at DYK discussions. Is there a connection between these two RfAs? -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only that we had contact with each other for 5 months at DYK. But, as you can see, Politizer/Rjanag and Gatoclass, along with some others, also show up to both. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it will make no difference in his opinions, but it occurs to me that Ottava Rima might be interested to know a few random things:
 * In connection with this AfD for Antioch Baptist Bible College, I researched the article topic and added the college's physical location to the article (which is now deleted, so you can't see this).
 * In the AfD for Atomic Energy Insights, my "never heard of it" comment was a parenthetical addition to my statement about my efforts to find third-party coverage. I do know that "never heard of it" is not a basis for a deletion decision, but I live and work in a community where atomic energy is the main local industry, so I have valid reasons to wonder about the notability of an atomic energy news source that I've never heard of.
 * The main reason that Tariq Farid survived this AfD is that I found reliable sources that established the subject's notability, and I thoroughly rewrote the article. My peculiar "reluctant keep" comment related to the fact that the original article was a dreadful piece of self-advertisement (blatant spam), and I was a annoyed with myself for having gone to the trouble of saving it. --Orlady (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Other concerning AFDs
These are the AFDs that concerned me (and why). The reasons might not concern everyone, but I see AFDs as a way to understand how people think of our inclusion guidelines and our fundamental encyclopedic policies.


 * Articles for deletion/Our Lady and St Margaret's: Starts off saying the source is uncited. Then it is revealed that it had a cite. If she would have researched before responding, she could have possibly found a citation on her own or new citations on her own.
 * Articles for deletion/List of university and college band directors and conductors in the United States: Argues "incomplete" as a deletion reason, which is not a legitimate reason.
 * Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver (2nd_nomination) - Her rationale states that the subject made an interview on a major show, was part of a major show, and was reported in many newpapers, which is a support rationale and not a deletion rationale.
 * Articles for deletion/College Scholarship Penalty: Her rational mentioning that there are problems with an article and original research is not a deletion rational but a statement that the page should be fixed. If a page can be fixed, it should not be deleted but instead fixed. AFD is not a means to force work on a page. Then there is a strange side argument about "US centric" articles, which has no bearing on AFD.
 * Articles for deletion/Ivy plus (2nd nomination): She claims that this is a neologism, but provides evidence that it was used by multiple sources and in multiple ways. Since it deals with the organization of colleges and how colleges are classified by each other, it is more than any random term, and the multiple sources show evidence for inclusion. They are allowed when there are secondary sources, which she admitted there were.
 * Articles for deletion/Oak Bay Police Department (2nd nomination): States to speedy delete and then convert to a redirect. There is no justification for a CSD and, if there was, you wouldn't perform one before a redirect in this case.
 * Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (Online series): Is where she argues that the series has no notability nor sources. She then admits that it is probably notable here Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series) when someone else provides sources, showing that she failed to look and see if there were sources to begin with.
 * Articles for deletion/New York United States Senate Election, 2012: She argues to stubify a standard WP:CRYSTAL delete.
 * Articles for deletion/New Horizon Christian Academy: Initially seeks to delete until someone else provides sources, which suggests that she did not bother to look for any sources herself.
 * Articles for deletion/Steve McQueen (rat): Inappropriately non-admin closes a page that is not one sided and redirects a page with a disambiguation marker which is inappropriate.

There are others, as I listed elsewhere and I stopped before going too far back into it all. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like much.


 * Regarding the first AfD listed above, the citation was invisible since the article lacked a references section. That was an honest mistake.
 * Regarding the second, she didn't say that, she said she agreed with a previous editor's rationale for deletion, and added that statement as a sidenote.
 * Regarding the third, her rationale stated that doing an interview on a major show, being reported in a newspaper, and making an appearance on a reality TV show was not sufficient for notability, as per the Entertainers section of WP:BIO.
 * Regarding the fourth, she voted to delete or "possibly userfy" if the article's original research and how-to guide tone could be fixed.
 * Regarding the fifth, she voted to delete because its meaning was "indeterminate," and the sources she provided were to show how the term was used for entirely different subjects.
 * Regarding the sixth, she suggested the same course of action as the other voters, she merely added the useless first step of a speedy delete. The end would have been the same.
 * Regarding the seventh, she requested an article about a YouTube series be deleted, since it provided only secondary sources on YouTube. There were no 3rd party sources when she requested the first AfD.  THEN a New York-area paper ran a report on the series, thus giving it the necessary 3rd-party coverage.  Thus when the article came for deletion a second time, Orlady changed her vote to neutral.  There were no sources for her to find the first time around.
 * Regarding the eighth, this isn't an obvious crystal, it's a debateable crystal, since it's an event that will take place and preparation for it had begun.
 * Regarding the ninth, she voted "weak delete" in lieu of a 3rd party source, and when another user provided a source buried in a local newspaper's web edition, she changed her vote appropriately.
 * Regarding the tenth, the "damage" is that anyone searching for "steve mcqeen (rat)" will be redirected to the series' page with information on this character.
 * - Bms4880 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not thread comments that are unthreaded and not broken up on purpose. This goes against talk page guidelines which state not to edit people's comments. Your statements above show very little understanding of the AFD process. You have to research and see if something is notable first. She has not done this. Then you make claims like an obvious future event is not crystal, when the statement is very clear as to this being 100% the definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm not supporting this candidate, I see very little in here that's problematic other than not searching before !voting. That's troubling, but also so common that it would be a very high standard to hold an admin candidate to. Most of the other issues you raised look like reasonable positions/actions (even when at odds with my personal views)Hobit (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Formatting
I just added an "Addendum" to respond to requests for examples, but this messed up numbering of oppose votes. Perhaps this is me repeating the same formatting mistake that Deskana already referred to. I would be grateful if someone would fix the formatting. Thanks. doncram (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was fixed. It appears to me that the problem was a couple blank lines / extra return characters which i had used to separate my comments. Thanks. doncram (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved comments to Q10–10b

 * Comment Orlady refuses a request to clear her involvement in the sockpuppet case. doxTxob \ talk 05:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your categorical "request" was completely out of order:
 * AFAIK the logs used by checkuser are deleted after a few weeks, so it's probably not even technically possible now.
 * It borders on insanity to suggest a connection between Orlady, Director Magda (a user who made 5 very clumsy beginner's edits in January), and Special:Contributions/161.45.203.38 (an IP who attacked Orlady and vandalised two other pages). There is no motive, there are no commonalities, there is nothing but an attack from a sockpuppet.
 * Checkuser is a privacy intrusion and must not be run without good reason. Its use for fishing in the way you demand would be a step on a path parallel to that of Nazi Germany. (Sorry; you brought it up first.)
 * Orlady is in no position to authorise a privacy intrusion that affects someone who is clearly not herself (Director Magda). Certainly not based on an insane conspiracy theory. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The candidate has already refused to answer the question. These are questions for the candidate. This means that they should be answered by the candidate. As far as I can see your name is not mentioned in the question nor the answer, so if you do not mind, would you remove your answer on behalf of the candidate and apply your comments further down in the Oppose section? Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 06:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since DoxTxob seems to think responding immediately to his comments was improper, I moved them here. As they were a necessary response to his attempts to have the last word, insisting on his bizarre interpretation of events, I moved his conclusion that Orlady "refuses to clear" her involvement in the sockpuppet case. Orlady has already explained that the request is "unreasonable". It's also unreasonable for DoxTxob to dominate the questions section of this RfA with his unreasonable bad faith assumptions. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unreasonable" is not an argument, it is an opinon. If I say the Orlady's possible appointment as an admin is "unreasonable", would you accept that without any further comment or discussion? doxTxob \ talk 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unreasonable" is an opinion based on points 1, 3 and 4 above, to which you have yet to respond. I am not sure why Orlady herself hasn't brought them up in this detail, but there are good reasons not to talk too much about 1 (to prevent gaming), and 3 seems obvious.
 * There isn't much we can discuss about 1, but if you doubt it ask a checkuser. 2 is critical: A new user (let's assume good faith about this user, for the sake of the argument) accused Orlady of having left a hateful message against herself on her own talk page followed by two acts of vandalism against other users . Does this make sense? The user also accused her of operating a sockpuppet that made a series of clumsy edits starting with this one (look at the silly #REDIRECT before every external link). OK, it's possible that an established editor operates a sockpuppet for self-promotion or to dissociate their main identity from certain topics. But there is nothing to connect Orlady with these edits other than relative geographic proximity and an attack page that may well date from after the sockpuppet case. (For background you might also want to know that the Open Directory Project, where Orlady plays an important role, has an "Adult" section and that Orlady has enemies among adult webmasters.) Concerning 3, I withdraw everything but the first sentence, which is the key argument. But note that there is general practice not to use checkuser without compelling reasons, which I can't see here. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I want to point out that DoxTxob has:
 * Still not responded to these points, and
 * still not changed his disruptive behaviour / retracted his accusations. --Hans Adler (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My answers:

1 - What a pity that the logs are deleted so quickly and conviently. Is it "probably not" possible or is it "not" possible?

2 - You are probably right. But can we be sure? I did not demand any private date be made public but I requested an investigation on a prposed admin. Should a propsed admin not be scrutinized to make sure they are proper? I have a doubt on Orlady's integrity. I understand that private data can not be made public but the final result could have been presented here. It was not. So, if I am insane, would it not be better to prove that but just allege it?

3 - I was accused of sockpuppetry myself by user Deskana. That was just a few days ago and I wanted to have my name cleared of that accusation. In other words I have requested the check for myself. That still was not done. That is not a compelling reason either to perform a check to clear my integrity at my own request? The other sockpuppets were investigated quickly and "so called" proof was found. Why can I not ask for this in my own case to clear my name? I understand that private data can not be made public but the final result could have been presented here: e.g "doxTxob has been proven not to be a sockpuppet of anyone" I would have been very happy with that.

4 - Orlady was able to have a user checked based on "minor tweaking" of history related material or a far fetched idea that MagdaOakewoman does sound too similar to Orlady. Does that sound like a sane reason to you?

If you like to call an objection to an RfA "disruptive" that is your choice. My view of an RfA is to bring up concerns about the future admin to inform the community and enable them to make the right decision. I did not "accuse" Orlday, I asked for a clarification. There is a difference. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity, doxTxob \ talk 08:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your edit summary ("answer to the well hidden questions at the end of the talk page. this should take place at the RfA, not far down there in the corner below"): Have you won your 3-year old 13,000+ edits account in a lottery? By now you should really have learned that the interesting action on talk pages generally occurs at the end. Apart from that, I know that you have been aware of my objections because you told me you didn't want them in the place I first put them. So I moved them from the RfA page to this talk page; since Orlady subsequently restored them they are now in two positions, and you have continued to ignore them for days. It's extremely bad form no to respond to such a challenge.
 * 1 – See WP:CHECKUSER. If you want more detailed information (which I do not have; however, I believe I have seen checkuser requests for cases that were only about a month old failing because there was no usable information left) you must ask a checkuser privately. However, based on your recent conduct it seems likely that the checkuser will not trust you enough to give you more than an evasive answer. (By the way, the word "conveniently" really made me ask myself whether it makes any sense to answer you at all.)
 * 2 – a) The case against Orlady was the investigation, and it seems to have been done in the normal way, i.e. only using checkuser tools when the accusation is plausible. (Bold text at WP:CHECKUSER: "if you are requested to perform a check, always ask for the evidence of the user that a check is needed and appropriate, and confirm for yourself that there is indeed a valid basis that you can explain if needed".) b) You, Doncram and Orlady are probably right that you are not behind the Angelfire and Photobucket attack sites. But can we be sure? Supposed I suffered from ABF syndrome as you seem to do. Would I be justified in making a big scene? c) Here is a challenge: Go through all comments on the RfA page and here on the talk page. Find a single comment by anyone other than yourself that indicates that anybody other than yourself thinks an investigation is necessary.
 * 3 – No, it is not a compelling reason since the accusation was not credible. And AFAIK in the course of a checkuser investigation, checkusers come across private data about unrelated people. As a deliberately unlikely example, suppose Giano instead of editing from the UK as we all believe lives in the same town as you but keeps somewhat strange hours. Suppose also you have the same internet provider. Then a checkuser might unwillingly find out about Giano's secret. This kind of thing is why they are under an obligation to use the tools sparingly, even when you ask yourself to be checkusered. Of course, by saying this I am making sure that whether a checkuser will follow your request now or not, it will fit into your conspiracy theory either way.
 * 4 – Yes, it it was a sane reason. The "Or" in "Orlady" is known to stand for "Oak Ridge", and "Oak Ridge Lady" > "Oake Woman" seems very plausible to me. "Director Magda" > "Magda" is obvious anyway. Looking at the contribution history, there can be no doubt at all that this account was created for the sole purpose of attacking Orlady and claiming she is identical with User:Director Magda. The minor tweaks were obviously just cover, to have a few more or less unrelated edits. (Although even the first edit mentions Orlady in the edit summary.) Since there was a prolific sockpuppeteer who fit into this and who had a motive, it was very plausible to add MagdaOakewoman to that case, ad Orlady did. Orlady's rationale was:
 * I just added MagdaOakewoman to this report. This user registered within the last hour, has a user name that appears to refer to my user name (compare "Oakewoman" to my user name "Orlady", which is short for "Oak Ridge lady") and has a total of four edits, all to pages that have nothing in common other than that I touched them recently (including re-inserting that image in Suburb). I can't imagine who but Jvolkblum would follow me around in that manner.
 * This makes a lot of sense. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)