Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sarahj2107: Difference between revisions

Sarahj2107

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (76/0/1); Scheduled to end 17:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Sarahj2107 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Sarahj2107 for the adminship role. I've been discussing this with Sarah for a few months now and I find her to be very calm and an exceptionally insightful editor. She is a fine content contributor having recently completed getting Shimna River to good article status and creating dozens of other articles. She also has extensive experience with WP:CSD and a solid record at WP:AFD as well. With over 12,000 edits, three solid years of activity and 69.2% of her edits are to article space, Sarah has proven that her goals here are to build an encyclopedia and not to partake in some sort of MMO. I find Sarah's temperament and demeanor to be polite, thoughtful, and collegial. A great example of Sarah's attitude can be seen right here where she calmly and respectfully discusses Wikipedia's policies to a new editor who was blocked for socking. Overall, I just think Sarah is an awesome Wikipedian and we'll be better served by giving her the bit. --v/r - TP 04:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Mr. Stradivarius

I remember noticing some of Sarah's edits back in March, and I was impressed enough with her work that I left her a barnstar. So I was very glad to learn that she was running for adminship, and I'm happy to add my co-nominination. I think that she would be an excellent administrator.

One thing that impressed me about her work was the breadth of her content contributions. Sarah is a scientist, and she is at home editing biological articles, whether that is adding content to articles on hormones[1][2] or creating new articles on animal species.[3][4] She also has an interest in Irish geography: she has brought Shimna River to Good Article status, and I found a few other gems in that topic area as well.[5][6] And she is not afraid to get stuck in editing almost any topic, as the list of her top edited pages will attest.

TParis mentioned her experience with CSD and PROD above, but he didn't link her CSD log or her PROD log, both of which show solid work in new page patrol (check the CSD log archives as well). I went through and checked her recent deleted contributions (admin-only link, sorry) as well, and all her tags look like sensible decisions in line with the deletion policies. A random check of her AfDs also showed a good understanding of policy, and a clear and drama-free style of commenting.

Speaking of being drama-free, I agree with TParis about her demeanour, and I encourage other editors to check out the island of calm that is her talk page. Her way of dealing with new editors is exemplary, and will stand her in good stead for adminship. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your nominations. I gladly accept. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I enjoy working at new page patrol and AfD, and I would like to expand my editing to include admin tasks in the same areas. So, dealing with CSD, prods, and closing at AfD. In particular I would like to help with the backlogs at CSD. Before working in any other admin areas I would need to make sure I know the relevant policies and guidelines really well and would then slowly ease my way into it until I am confidant of my abilities and judgement; although this is true of any admin work I would potentially do (at AfD for example, I would only close discussions with a clear consensus to start with).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My contributions are spread over a number of different areas and include quite a bit of gnoming type work but I am particularly proud of the Shimna River article. It was one of the first articles I created and it started as a one paragraph unsourced stub. After a lot of work, time spent researching and much appreciated help from other editors it is now a GA. There are also a few articles I have come across that were in need of help and I was happy with how I managed to improve them with some copyediting , for example Leptin, Palacio de Lecumberri, Historical inheritance systems (though I think that one still needs some work and I plan to go back to it eventually) and Migration inducting gene 7 (which I saved from deletion [7]).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I don’t think I have been involved in anything I would call a conflict but there have been times I have been in disagreements with other editors and situations that have caused me stress. In March 2012, not long after I started regularly editing and while I was still learning how things are done, I mistakenly tagged a foreign language article for speedy deletion as CSD A2. I then received a rather unpleasant message from the article creator and, mostly due to real life stresses, over reacted (basically rage quitting). It wasn’t my best moment but it was a valuable learning experience. I took some time to deal with my personal problems before I started editing again and now don’t edit when I’m in a bad mood or am already feeling stressed. I also try to walk away from situations when I feel I’m starting to lose my temper. I carefully reread the speedy deletion criteria before tagging any more pages and now feel I have a good understanding of them. I also always make sure to check the history and edit summaries of every article I come across because if I had spotted that editor’s summary I might have handled the situation differently.

Additional question from Jim Carter - Public

4. Hello Sarah, do you agree that "RfA is a broken process"? Thank you and all the best!

A:I definitely think there's room for improvement but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's broken. Unfortunately, given the history of this topic, any improvements that can be made to the process are likely to take a long time to reach any kind of consensus. I do think its important that whatever process we use in the future has the full support of the community or we are likely to just end up in the same place we are now, with people calling it broken. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from 68.199.60.112 19:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. As I went through your talk page history, I noticed you've been receiving disambiguation link notifications on a regular basis ever since you started editing. It makes me uneasy as it might be an indicator of sloppiness and unwillingness to double-check your contributions before hitting the Save button, even though you clearly know by now you have a knack of placing faulty internal links. What do you have to say about it? Should I be worried that you'll be equally sloppy in your admin work, or maybe just one specific area of it that you just won't be able to get right for some reason? It's the long-lasting pattern of repeating the same kind of mistake that really worries me; please address that in your answer.

A:I do quite a bit of work in the Category:Dead-end pages backlog so I add a lot of wikilinks. I always try to make sure they don't point to disambiguation pages but sometimes I will miss one. It's definitely something I have been trying to be more careful about though. I wouldn't say its due to sloppiness or unwillingness to double-check my work (I always use the preview button before saving) but just normal mistakes and forgetfulness that can happen to anyone. I really don't think this is anything anyone has to be concerned about with regards to admin work. I am generally quite a cautious person and would definitely be double checking everything and erring on the side of caution with any admin actions I would make. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use User:Anomie/linkclassifier so if I do add a link that goes to a dismb page, it immediately shows up as yellow and I know to fix it before that dreaded bot lands on my talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I notice you've added it today! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NSH002 let me know about it as well. I wish I had come across it sooner, it looks like it will be a big help. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information Mr/Ms IP, almost anyone who does much work on articles gets a few of these. If anything it reflects credit on the candidate not to have whitewashed her talk page in advance of the RfA: Noyster (talk), 10:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from TomStar81

6. What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

A:I'd give up my triple chocolate chip cookie...maybe. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Links for Sarahj2107: Sarahj2107 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sarahj2107 can be found here.

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom.--v/r - TP 17:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very glad to support. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Another good candidate. Jianhui67 ^T★C 17:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support I've had a quick browse through recent contributions and the spot checks seem fine. For example, she nominated The Islington for deletion. This is my kind of topic and I have saved quite a few but, in this case, I tend to agree with her finding. I am particularly pleased to see her pushing back banner tag clutter — "rm tags no longer needed" — as few editors seem to have the boldness or inclination to do so. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support No concerns so far and frankly there's a lot I like about this editor when I briefly reviewed some of their contributions. Mkdw^talk 19:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. A strong record, on my examination. Even when the AfDs don't go the candidate's way—perhaps one in every ten—she's still probably been right ([8]), even, perhaps, in the one example (and we're all allowed one) of swimming extremely against the tide ([9]). The AfD experience isn't extensive—perhaps only three to four contributions a month—but they're always thoughtful. Occasional but thoughtful is better than regular and thoughtless. We have had quite enough of the latter over the years. This was a good example of picking up a copyvio during an AfD. Sometimes these get missed if everyone is myopically focused on notability. As for the content creations, I had a good read of Shimna River, a solid contribution on a local but important topic that can't have been easy to write. My only quibble would be with the use of the source in footnote 33 to support the sentence immediately preceding the footnote. So: good luck. I suggest that on becoming an admin, and making the (significant) transition from tagging and !voting to deleting and closing, the candidate spend some time at deletion review. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. ///EuroCarGT 21:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support after a review of selected edits with an emphasis on discussions where we have overlapped. While this is a minor example in comparison to the comments noted by Mkativerata, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ude Jab Jab Zulfein Teri the candidate picked up a potential alternate spelling that had been previously missed. Missing such alternates is a common failure mode in a variety of topics outside of the Anglosphere, and I think this example provides a bit of additional evidence of what I believe to be the candidate's thoughtful approach at Wikipedia discussions. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Once again, another candidate that breezes through my criteria. —Biblioworm 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. I don't see any red-flags. Seems like a responsible editor doing mostly gnomish work. With your education and skill set, I suspect you could crank out a lot more good articles in your field. But...we need vandal fighting gnomes here as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support as co-nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Stephen 02:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. No material concerns. —Dark 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. 100% Support. An editor that can keep her cool shows that she is more then ready. Not only am I confident this will pass, but I am sure everyone will agree we need more admins that would care more about the project itself. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, I strongly believe that being "think skinned" is a must for being an admin. People are going to be upset and attack you for what you do sometimes but if you're patient, then those people will see it as futile and wind up respecting you. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16. Secret ^account 02:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. I was the reviewer for Shimna River, and it was a pleasure working with Sarahj. I can tell she has good horse sense when it comes to creating high quality content, and I especially am impressed with her conduct with editors unfamiliar with important policies on Wikipedia, like on having multiple accounts. Full support. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support: I see no red flags. Candidate has a friendly demeanour on her talk page. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - a perfect reply to Q4 which is practically alone worthy of my support ;) A polite reply to Q5 that IMO doesn’t deserve a reply at all - the anon who appears to have a lot of Wiki knowledge can't even be bothered to grace us with an IP signature, now if that isn’t ‘sloppiness’ itself... Indeed, such participation at RfA is one of the things that has contributed to RfA's bad name; so don't worry about the DABlink notifications, I get them all the time. With 85% accuracy, a really good overall performance at AfD. A mature individual who fully understands how to communicate with the most awkward of customers, she comes with a solid educational and professional background and has added a vast amount of new content, but at the same time is not too proud to stoop to the unenviable and thankless task of NPP which she has also been doing for a very long time par excellence . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Spot check of CSD/AFD work looks good, an excellent content creator, clueful and very WikiElf-ish. An outstanding candidate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support -- a check through contributions raises no obvious issues. Looks like an excellent choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. No issues whatsoever. AfD record well balanced. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. No issues. Solid noms.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Solid candidate, Great noms. Prefect answers, as already noted by Kudpung. Good AfD record, a good content creator and I'm impressed with her conduct with new editors. What else is needed? Jim Carter 10:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. No concerns picked up while browsing through contributions. Does janitor work, adds content, has been involved in AfD. Other than the incident she mentions in 2012, I'm not seeing any drama. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support per Kudpung, for some reason... Nick (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support good work at AFD and CSD and the dablink stuff has come about because the user has actually been adding content, which is another plus point. Valenciano (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support—After several spot checks of the candidate's contributions, I think she'll make for a no-drama admin. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - as FreeRangeFrog said, her CSD and AFD work looks great. I have no concerns about Sarah being an admin - and I think she'll be great. :) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Good answers, good nom statements, good and specific comments from supporters. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - all good. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - why not? Deb (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Looks like a solid and well rounded editor with no red flags. On a side I am pleased to see the recent stream of high quality AfD candidates after a bit of a drought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD candidate? I !vote "keep"! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

37. Support. I am very enthusiastic in supporting this candidate, and I'm surprised at myself for not having come across her editing work sooner. It's great to see someone who adds high quality content to science pages – nice work on Leptin! The answers to questions are thoughtful and articulate, and there's a solid track record of working with other editors without elevating drama. I think that link to the reply to the new editor who had socked is a textbook example of the right way to interact with other users. I'm really seeing no negatives at all (only, per your user page, I'm sorry that you didn't have a more enjoyable time in France)! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Although I've had no direct interaction with the candidate yet, what I've seen looks good and she is supported by editors I trust. Miniapolis 21:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Nothing much to add but answered the questions well. LS1979 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Extremely well-qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Looks like an excellent candidate for admin status.--TMD Talk Page. 23:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support --Greengreengreenred 00:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Will most likely be a nice addition to the group of admins. Olivier (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Looks good to me. Eeekster (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Knowledgeable, articulate candidate. Important science contributions. Good record in deletion discussions and nominations. Good demeanor and good interactions with others. Careful work. Spot checks and reviews by others above show no reason to oppose. Donner60 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - Everything looks good, and her answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Everything looks great! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support HalfGig talk 16:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Contributions show a well-rounded, knowledgeable editor who is as accomplished creating new articles as copy-editing other articles as initiating and participating in deletion discussions. I especially like that she posts personalized messages on some editor Talk pages instead of relying solely on twinkle messages, which to me shows patience and a willingness to help and engage other editors. Ca2james (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support If socks are coming after you, it's time you wield the ban hammer. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Looks just fine to me. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Big plus on being good with newcomers. Not only helpful to them but encouraging. That's the kind of admin we want to help represent the community. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Looks like a good solid contributor. I'm sure will become a great admin. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
57. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support -- wonderful content creator who clearly knows WP well enough to contribute w/ admin tools as well. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - the only minor concerns I had were comprehensively assuaged, such that I can happily register my support here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Thanks for volunteering. benmoore 09:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support per reasonable answer to question 6 :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support on balance. likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I'd never encountered Sarahj2107 before today, but having done a bit of digging, I like what I see; definitely the right sort of temperment for adminship in my book. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support As per TParis and Mr. Stradivarius a clear net postive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
66. Pleased to support. I'm particularly impressed with how this candidate deals with difficult editors. Thank you for volunteering. Townlake (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support, fine editor with a great attitude and knowledge of how WP works; I think she will make an excellent admin. Dreadstar ☥ 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support It is easy to support when we keep getting such good nominations. Chillum 20:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support You remind me of me during my RfA, but better. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Seems to have a firm grasp of policy basics, and will talk constructively to editors she encounters. Good to have another admin with knowledge on pharma topics: Noyster (talk), 12:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support A fine candidate from what I can see. Also because today I learned about User:Anomie/linkclassifier and now my Wikipedia is very colourful. Ivanvector (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Seems like great candidate. I noticed no reason to distrust the user as an admin. User interacts well with others and Good luck. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Good luck! Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Another worthy candidate, with strong contributions and good answers, nominated by respected editors for good reasons. Keep 'em coming! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support No evidence they abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 21:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Content creation, administrative duties, no reason to oppose so I support 'ya. Tutelary (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - Sarah has been known to push conspiracy nonsense through off-wiki action, and frequently removes content citing spurious reasons such as 'copyright violation' before pushing her own POV back in. Ryoko (c) 02:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like she had a good reason for citing copyright violation (and she did say "possible"). Eeekster (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Ryoko and welcome to Wikipedia (at least under this name, since 30 minutes). After checking the edits made by Sarahj2107 at Prabalgad, I cannot identify anyone having objected to her work there, after she had improved - more than a year ago - what was a seriously messy article. No comment on the talk page and no revert of her edits. But now that you have finally joined Wikipedia, I have no doubt that you will help improve this article. Finally, I would suggest WP:SOCK as a good read. Olivier (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm clearly borderline involved, can someone take care of the loud quacking in the room?--v/r - TP 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked Secret ^account 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is a sock or not, this is just one oppose. No enough to sway the the nomination so far. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. I find myself unwilling to support your candidacy at this time, but definitely unable to oppose. You are a terrific editor; with a fantastic temperament, and you have earned my respect and admiration. Nevertheless, I feel you are not yet ready for the rigors of adminship. And I'm concerned that you will be overwhelmed; trying to be the "nearly-perfect-admin" that so many have said with conviction: you appear destined to be. In all candor, while I've seen your great potential, I do not believe you are already great; nor are you well-served being told that you are, in lieu of how to improve – whether change is imperative or just a tried and true better way. Because you have stated an intention to work in deletions, specifically AFD and CSD, those are the areas I scrutinized most closely. I believe you have shown yourself to be fully competent regarding AFD, but there are aspects of your "CSD clue" that give me a bit of concern. I'm not asking you to allay my concerns at this time, just accept that I'm neutral, and perhaps "hit my talk page" when this RfA is finished, for more information. Good luck and best regards.—John Cline (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Your comment is a borderline personal attack. Either substantiate your claim regarding the candidate's alleged CSD cluelessness with diffs, or withdraw it. There's no acceptable third option. 95.88.164.160 (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I feel badly that my comment has so thoroughly confused you. I did strike through the "attacking prose", and linked a diff to ensure the comment is fully substantiated. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not the one that's confused here; by saying "there are aspects of your "CSD clue" that give me a bit of concern," you challenged Sarahj2107's competence in a crucial area. Your snarky refusal to provide relevant diffs with which to explain your unfavorable evaluation of the candidate's "CSD clue" leads me to believe your original comment was made in bad faith and thus I urge everyone to ignore it. 95.88.164.160 (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Your failure to put your username behind what you are saying leads me to believe your comments are made in bad faith and thus I urge everyone to ignore them. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Saying that someone is clueless when it comes to one of the most important aspects of every admin's work during that person's RfA without offering any diffs is unacceptable, John, and it tells us more about you than it tells us about the person you attack. 95.88.164.160 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Give it a break, I don't think anybody here but 95.88 read a personal attack in this. What I see is that John, compliments the candidate, but has some concerns regarding their CSD record and presents those concerns in a very respectful way. He never used the word "clueless" (and before you start lawyering again, yes, I know he used the word "clue"). End of story. --Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Roger that, Randykitty. Of all the examples of character assassination, score-settling, unsupported pile-ons, and otherwise misplaced focus on minutiae I have witnessed at RfAs, John Cline's "neutral" comment above does not even come close to a "personal attack" per WP:NPA. It is rational, respectful and even complimentary. Even as individual administrators and editors attempt to hold RfA commenters to a higher standard, we must allow for such "oppose" !votes and comments that are rational and respectful. To do otherwise is to attempt to silence all criticism, and that's no more a valid approach than overt character attacks. That being said, it would behoove all RfA participants to do their own homework regarding a candidate's contributions, interactions and history, rather than relying on the comments of a handful of other !voters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   The only difference between constructive criticism and personal attacks is the presence of relevant diffs. No diffs were offered here. 95.9.169.95 (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, my anonymous IP user friend, but you don't get it. Diffs are desirable, but not required. I have seen plenty of RfAs derailed with misused/misrepresented/mischaracterized diffs, and I've seen plenty of valid RfA comments that did not use nor require a single diff. BTW, we would all feel much better if you would log in for your next comment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   If you think it's appropriate to question someone's "CSD clue" in their RfA without providing any diffs then that's your thing I guess. We'll just have to agree to disagree as I'm tired of running in circles. 95.9.169.95 (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (for now, with a question) Moved to support - I'm inclined to support but I'd like some explanation for a couple of AFDs, given that's where the nominee plans to work. Overwhelmingly, your AFD record is a good one but there are a couple of red flags. I've decided to raise these here because I'd be perfectly satisfied with comments/answers from others and they aren't quite enough for me to oppose. In this AFD you were the only delete opinion (other than the nominator) in a snow keep discussion. This one is probably more concerning, firstly because of the confused initial opinion and second because of the subsequent reply which is riddled with grammar and spelling errors and is a plainly terrible argument (broadly, WP:OTHERSTUFF). Given your profession and articulate answers and comments elsewhere, I'm inclined to think those (the later especially) are anomalies after a drink or late at night. Can you put my mind at ease? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After having another look at this one, I would have to agree with your description of my comments. It was a while ago and I can't remember the reasoning behind it (it's extremely unlikely that I was drunk but I may have been tired or preoccupied with something else at the time; whatever the reason, I clearly shouldn't have been editing). If I was to come across this article now I would most likely vote! to delete. As for this one, I remember thinking very carefully about my response at the time and I believe I came to a valid policy based conclusion (I re-read a number of policies and guidelines at the time to make sure). There is always the possibility that people will interpret and apply guidelines and policies slightly differently leading to different opinions about what to do with an article (which is the reason discussion at AfD happens in the first place). In this case consensus was clearly against me but I am more than happy to accept the communities' clear decision to keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt and articulate answers. The answer to the first is reassuring (and we all have our off days) and the answer to the second is perfectly acceptable. Your advocacy for the right to a differing opinion is reassuring also, and your capacity to interpret when consensus is against you bodes well. Thank you for volunteering. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. This edit is a test by User:Ivanvector while logged out. I will self-revert if the system does not prevent me from saving. Apologies in advance. 199.119.233.211 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]