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

Final: (282/3/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 20:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl (talk · contribs) – Megalibrarygirl (Susan) seems to be able to work miracles. Her specialist subject is biographies of women, of which we have many, and it seems I can throw just about any article with a CSD or AfD tag on it in her direction, and it will be fixed. Her AfD stats over the past year, while impressive in themselves, don't tell the whole story - for many of the debates, she doesn't just vote "keep", she improves the article and fixes immediate problems so that everyone else votes "keep" as well. She is the living embodiment of the Heymann Standard. On top of that, her talk page is full of civil and polite replies to newcomers getting started and trying to get their writing skills off the ground, and is filled with barnstars from editors happy to have worked with her.

Now I'm not going to beat around the bush - Susan is a writer first and an admin second, and I hope that situation remains. However, there are enough appropriate tasks on the project, such as being able to restore and improve articles listed at WP:REFUND, or to reverse WP:G13 deletions of drafts, that there is a clean net positive in giving her the tools. We sometimes say "do I trust this editor with the delete button?" Well I trust this editor with the restore button. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first RfA co-nomination, and it is given with an unwavering confidence in Megalibrarygirl as our next Admin. I’ve known Sue on-wiki since her early months as an editor. Seems to me that she has always been a prolific content writer and I hope that continues after she receives the tools. Her forte is research; she’s a public librarian. A cursory review of her talkpage posts should make it evident that she’s kind towards all. She is helpful with newbies, taking them under her wing. She takes on new responsibilities like a true professional, and asks questions when in doubt. Some examples of her administrative roles at Women in Red include: (a) “Librarian-in-Residence” (b) MassMessaging coordinator, and (c ) recruitment coordinator (working with a new tool). She does a lot of work at AfD where her comments are well-reasoned. I’ve never seen Sue act in haste or be hot-headed. Off-wiki, she's a delight. I met her in Berlin where she represented WikiWomen's User Group at the 2016 Wikimedia Conference and participated in the Movement Strategy Direction sessions. Sue is adept with social media; she is one of the @wikiwomeninred Twitter admins. Given the tools, Megalibrarygirl will be appropriate with the ones she chooses to use. She has my Strongest Support and I’m asking you to consider offering the same. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Thank you, Ritchie333 and Rosiestep for your guidance and encouragement! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: It is important to me to aid the other adminstators on the Women in Red WikiProject. There are only a few very active administrators doing a lot of the heavy lifting behind the scenes. One of our major admins, Rosiestep, is also very active in other projects. We need more hands on deck. We are a very active project, doing both virtual and physical (real world) editathons. Being able to help with article moves is important. In addition, being able to grant user account permissions, such as "account creator" is important for our work with editathons. I am also interested in working with articles deleted through G13 criteria. This becomes very important in rescuing articles about notable women created during editathons that were not properly sourced by the author of the article.

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

A: Specific examples of articles rescued through WP HEY: User:Megalibrarygirl#Articles rescued from AfD through WP:HEY. My favorite is Alice Henson Ernst, who is a playwright with virtually no information available online, except that which was buried in databases. The AfD was withdrawn after I worked on it.

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've rarely had editing conflicts. However, when I do have interpersonal conflicts I try to remain firm, polite and impartial. I've started making sure I take time before replying in a situation that may become inflammatory. I am willing to admit my own mistakes and take ownership of them which I think helps in many situations.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Dane

4. Can you give an example of a situation where you made a mistake or had a conflict and how you recovered from it?

A: Hi Dane! I've made plenty of mistakes, but a recent one is a good example. I was reviewing an AfC submission, Anna Spitzmüller, and left a comment about it needing additional sources and told the writer to contact me if they needed help. I hoped they had more sources, because I wasn't turning up much on my own. The writer of the article came to my talk page and was very frustrated. They came from an academic background which views sources differently from Wikipedia standards and where original research is encouraged. I called two editors into the discussion who have helped me with articles written about people whose primary language isn't English and where the topic is academic. Their assessment of the article helped me make a decision to move the article out of draft space. (I often rely on people who know more than I do about various topics to make decisions where I lack their skill or knowledge.) However, the creator of the article was still frustrated. I felt terrible that I had provided someone with a negative experience on Wikipedia! Myself and the other editors tried to help the editor, but I feel that I may have turned off someone with a valuable background in non-English speaking women's bios from editing in the future. After thinking about this recently, I think I may be even more specific about how I word comments on AfC. I also think that it's important for me to realize that I can't always be successful. I went into the situation in good faith and I still mucked it up and that will happen to us all. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Steel1943

5. What is your extent of experience in the aspects of Wikipedia that do not pertain to article creation, improvement, or deletion? (Examples of non-article boards are WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI, any XfD board [not including WP:AFD], WP:ANI, etc.)

A: I don't have as much experience there, Steel1943. I'm much more invested in article creation and improvement. However, I have been more involved in the Teahouse, which I am really enjoying and I consider that a non-article board. I'd like to continue to do more of that kind of work on Wikipedia and help retain more editors. I've personally requested page protection for articles I've stumbled across that seemed as though they needed it for various reasons, and I'd like to be more active with RFPP. As for the other two you mentioned, AIV and SPI, I am interested in understanding how you know someone is a sock puppet, for example. I would be interested in helping out against vandalism, too. Basically, I'm very willing to help out where ever I may be needed and I will take the time to learn the ropes in new areas. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from SoWhy

6. Communication is one of the most important aspects of adminship. For many, myself included, this includes using edit summaries to communicate the changes you made. You only use them in 77% of all edits, including 79% of your last 150 major edits. Can you explain why? And would you be willing to change your approach here?

A: I think you are right, SoWhy: I do need to take the time to add more edit summaries more often. I have been trying to improve on that end over time. Many of my non-commented changes are in my own userspace where in the process of writing an article, I often don't explain the changes since I'm the only one looking at the article at the time. I have been making more of an effort to put in edit summaries when working on articles in the mainspace or other's drafts. However, as you point out there is a lot of room for improvement. I am absolutely willing to work on slowing myself down in the process of editing to write better edit summaries especially because it's truly a "best practice." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from DGG ( talk )

7 You write "to aid the other adminstators on the Women in Red WikiProject. There are only a few very active administrators doing a lot of the heavy lifting behind the scenes." To what extent are specialist administrators working on a particular project appropriate? Do you mean to imply that other administrators do not deal fairly with subjects in this area? If it is not that you are likely to give preferential treatment, why was the project mentioned? If it's only a question of advice and being able to answer questions, why is there a need for it to come from an admin? Otherwise, does it mean that you intend to give those working in this area special consideration? (I know questioning matters like this tends to be taboo around here, but I feel that is all he more reason why the question must be asked.)

A Hi DGG! This is an interesting question. We have two administrators who do a lot of the wikignoming. One is currently in school and another is often very busy in real life. This puts a burden on the two of them that I'd like to help out with. That's just my nature: I like to help. WikiProject Women in Red is an extremely active project that not only works on virtual editathons, but which also coordinates with "real world" editathons such as Art + Feminism and the recent Women's Art from the Collection of the Met. Since we have needs within the project, we'd like to continue to handle it "in house," which I feel is quite appropriate. It feels like "pestering" to ask people outside of the project to deal with WikiProject needs. However, if there was a conflict between editors in Women in Red, I think it would be best, however, to take THAT outside the WikiProject and get a neutral point of view. For example, I would not feel comfortable intervening between editors that I work with on a daily basis and have gotten to know very well. Many of the editors on Women in Red are well known to me through my interactions with them both online and having met many of them at the Wikimedia conference and other online training I've attended via Skype for editathons. The sort of admin tasks that I need to do are not interpersonal or personal, but behind the scenes clean up and so on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Xxanthippe

8. Question. Have you discussed the editing of Wikipedia on any forums outside Wikipedia? If so, could you give links to your discussions?

Drmies I appreciate your intervention, but I believe that Xxanthippe asked this in good faith and since I am not shy about my real life identity, I can answer it. I have certainly talked about the editing of Wikipedia on other forums outside of Wikipedia. Most recently, I was interviewed by WebJunction about editing on Wikipedia here and in addition, I recently took part their webinar about editing local and women's articles and using the library's sources for the WebJunction OCLC course on September 27 called WikiPedia + Libraries: Better Together. I also participated in the class forums and gave tips about how to edit and how to find sources. I attended Wikimedia Conference 2017 in Berlin where I discussed editing with the group in the Movement Strategy Track and learned new tips and ideas for being a better editor from the people I met. I have also discussed editing practices and how to help new editors in conjunction with real life editathons where I have spoken with people in real life and encouraged them to get involved in Wikipedia. I have participated in discussions at Wikiwomen's User Group and Wikipedia Library User Group. You can see my contributions on both easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your full and truthful response to the question. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Additional question from Tigraan

9. This is to some extent an extension of Q7, so feel free to answer it above if more convenient. In Q1 you mention the need for administrators to help with article moves, give the account creator flag, and refund G13'd articles. Could you tell why, exactly, an admin is needed for the first two? (Page moves can be done by non-admins, and you could presumably use Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator as needed.)

A: Hi Tigraan! We are gearing up to start some new portals for Women's history and being able to move the many pages involved would need administrative help. Sometimes during editathons people write about the same woman, being able to properly merge the articles and the history involved would be very useful there. An administrator must refund the G13'd articles, and I want to help with that, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I do not quite understand we are gearing up to start some new portals for Women's history and being able to move the many pages involved would need administrative help. Where would be which pages moved? I can imagine a few different things that this may be, but I do not want to hint to any answer, so please explain how exactly an administrator is needed here. (Something like "non-admins can do A, but we actually need the ability to do B".) Please assume I am very stupid and bluelink any Wikipedia vocabulary you use (from the above, I have a - maybe unjustified - feeling that you mix up merge and move).

Hi! Starting with the portals, as posted on WP:MOVE states that moving a portal may be done through request, but I want to be able to move the portal instead. I'm interested in this kind of work. Another good example of the problem with multiple editors working on the same biography is that you end up with two different drafts. This happened in 2015 to me. I worked up an article on User:Megalibrarygirl/Mariam Ghani only to find out that another user had already written the article at approximately the same time (Mariam Ghani.) Being a bit green about that sort of thing, I just contributed any information I found to the article directly. The userdraft still exists, as you can see and if I had known better, I would have made sure the articles were merged to preserve histories for both. This kind of duplication happens fairly often since during an editathon many people are using the same list of names and I'd like to be able to clean it up when it does. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Anoptimistix

10. Can you please explain the concept of History merge and how to perform it ?

A: Hi Anoptimistix! A history merge takes two articles that are to be merged and preserves the artifacts of creating both in the process. How I would perform it? I would first ask for help for the first time doing such a merge. I would reach out to an administrator and ask them to walk me through it, first. I don't like taking on any kind of technical task unless I'm sure I thoroughly understand how to do it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Anoptimistix

11. You have some good content contributions under your belt but this is also true that you don't have articles with GA or FA status (correct me if I'm wrong). Do you think a GA or a FA badge matters ? I personally don't think it matters, what is your opinion about it ?

A: Hi again! I do have a few Good Articles here that I worked on with other editors. I don't have any FA, though I did have several go to DYK. I think GA and FA status is important, especially in the case where there are so many articles about women, POC or people with disabilities that are not fully fleshed out on Wikipedia. There is a WikiProject devoted to that for women called Women in Green. However, I find there is more urgency to me in helping to rescue articles from deletion. Finding sources about women is one of the hardest tasks and many of these resources are "buried" behind paywalls. I'm able to access these databases behind paywalls and I want to use the resources I have to making sure notable women aren't accidentally deleted because they didn't turn up in a Google search. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from TonyBallioni

12. Hi, I've already very happily supported, and want to say thanks for volunteering for the bit :) I did want to followup on DGG's question. Can you give any examples where your work in WiR would have been made easier by having the admin toolset or where you think your having tools would be beneficial to that project?

A: Hi TonyBallioni! One thing that would be a lot easier in the editathon arena is in new editor retention. One of the biggest turn-offs that new users experience is having their articles deleted. They feel as if they are wasting their time. I would be able to userfy without leaving redirects for articles that aren't ready for mainspace. This way, new editors don't feel as though their contributions were for "nothing" and we can continue to coach them on notabilty standards. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from AlexEng

13. Could you comment on your understanding of WP:REVDEL and how/if you anticipate using this tool? Please describe a specific example of material you would deem appropriate to remove under each of criteria 2 and 3 of WP:CFRD.

A: Hi AlexEng! This tool is very important for keeping offensive, personal and disruptive material off of the site. I see the use of REVDEL to be especially useful in BLP edits that are harmful in some way. I think one of the most harmful types of information is the revelation of personal information without the consent of the person, especially in the case of women and transgender people who face doxxing and harassment on a regular basis online. I would be willing to use the tool to remove unwanted posting of personal information, harassment, slurs against BLP and editors. It seems that it is extremely important to use the tool first, in the case of Oversight, and then contact an oversighter after to review the use of the tool. For criteria 2 & 3 I would deem, as mentioned earlier in this question, offensive and personal material, malicious code and links to attack pages as valid reasons to use the tool. This is especially true in the case of offensive material that takes the form of bigotry of some kind: we want Wikipedia to be inclusive and feel like a safe place to work on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ecstatic Electrical

14. How would you respond to this personal essay of mine as a normal user? How would you respond to it as an admin, if your response would be different? —Ecstatic Electrical, 20:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Hello Ecstatic Electrical! My rule of thumb is to try to always Assume Good Faith (or try my best to do so). In reading this essay, I noticed a few things. I was able to page patrol it, because I was one of the first people to read it. I looked at your account and noticed that you've only been a user for one day and the essay is your only contribution. This is interesting, but may not be necessarily relevant. It's more important to deal with the content. This essay is partly about raising awareness of the fact that new users may in fact not be "new." This is something that many of us forget: that a lot of people start off by editing Wikipedia anonymously. In addition, though you don't address that, I feel that anonymous editors are often unfairly viewed with suspicion despite there being many valid reasons for maintaining anonymity. As for the section on vandalism, I am not very tolerant of vandalism, even if it's for the "lulz." Vandalism needs to be dealt with firmly and fairly. It is important to teach a new user, even if they are creating what is viewed as vandalism. However, making excuses for vandalism isn't very constructive. People need to understand how their behavior can be disruptive or they'll continue either making mistakes or taking the same action. I have less experience dealing with sock puppetry which I am very willing to admit. I am trying to learn more and several editors and admins have been very forthcoming in increasing my knowledge in this area. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: First of all, the comment that my essay is my only contribution is outright false - I’ve made many more contributions than that. I respect your opinions when it comes to vandalism, however the purpose of that section in the essay is to promote and encourage the gentle education of vandals before being harsh and firm on them. As noted in the essay, some vandals will just think it’s funny, and others won’t know better. Not all vandals are deliberately acting in bad faith.

You also say that you are not very experienced in sock puppetry, which is fine. However, consider this scenario, which incorporates points from the essay:

• User:Vandalism-only account is indefinitely blocked because, well.. they are a vandalism-only account (LOL).
• User:ThisIsASockpuppet creates an account and starts editing the exact same pages that Vandalism-only account targeted
• ThisIsASockpuppet is not vandalizing at all — rather they are making constructive contributions
• Imagine that the sock puppetry is obvious, even though the sock isn’t being disruptive

What action(s) would you, as an admin, take aganist the sock, if any? —Ecstatic Electrical, 23:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Ecstatic Electrical! I take your point that not all vandals are acting in bad faith. They are, however, disruptive no matter what their motives are and we need to address that. The Sock puppet questions are interesting, however, Wikipedia does state that deliberately socking is a "serious breach of community trust." I have no problem speaking to the editor about the rules. If someone is newly editing under a new name and they are a suspected sock, I think they should be confronted and have the rules explained. They need to disclose their other accounts. Even if a sock isn't disruptive, it's still against policy and is dishonest. As an admin I would confront the person with multiple accounts, make sure they understand the rules and attempt to coach them. Starting out new, I would call on other admins that I know deal with this more often. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you for your response. I just have one more follow-up to this before I will cast my vote. When you say that you would “confront” the user I hope that you would still assume good faith and do so politely. Based on the essay that I wrote, I created a template that I invite anyone to use for notifying suspected sock puppets without deliberately accusing them of intentional bad-faith actions. Would you use a template or other message (even if handwritten) with a similar tone to my template? —Ecstatic Electrical, 00:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecstatic Electrical: I would absolutely assume good faith. I think your template is excellent. It's firm and to the point without being negative or overbearing. I'd be happy to use your template or a similar one. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual for someone else to drop into an RfA question like I'm doing, but I just wanted to point out that we do have {{uw-agf-sock}} which is similar to the template you created. @Ecstatic Electrical: you may be interested in suggesting changes to it, or perhaps in WikiProject user warnings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For the record, User:Ecstatic Electrical was subsequently blocked for persistent disruptive editng elsewhere by Floquenbeam. — fortunavelut luna 15:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Mduvekot

15. As far as I can tell, you have never flagged an article for copyright issues or identified an editor with a conflict of interest as part of your work on New Page Patrol. Which tools from the admin tool set would you use to identify and deal with undisclosed paid editors and copyright violations? How would you use them?

A: Hi Mduvekot! I haven't flagged any COI or copyright issues, true. I tend to find it more constructive to make edits to fix the problems and so that's often how I proceed when I encounter the issue. People who are undisclosed paid editors are a particular problem. I have not run into them very often myself, perhaps because of the type of articles I work on and improve. I have been alerted to tools such as CopyPatrol which can help identify such users through copyright violation. It's not where I wish to spend a lot of time on with Wikipedia, but I am willing to grow and become more proficient in this area if necessary. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Newyorkbrad

16. Congratulations on how well this RfA is going thus far. As a follow-up to question 6 above about edit summaries, will you agree to adjust your settings to prompt for an edit summary when you inadvertently forget to leave one?

A: This is an easy one to answer, Newyorkbrad. I've already adjusted my settings. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from There'sNoTime

17. (You already have my support, this is more for personal curiosity) As a new administrator you receive a Wikipedia email from established editor "User:X" complaining that "User:Y" has been following their contributions and reverting some of them after they recently had a heated disagreement. Often these reverts have no edit summary, and "User:Y" doesn't respond to any talk page messages about it. How would you begin to deal with this?

A: Hi There'sNoTime! My first step is contacting User:X and letting them know I got their email and I'll look into things. The next step would be in reaching out to other administrators with a "have you dealt with this kind of issue?" query. Seeing how others' experience shaped their actions is very useful info. I think it also helps us uncover issues we have overlooked. One of my bad areas is too often assuming that people are acting in good faith. I think this is generally a good way to live, but it doesn't tell the whole truth of the situation since not everyone acts on good faith. After having a good handle of what others have done (assuming this doesn't take very long since you don't want to keep User:X in a state of stress), I'd probably go forward with my gut feeling by posting on User:Y's talk page and on the talk pages of the article(s) where this is occurring. (This of course assumes I didn't learn something very out of the ordinary from the other admins!) User:Y isn't responding to User:X, and I assume to other editors, but I can't assume they won't talk to me either. At this point, they will either be willing to talk or won't be. If they're willing to talk, then that's good. We can go from there. If they are not, then we are dealing with a situation where there is the appearance of an edit war and retaliation or wikihounding by User:Y against User:X. I think taking it to a dispute resolution process is appropriate here since we'd followed several steps to reach out and handle the situation on our own. During the process I would maintain contact with User:X and let them know the steps that I am going through (as appropriate) so that they are aware that action is being taken. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Smartyllama

18. A user creates an account and edits productively for six months, amassing several thousand edits during this time without any issues whatsoever. At that point, a CheckUser reveals the user to be a sockpuppet of a user who was indefinitely blocked in 2007 for violations of WP:CIVIL. The CheckUser shows that the user had no other accounts in between - this is his first new account since being blocked. How do you handle this? What if, instead of being blocked for incivility, the user had been blocked for deliberately introducing subtle hoaxes into articles?

A: Hello Smartyllama! First and foremost, creating a sock is a breach of trust. The new account should be blocked indefinitely. While the first user, blocked for violations of WP:CIVIL, may have been editing productively for six months they are still violating policy. However, since there seems to be some level of reform (for lack of a better word), I'd advise this user to seek out a lifting of their original ban and for them to link their accounts by declaring so on their user page. However, in the case of the second user, we now have a huge problem. We will need to comb through all of the articles touched by the user to determine that the information added isn't a hoax. If there are no hoaxes, I'd still advise them to seek out having the ban on their original account lifted and declare both accounts. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, thanks for answering. That was the distinction I was hoping you'd make. As a follow-up, what if the user subsequently requests an unblock on their new account, acknowledging and apologizing for the socking and earlier actions, but claiming they couldn't request an unblock on the old account because they forgot the password and had no way of accessing it? What if they didn't specify a reason for not using the old account to request the unblock? However, in the event of the hoaxing user, would you be willing to take the time to sift through thousands of edits? How would you proceed with the evaluation? Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama, hello again! I've seen a case similar to the first one you mention. A user was editing with a new account because they lost the password on their old account. An admin asked them to disclose the original account on the new account and that was the end of that (as far as I could tell). Of course, this user had never been banned for anything. I think that it's best to assume good faith and suppose that it is true about the password situation. I would also want a good reason from any user who has created another account as to why they are doing so. As for the hoaxing user, it would depend on what the community felt it could handle. I've seen people sift through other editor's (many) contributions because they felt that there was something worth saving. But it is a burden to assume that there is the time to sift through thousands of edits looking for a hoax. I think that kind of task should only be undertaken by a group of willing editors and then only after they have finished, decide. Now if no one is willing (or able) to take the time, I think those articles will have to be tagged and the user remain unblocked. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Inter&anthro

19. Hi Megalibrarygirl, you already have my !vote and this is just a general interest question, but from what seems to be often the case administrators seem to inevitably fall into WP:GNOME activity and content creation by administrators goes down as they are preoccupied by other tasks. As content creation and fixing red links has been historically a strong point of yours as an editor, how do you plan to deal with a possible conflict of time between your future admin duties and content creation? If you don't think it will be an issue that is fine too.

A: Hi Inter&anthro! I don't anticipate it being an issue, but time will tell. I suppose the best way to answer this is that I've learned over time how to balance my life so that I have time for the things I do: work, family, friends, hobbies and self-care. I don't think that applying this sort of day-to-day method of living to Wikipedia to be too far-fetched. (I hope!) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Jason Quinn

20. How will Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red determine if it has been successful in eliminating content gender bias? The project seems to focus on percentages of articles to signify bias and the project page notes that 17% of the current English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. If percentages are being treated as the metric for bias, what percentage is the goal? Is it 50%?

A: Hello Jason Quinn! There are a lot of different metrics to look at gender bias in content. The raw percentage of biographies about women vs other genders is just one of many and one that can be tracked Wikidata. However, because women receive less media coverage and exposure than men, getting to a straight 50-50 ratio seems unlikely for now. Establishing notability for women is also notoriously difficult at times (see WP:WMN). Gender bias, however, is also reflected in the way that women are written about (see Countering Systemic Gender Bias). It also pops up in photographs used to illustrate articles! For this article, Women in the Americas, the image at the top of the article replaces an awkward, nude drawing of indigenous women made by a non-native person. The new picture is much more appropriate as the main picture. Women also must be written back into history. For example, members of the Chicago Women's Club were instrumental in the creation of the first Juvenile Courts in the United States. This information was missing from the American juvenile justice system article and I added it in with references. Women mentors, some wives and other important influences in men's lives are often left out of biographies of men. This is the just the tip of the iceberg! On the main page of Women in Red we promote the percentage of biographies because that is an easy stat to deal with. It's much more complicated to measure other factors and effects, such as language used when writing about women (though it has been done). In practice, Women in Red deals with all of the above problems and more. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the issue is very complex and has many aspects to it. I believe the introduction to the project needs a complete re-write. It is oversimplified to the point of being misleading. The objective of the project is not "to turn redlinks into blue ones" as declared in the first sentence, it is to eliminate bias. Writing missing articles is just one way of doing that. And, without a more nuanced discussion, percentages can be very misleading. If Wikipedia ever reached a fifty-fifty ratio of biographies by gender, that would likely indicate a female bias in Wikipedia. How? Because most societies have been male-dominated for recorded history which means men have had more opportunity to satisfy our notability standards. Historically speaking, we expect the percentage of male biographies to outweigh female ones. That does not indicate bias in Wikipedia but is a consequence of the bias that existed in society. More interesting would be to compare the ratio of modern or recent biographies, where I'd expect the fraction to be closer to 50/50 (but still not actually 50/50 because the modern world is still male-dominated). Jason Quinn (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason Quinn, I'd invite you post on the Women in Red talk page about the introduction to the project. Also, if you are interested in comparing biography ratios using other metrics, such as age, ethnic group and so on, you can use these datasets from the Wikipedia Human Gender Indication project. This paper that I mentioned above does discuss the quality of data we have and how it can be used to measure women's bios in context of date of birth, death, geolocation and more. And I agree, that getting to 50-50 for all biographies over time isn't likely or desirable. However, without continued concentrated focus on women's biographies, I believe the creation of them will lag in comparison to men's biographies. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Mr rnddude

21. I do have something of a concern about you, but, nothing even remotely worth opposing over. Nevertheless, I do have a question for you. In question 4 you give an example of a conflict you had experienced with two editors and their AfC submission of Anna Spitzmuller. You were exceptionally well composed throughout despite receiving, what I would describe as, an unnecessary throttling from the upset parties. My concern can layed out like this: Admins take upon certain tasks that earn them a special amount of enemies. You seemed to be, from your responses, quite negatively affected by having caused distress to the editors while showing no concern for yourself or your wellbeing at all. The editors certainly paid no attention to your wellbeing either, at least not until after the fact when you'd ... I'll be blunt ... kowtowed to their wishes. What I'd like to know is; how do you cope with these situations, how do you differentiate between frustration and abuse, and when you do differentiate, how do you respond differently?

A: Hi Mr rnddude! First I'm going to address a point of disagreement I have with your assessment of my behavior in the matter. I'm sorry you felt that I kowtowed to the wishes of the editors of the Anna Spitzmuller article. That was a case where I was really on the fence. I felt that Spitzmuller was most likely notable, but since many of the important sources were in German and she was a very academic figure, I called in two other editors whose opinions I regard highly. Their opinions here, here and here made me feel that the article could and should be moved to mainspace. Work had been done and two editors I respect in regards to notability standards felt that the subject was notable. On my own, I found this article that mentions her as an expert in her field of art and music history. I moved the article based on their assessment and what I'd evaluated myself. Now that that's done, let me address your question. I'll start off by letting you know that I am a public services librarian. I'm not sure what people imagine when they think of librarians, but those of us who work in downtown libraries with the public as I do have a very different reality from, say, an academic librarian or an archivist. My job involves a lot of informal social work and I've been trained as such. I might have patrons vent their anger on me or their anger towards something else at me because I'm a "captive audience." I have a very thick skin for it. I also realize that frustration and anger can make people say things they wish they hadn't said. Sometimes someone is just having a bad day. So when I encounter a person online who is very frustrated, I get it and I have a thick skin for it for myself. For me, it becomes abusive when a person is maliciously going after me relentlessly, calling names, using slurs, etc. As I would in real life, I would let such a person know that the way they are talking is inappropriate, and, would they like to start over without the slurs? If they cannot or will not, I would take the matter higher. Now, I don't expect everyone to have a thick skin like I do and I understand everyone has different levels of tolerance for invective. If someone approached me and let me know they felt they were being abused online, I would listen and take their feelings seriously and hopefully be able to intervene in a way that is respectful to both parties. As for my own personal feelings, the thing I often feel the worst about isn't people being angry or venting frustration at me: it's the feeling that I let someone down. Like most people, I don't like failing. I want to help people have a good experience on Wikipedia. However, just like in my real life, that won't always happen. I know how to take care of myself in order to be at my best mentally and emotionally. It's something that took me years to learn, but I'm proud that I did. Yes, I feel bad, but I can learn from the experience and move on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point of clarification, Megalibrarygirl, with regarding to kowtowing. I did not mean to imply that I felt you'd kowtowed. Rather, that my interpretation of the events is that the editors in question had no intention of alleviating the pressure (first via anger and then via guilt trip) until you kowtowed to them. That interpretation actually comes from the thanks comment you received immediately afterwards; Thank you for agreeing to move this into the main space. Not thank you for your help, or advice, or work, or anything else, but, "thank you for doing what I asked/wanted". It took another two hours for you to receive an appropriate thanks; Thanks for your efforts, Megalibrarygirl. Afterwards the whole dynamic between yourself and the editors completely changed. The editors had no reason to keep venting their frustration at you because you'd already done what they'd wanted. That is my personal interpretation of the whole thing, at least, and is in part based on my own experiences (not on wiki). In any case though, thanks for your answer. It's quite a solid one, and I did catch the important comment that you'd take the matter higher rather than act yourself. That demonstrates an understanding of INVOLVED. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Deryck C.

22. What role does affirmative action towards under-represented topics have in the enforcement of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria?

A: Hi Deryck Chan! Affirmative action is applied in many different ways around the world, but it's always an official policy of the organization using it, as far as I can tell. Wikipedia has no affirmative action policy in regards to notability or topic choice. Therefore, I'd say that Affirmative Action has no role in topic choice or inclusion criteria at this moment unless they do adopt such a policy (which I think is unlikely and probably undesirable.) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from John Cline

23. If you will, please read the oppose rationale given in Xxanthippe's !vote and demonstrate how you would respond to the concerns raised, as if a reply was incumbent upon you. Please be as thorough, with your message, as you would otherwise be, and temper your prose in a manner, you feel: "becoming of an admin". Will you do this for me? (NB: I am temporarily striking this question as inappropriate and badly constructed until other folks chime in.) -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the striking of this question. It was poorly framed and I apologize for causing offense I did not intend.--John Cline (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A:

Additional question from Feminist

24. What areas would you consider yourself to be WP:INVOLVED in?^{[User:Feminist, remove this question or clarification needed (please elaborate on how this issue is related to admin status)]}

(Response to Fuzheado: WP:INVOLVED is a section of WP:Administrators so is obviously related to admin status. While I am certain that stuff like assisting with history merges and account creation would be uncontroversial, I'd like to see her eventually moving towards other admin areas, given a slowly decreasing number of admins. However, administering in areas like AfD may potentially come with involvement concerns.)

A: Hi Feminist! I know that a lot of people feel that dealing with "women's topics" makes my focus rather narrow. I believe differently. I define women's topics as anything involving women at all and since women make up about 1/2 of the human race, that makes for a very broad scope of topics! Getting to the meat of the question, though, I'd personally feel involved intervening in disagreements that include editors I work with and interact with on a regular basis. I believe that doing so creates a conflict of interest because from an outside perspective, others could perceive bias in my decisions. Resolving conflicts can't be successful if anyone (inside or outside) believes bias of any kind is at work. Therefore, to clarify, I don't believe acting on a topic related to women to be INVOLVED: the topic is really too broad--it would be like telling a man not to make decisions about men's biographies or about things men created, which is just silly. I do think taking action that involves editors I work with regularly to be INVOLVED. I believe I should be called upon to intervene in situations where I don't know the parties well and do not interact with them often or at all. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25. What is your opinion on WP:PORNBIO?^{[User:Feminist, remove this question or clarification needed (please elaborate on how this issue is related to admin status)]}

(Response to Fuzheado: The standards for notability of pornographic actors/actresses have attracted a lot of discussion historically, and many AfD discussions for such articles have resulted in a lack of consensus. The majority of articles for porn stars are for actresses, for a variety of reasons. As Megalibrarygirl focuses on improving and creating biographies of women, and inclusion of topics involving porn have been controversial, I think this is a reasonable question.)

A: Hi again, feminist! As a content creator and someone who enjoys "rescuing" articles, I find the most useful standard for any profession to be GNG. We serve the creation of the encyclopedia better in creating larger articles with multiple sources. I don't have any problem with PORNBIO in general, either, in the sense that it's pretty standard for all of these additional criteria for notability. The biggest problem with any additional criteria tends to crop up in AfD where some editors try to claim that not passing the secondary criteria means that the subject of the article isn't notable, when in fact the subject may pass GNG instead and is notable for that reason. Each article must be evaluated on its own merit, of course. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (NB: I am temporarily striking thee questions as inappropriate. Please take to talk page) -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unstriking these two questions. Your explanation of your reasoning for striking both questions, as mentioned on talk, leaves a lot to be desired in practically every respect and especially in AGF. Feminist is a long term user with over 100k edits, rather than assuming the worst, how 'bout not assuming anything. The patrolling here is exceeding any reasonable limits. We've had an edit war over the sole oppose and now we're deciding who is and is not acting in good faith based on a two second reading of their questions. That's enough. Leave the questions be, leave the !votes be, and for the love of god, leave this RfA be with as little drama as possible. I'm leaving Q23 struck on the grounds that the questioner agreed with the striking of their question. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd admit that I could have elaborated when asking these questions at first, but there you have it. feminist 15:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Redgro

26. Will you be interested in blocking disruptive users? How will you use the block ability?

A: Hello Redgro! I am less interested in working on blocking disruptive users, but I am happy to help where I am needed whenever someone calls. Of course, I would evaluate each situation separately if and when I use the ability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ammarpad

27. IP users vandalize Wikipedia everyday, but IPs are dynamic and mostly shared. When do you think should IP address be blocked indefinitely?

A: Hi Ammarpad! I am not an expert on IPs and I would have to learn a lot about the practice to feel comfortable using it, especially if IP addresses are dynamic or can be hidden by VPNs. I do know that people caught up in most of these kinds of blocks can request an exemption, so blocking an IP range indefinitely doesn't mean someone can't ever edit again, however, it would certainly cut down on anonymous contributions. I think that any kind of indefinite block on an IP range should be reviewed from time to time because anonymous contributions do help build our encyclopedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from L3X1

28. I'm aware it late and the Question Police are out in force: When is an appropriate time to WP:Supervote? Would you consider an AfD closure as redirect over deletion a supervote if 3 editors !voted Delete and 1 voted redirect per WP:ATD and the essay WP:Cheap?^{[clarification needed]}

(Request for clarification: @L3X1: Can you clarify, elaborate or hyperlink to more information regarding your question? I'm an admin of many years and I really don't understand what "ATD and the essay Cheap" means, and I suspect many others may not either. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

 Done Sorry, Fuzheado. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

A: Hi L3X1! Supervote does not sound like a good idea at all and I wouldn't use it, ever. I see that in the essay WP:Supervote there is a distinction between that and "admin's discretion." Even in the case of admin's discretion, I think it would be best to close an AfD as non-consensus if there is a lot of bad argumentation on the majority of !votes. AfD isn't a voting process, but community consensus is also important. I believe we have to work together, rather than against one another. In addition, requests to reopen AfDs are another good route to trying to obtain consensus through valid argumentation. As for your question about 3 !votes for delete and 1 for redirect: would I consider redirecting a "supervote?" I have to say it would depend on the quality of the arguments given at AfD and whether or not the encyclopedia would be best served with a redirect. I'm inclined towards redirects only when the target article would be able to explain (in part) something about the article being redirected. For example, the wife of a notable man who is not notable on her own would often be best served with a redirect to her husband's article--especially if she is mentioned in the article (as she should be). At the very least, the person coming to Wikipedia will leave with the understanding that the wife is the spouse of so-and-so and that information can be useful. Redirects are also very useful because redlinks invite editors to want to recreate the article, but redirects discourage that sort of behavior. I'd really have to evaluate each article and discussion and weigh them on their individual merits. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support as co-nominator. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. I'm going to give an early support, because I have had some very positive editing collaborations with the candidate, and because I like the idea of an admin who can help with women's topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Megasupport Hyperbolick (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Good on content, XfD, and anti-vandalism.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support meets my criteria: has a clue; not a jerk. That's enough for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support without a touch of hesitation. (*and thanks for all of your hard work along the way*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Bottom line: will not break the wiki. Even if Megalibrarygirl only makes adminning a relatively small portion of her work, any amount of help is welcome from someone so trustworthy. And WP:NOBIGDEAL notwithstanding, I also think the example her collaborative and civil demeanor sets will be a valuable addition to the admin corps even when not specifically using the tools. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, no problems here. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support a star editor who would make good use of the Admin tools to do even more useful stuff for the encyclopedia. PamD 20:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Experienced, level-headed user. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Just the type of admin we need among our ranks. As an admin who does more writing than admin-ing, I agree that certain admin tools are useful even if one's goal isn't to do administrative tasks day in and day out. Can be trusted with the tools even if she's not going to be using them constantly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support No concerns, no hesitation. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support per nom and User:Calliopejen1 Mrmei 21:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Absolutely. Mkdw ^talk 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - I've always been impressed positively by this editor. CLUEful, helpful, civilful, and been around (edit count and time) enough to prove HEREful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Editor who does plenty of editing and will put admin tools to good use. Full support. Pagliaccious (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per nom and AfD --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
19. Per Rosiestep. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Excellent candidate: so per nom and per Megalibrarygirl. Communicative and knowledgeable- just what the wikidoctor ordered. — fortunavelut luna 21:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. This is clearly a fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - No problems, and she would use the admin tools to improve our lack-luster coverage of women; she would be a great addition to the admin corps. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support (edit conflict × 2) per nom. And to anticipate some of the likely Opposes--it's not about the exact amount of good the candidate could do as an admin. All that matters to me personally is that she is a definite net positive; any amount of additional benefit from having the tools is better than no additional benefit at all. --Joshualouie711^talk 21:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support precious (2015). I believe Sue would talk before blocking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support: I first came across Megalibrarygirl on an AfD I nominated where she promptly turned up, vastly improved the content and left me a nice note on my talk page. Clearly on it with content creation and has a good eye for rescuing articles as well as deleting appropriate ones, shown by her AfD stats. The aforementioned message shows real maturity and here-ness because she said she enjoyed cleaning the article up. DrStrauss talk 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Have seen good things, no concerns. Gap9551 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support No concerns at all. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support She may not spend all her time mopping up admin backlogs, but I have no doubt that when she does use the tools she'll use them well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per nom Andrevan@ 21:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Megalibrarygirl I recall somewhat vaguely a situation where I misjudged sources and you caught it; the exact circumstances are unimportant to the moral. I usually beat myself up on such a lapse but your response brimmed with understanding when anyone else may have taken the opportunity to kick me while I was down. Your composure and benevolence are traits that need to be shared with the community which is why I full-heartedly support this nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. I was feeling a bit disappointed by the way RFAs had been going, then I just popped in for another look before I go to bed and seeing this one cheered me up :-) Superb contributor, very collegial and helpful, and so an easy support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support per nom. Megalibrarygirl seems to me like a friendly, helpful and competent user who can be trusted with the tools. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support I can think of very few editors who are not yet admins whom I would more enthusiastically support. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support the enthusiastic support of so many editors demonstrates to me that this candidate will be a net-positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support: No issues overall; net positive on handling the mop. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per nom statement. I haven't found any standout issues. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Extremely helpful and a very competent mentor, knowledgeable about policy, and good content editor. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Unconditional support. Megalibrarygirl has been one of the most selfless and helpful editors I've encountered. Nothing but good experience with this editor. — Maile (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support WiR reminds me of the early days where editors actively help and support each other, and this editor is a an integral part of that warm and friendly culture. Definitely yes. Alex Shih^Talk 22:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. From her work on WiR I feel she'd be a great admin. Funcrunch (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Does not raise any concerns, a pleasant and collegial editor who seems very unlikely to abuse the tools, the position of trust, or her peers. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 22:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - no concerns. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support She can do it! Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support, on the basis that it is a travesty that she isn't already one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support per noms. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Megalibrarygirl is a hardworking and conscientious editor. I am confident she will use the tools to make this a better encyclopedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per the answer to Q4 that I asked. I'm confident she will be a net positive to the team. -- Dane ^talk 23:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Easy support, I've seen this user around all the time on the pages I edit and she does great work. I was actually looking at her page the other day and had the impression she was an admin - so this RfA kind of surprised me! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong support Excellent content creator and have just the right temperament for admin-ship. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Level headed and competent. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support per noms. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support: No issues found. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 00:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support, great asset to Wikipedia now, and more so with the admin tools. Thanks for volunteering for the extra tools. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
55. Strong Support: Diplomatic, hard-working, a voice of reason, level-headed and competent. What we need in admins. Montanabw^(talk) 00:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Excellent contributor, net positive to the project. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Absolutely - I could go on about qualifications, but it would be a TL;DR so I'll just repeat what I said at the start - AB-SO-LUTE-LY! ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - More than sufficient tenure and experience and I have no reason to think she would misuse the tools, so I'm happy to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Very clueful editor who I would trust with the tools.  gongshow  talk  01:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL.--v/r - TP 01:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support lots of clue at AfD, saves articles, several nice GAs, seems wonderfully helpful, calm and polite. Hand her the mop! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Easy. Don't think there is much that needs to be said. Equineducklings (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support An obvious yes. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Clear net positive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Welcome aboard. :) -- œ^™ 02:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support I think I would have supported based upon nothing but the answer to Q4 alone. We should all strive to treat others as well. CThomas³ (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support don't suppose this can be snow-closed as successful? This is a good RFA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. Happy to support this. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Impeccable and absolutely impressive credentials. Lourdes 02:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support probably be a better admin then me! (don't answer that...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - Yes, yes, yes. Megalibrarygirl has saved a phenomenal number of articles from deletion and goes about Wikipedia with a great mindset: that of creating quality content. Altamel (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Net positive. -- Begoon 03:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
73. WP:TTWOA. Vanamonde (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Stikkyy t/c 04:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support per Rosiestep .Well versed in policy ,experienced ,dedicated and fully committed to the Project both online and offline.Would be asset to the Project with tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support per nom. A formidably competent editor, I can't think of a single thing that would reduce my support even a tiny bit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support A great candidate. I had concerns during her RfA candidate poll that there didn't seem to be a need for the tools (despite a great record at AfD, you don't need to be an admin to close as 'keep'). However, I think that the need of the tools to restore deleted content definitively silences any concerns I had. I also think that she will be a real help to the Women in Red project. EDIT: the answer to question 20 firmly dispels any questions I might have had about bias for this user. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Very supportive towards newbies. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support no doubt whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Seems good. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support There are many good reasons to support this candidate. Especially for me, I believe that any editor who consistently saves articles from deletion by expanding them and improving their references deserves to be called an encyclopedist, and we need more level-headed people like that as administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
85. Civil, clueful and contributes good work. Happy to be able to support. ϢereSpielChequers 06:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - great candidate, clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - wholly qualified, everyone above me has hit the nail on the head as to why. A rather obvious candidate -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 06:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support - excellent editor and, if I may say, has a terrific user name for an encyclopedia-themed superhero. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Yup. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
91. Pile-on support - something tells me you've got this in the bag! Best of luck. :) Patient Zero^talk 08:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - Absolutely. I asked MLG about adminship a while back, and would have co-nominated if I'd known she was going for it! Sam Walton (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support per user:Hyperbolick (#4 vote) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support, I am not impressed with the idea of being an admin for a particular project, on the other hand, I have seen the candidate around and I am confident she will use the tools appropriately.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support, of course. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support – why not? Graham87 09:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - Female wikipedian + good content creator (349 live articles) + expands existing articles + good communication = Net positive Anoptimistix (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - sounds like the ideal candidate. Stellar content contribution and a nice person, with need for some of the tools. Good luck!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support per Boing! said Zebedee and Alex Shih. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
101. Strong support - A multiplicity of reasons! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
102. Strong support - In my experience, this editor will only help the project. SethWhales ^talk 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support - Good candidate here, but I would like to see a bit more counter-vandalism experience. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
104. Strong support My opinion mirrors everyone else !voting support here, she will be a great admin. I have got involved in the WIR project myself recently and have seen some of her work, which is consistently good quality. Her ability to source articles is very good and I have no concerns at all about any lack of experience, she knows what to do, and how to do it. I have no concerns about her being specialized either, focusing on a widespread issue like the lack of articles on women is a good cause and not IMO a topic specialism that would be an issue - in short she is a good candidate. Dysklyver 11:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. In my opinion one of our very best contributors; giving her the admin tools can only be a net benefit for the project. – Joe (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 11:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Very happy to show my support to this clearly qualified candidate. Thank you for volunteering. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Absolute slam dunk of a choice here. One of the best content contributors I can recall seeing. Excellent plus to give her the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support Not a user I think I've encountered before, so had to do some digging. Having engaged in a bit of research - hell yes; eminently suited to holding a mop. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. Wikipedia needs more admins familiar with the Dewy Decimal System. Also I do not think she will adopt the Conan the Librarian approach to admin tasks. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support Experienced editor.  FITINDIA  13:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. I haven't run into her as much, but what I've seen has been good and many people I trust have voiced their support for her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support because I would like content writers to have an easier time at RfA. Airbornemihir (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support with no reservations at all. Keilana (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support - Adequate tenure, sufficient contributions, nice shape of the contributions pie chart, steady pattern of contributions over the last couple years, clean block log, no indications of assholery. The WIR project is one of WP's brightest bright spots, thanks for your service there. And here's one for ya, United Order of Tents, see THIS. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support - excellent content contributor and a big thumbs up for AfD rescue work. Fraenir (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support - seems like a good candidate. Mop please! Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 15:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support – definitely a great asset for the project. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support no concerns power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. I rarely chime in when an RfA is clearly passing as this one is, but I'd like to especially commend the candidate for two attributes in particular: her willingness to not just vote "keep", but actually working to improve an article along with fixing whatever deficiencies exist. Also, her welcoming and understanding approach to newbies. Well clone!  JGHowes  ^talk 18:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support Good contributions all around, helpful, clueful and friendly. My only concern was edit summary usage and I have no reason to assume she won't improve on that per Q6. Regards SoWhy 18:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support per many above: good editor, calm and measured and a complete positive benefit to the community. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support - Great contributor, will likely make a great editor. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support - Megalibrarygirl has come up in a search for new admin candidates that I helped with; vetted as a fully qualified candidate by consensus driven, objective and measurable criteria. Good contributor, good answers to questions, am confident she will learn the ropes of her currently less familiar admin areas (AIV etc) before going rogue there. Also, I met her in Berlin and think she's a good person. Maybe I should say "Mega" support. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
125. Excellent editor, and I am certain she won't misuse the tools, which is the most important for me. --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support, thoughtful candidate with good experience. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support very good content creation, great record of saving and improving articles that would otherwise be deleted Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support I have no concerns, except: I hope Susan always remains "a writer first and an admin second." Administrative duties can often cut into the time for writing, and I wouldn't want Wikipedia to lose Susan's content work. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support I came to that RfA when no additional questions were answered yet, and honestly I expected to oppose after the candidate botched numerous technical questions. They have not tripped on a single one yet, so I have to reassess my expectations, it seems. Compared with usual candidates, she has little knowledge or need of the tools, and is maybe not as familiar with Wikispeak as most regular editors; but I trust her to (1) RTFM before botching up, and (2) back down soon enough if ever she does botch up. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support Antrocent (♫♬) 21:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support following review of Q&A and a modest review of relatively recent contributions. --joe decker^talk 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support. No concerns. Should make a fine admin. Thanks for your service. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support Basically pile-on at this point, I think. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support - Excellent candidate. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support - Gladly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support (Moved from "Neutral") since it's simpler to do than write out the "moral support" I wanted to state. Essentially, I resonate what CactusWriter stated. In addition, I would recommend that the nominee get themselves a bit more acquainted with the various non-article boards, in case assistance is needed or requested. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support. Megalibrarygirl is a pleasure to collaborate with on wiki and I believe she can be trusted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. Highly qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support - prolific content creator, level-headed, lots of experience. I have no concerns whatsoever, and I'm confident MLG will make a great admin. 65HCA7 22:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support Great content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
143. Tentative support. I see no problems, and editor has what appears to be enough experience. I have some concerns about her wanting to be an admin primarily in service to a particular wikiproject (we've had serious problems with wikiprojects having "pet admins" in the past), but the project in question is high-profile enough similar problems seem unlikely here, and I don't see any evidence this candidate has a PoV to push, so such problems don't seem likely to begin with. The one admonition I would give is do not do things like moves, deletions, protections, etc., out of process in response to requests at the wikiproject; that's how admins get into inappropriate use of the tools for a particular editing clique.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support - agree with SMcCandlish above. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support more admins is always a good thing; also per noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support - per nom. Yogwi21 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support - I will be the next to add to the pile of supports. I am fully satisfied, both with the candidate’s response to my question, and by reading what others have said above. —Ecstatic Electrical, 00:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support Good article expander, and saves articles from deletion. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support - no reservations. Will be fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support - I'm all for mainspace content contributors and GA writers earning sysop tools. We need more of them.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support- no problems here; great answers and sound experience with content. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 07:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support - a great contributor to the project, no worries about being given the admin toolset. Kosack (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support - I am impressed by this candidate's attitude and answers to the questions. She seems to be an eminently suitable editor to become an administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support. Good answers to questions, sound mature editor. BusterD (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
157. Everything checks out. We need more good content contributor admins. Welcome aboard!  Sandstein  08:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support. A top-class editor. All evidence suggests that the wiki will gain substantially from empowering her with the admin tools. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
159. Strong support. Exactly the right temperament needed for an admin. Just one complaint, your answer about histmerges is deficient. You should read up on this carefully before attempting it the first time. There are a few pitfalls, and sometimes a merge simply should not be done because of overlapping histories. SpinningSpark 09:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
160. Strongest possible support Finally the perfect candidate. A professional librarian who regularly writes content, cares greatly about content and is a pleasant person. Take note others, this is what an admin should be like.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support – per Dr. Blofeld, and I have no concerns with Megalibrarygirl having access to the admin toolset. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
162. Yes SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support A brilliant editor on Wikipedia. Clearly deserves this. :) The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 11:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support. Piling on, good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 11:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support this intelligent, communicative, and trustworthy candidate. Furrykiller (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support Excellent editor, no reason to oppose whatsoever. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support - a thoughtful, clueful content curator with the right attitude; happy to welcome this candidate into the mop club. One note on Q10, as Spinningspark mentioned above there are some instances where a history merge is not recommended, but these are pretty well detailed in the instructions. The "order of operations" is important, and these are one of the rare things where if you mess up the resulting error can be irreparable. But actually histmerges are usually quite simple. If it's something you want to get into, feel free to ask! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
168. Glad to support and very happy to see this kind of approach to the encyclopedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support I've run into her a lot through WIR, and if her work there is any indication, she'll make a fantastic admin. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support don't always agree with her opinion on AFD discussions, but nonetheless no one can argue against the fact that this editor has done a great job of saving many articles from deletion as well as content creation. No indication of anything malicious, a net-positive. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support, based on review with some concern over her apparent narrow focus for admin service on only one particular wikiproject; but, overall seems like a good candidate. I found her answer to number 5 refreshing to see; she does not know all about WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI, but is willing to learn! And it is nice to see that has not disqualified her as an admin with the voters, herein. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support I'm not sure if I've ever encountered her before (my activity levels have fallen in recent times, so I'm not always up to speed on Wikipedia's latest developments), but from what I can tell, she seems like a huge asset to Wikipedia. I'm glad to see somebody who cares about creating and maintaining great content the way she does. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support It is rare for me to vote on an RfA, and even rarer still for me to do so on one that is so piled high with support and little or (in this case) no opposition. There's no question this RfA will pass. Nevertheless, I do so here because I want to comment in one respect. I would like to strongly echo and amplify to a degree what Ritchie333 said above. Being a writer first is obviously an enormous strength for you. I would caution you that being an administrator can drag you down, distract you from your true interests and passion, and potentially burn you out. I've seen this happen to administrators before. I would not want to see this happen. You are an enormous asset to the project. I would not want to see being an admin degrade your passion and commitment to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support We need more administrators like MegaLibraryGirl! Jacona (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support I normally would like to see more experience dealing with UAA/AIV, but this RfA requires pragmatism and a resounding support (especially with Q5). Nihlus 15:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
176. Support I don't see a great need for the tools, but this is a sensible editor with clue who doesn't seem likely to be discouraged once she figures out that the mop isn't all it's cracked up to be. I look forward to placing my big blue box on your talk page in a few days. :-) Katie^talk 15:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support Excellent candidate, well rounded and highly qualified. Break out the cigars, we have a winner here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support Mduvekot (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support Is there was a better example of a person who could do good things with the mop? I don't think so. All the answers to the questions are well-thought and intelligent; this is someone I'd love to see as admin. Pile on the positives. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support - not sure how I didn't see this until now. Obvious support, good luck! Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support The record here is clear. Her AfD rescue work and content creation are first-rate and her civil conduct is exemplary. I'll echo the hope that admin responsibilities don't crowd out content creation. I'm pretty confident they won't. David in DC (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support. I thought I was going to stop voting at these. Inatan (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
184. support a very good candidate well qualified --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
185. Support All my interactions with this user on my talk page have been positive! They raise no concerns looking through their contribuions. Overall Net Positive --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
186. Pile-on support Jianhui67 ^T★C 18:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support Supremely qualified - who would even consider voting to oppose? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) 18:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
188. —Kusma (t·c) 19:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support- Unquestionably qualified and dedicated to the project. Could possibly be a record-setter. Bestow the mop already.   Aloha27  talk  19:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
190. Support This candidate is a net triple positive. Antonioatrylia (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support. Awesome Wikipedian. It warmed my heart to review this RfA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
192. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 21:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support – no-brainer. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
194. Support' User seems like she would use her powers fairly and reasonably. That's all I ask. Smartyllama (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
195. Support Good temperament. Demonstrated need for admin tools. Clear commitment to quality content. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
196. Support Was waiting to see some of the answers, looks good to me. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
197. Support Solid candidate. Shellwood (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
198. Support Great answers, big net positive. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support without any doubt. As the 199th "Support"er, I can see the big picture as clear as it can be --- 198 strong "Support"s and not a single "Oppose" --- may well be a record. All responses ring clear, true and positive --- a win for the candidate and a big win for Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
200. Support - Respected Wikipedian working on topics and areas we all appreciate. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
201. Support - A role model Wikipedian with a good heart and edit history to match. GS ⋙ ☎ 02:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
202. Oppose, only 17,000 edits in mainspace and only 327 new articles created shows candidate does not have enough experience with content building for this role. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
203. Support I have been extremely impressed by the candidates contributions to rescuing articles at AfD; I know when I see a comment from her that it is well-researched and polite. Everything I'm seeing in the candidate's contributions and answers here reinforce that impression. She is good not only at creating content but also in dealing with other people. She'll make a great admin. Ca2james (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
204. Support A solid candidate. Thank you to the nominee for agreeing to take on the additional mopping duties. -Thibbs (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
205. Support In spite of her seeming to need a term such as "race" in her infobox. We as Wikipedians should be beyond that artificial distinction. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
206. Support Great attitude towards new users, would be a great admin.Lirazelf (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
207. Support No doubt a net positive.Amran khan1 (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
208. Support Definitely a trusted user, with no real issues to note of (Except for that one ridiculous oppose at the time of this writing). If 200 Wikipedians are backing this up, it seems quite likely that this RFA's going to pass with (almost) flying colours. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
209. Moral Support errr SUPPORT I mean. Great Editor. She is ready. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
210. Support - mainly from ... or especially from ... answer to question #21. I wish we had more admins who felt that way. --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
211. Support... gives gives solid answers to questions... good user, great admin potential. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
212. Strong support - From many interactions I've had with her through WiR, I have full confidence that she will make an excellent admin, just as she is already an exceptional editor. I was recently impressed with her cool handling of a frustrated new editor (see her response to question 5) who at one point in the lengthy interchange was venting in ALL CAPS. I understand the point some of those opposed are making w/r/t potential conflicts of interest due to her strong commitment to WiR, but she has proven to be such a conscientious and careful editor that I am certain she will bend over backwards to make sure this doesn't happen, and seek advice whenever necessary. Alafarge (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
213. Support - there's nothing I can really add that hasn't been said already, and that does make this a pile-on vote in most respects, but, thanks for your answer to my question and good luck adminning. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
214. Support per pretty much everyone. Metmeganslay 18:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC) — Metmeganslay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
215. Support. Clueful & civil content-creator - no concerns. Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
216. Support. Empathy is a word that floats around a lot now-a-days. The reply to the first optional question (#4) is a wonderful example of the type of admin MLG will be. Having worked in her circle of interest recently I can emphatically say, (as she has said about others), "We couldn't be in better hands."―Buster7 ☎ 19:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
217. Support- no reason not to. Especially since the nominee agreed to answer a question which others considered improper, which shows they are likely to cooperate with other users, even if the other users are potentially disagreeable (which they often are). (though my vote is now just symbolic and the case is closed). ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
218. Support. Responses to questions demonstrate the level of thoughtfulness and clue that administrators should have. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
219. Support - Clearly competent, an asset for the admin ranks. As an editor her core field is also an asset for the project -- the more specialised editors the better our content will become. It beggars belief that someone could oppose on the basis that because of her "zeal" she would not be a "balanced and impartial" admin when dealing with articles in her specialised field. What an insult.Moriori (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
220. Support. Impressive contributions and obviously trustworthy and civil. I hope I have the opportunity to work with you! – Rhinopias (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
221. Support as a writer of quality fucking content. We need more of these in the admin corps. We got plenty of 'em in MILHIST, we need some more elsewhere. ALSO I am not opposed to righting wrongs if we can address an imbalance. MLG would have never gotten a nomination or a million support votes in a day if she hadn't been a good editor, with a cool head and a good knowledge of policy. That she is of the female persuasion ("she"...) is an asset. And that her gender, or her participation in the group that promotes the writing of articles on notable women, could somehow be a reason to oppose is cray to the cray. [For the record: I would have gone nuclear support if her note on French fries had mentioned "with mayo".] Drmies (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
222. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 23:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
223. Support: I believe that Susan would be an asset to Wikipedia as an admin. I have no reason to believe that she would misuse the tools and has demonstrated a level head and a desire to help. All good points, IMO. Susan: thank you for your contribution to the project. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
224. Support The candidates' firm yet polite rebuff to interference and their subsequent open and honest reply in Q8 does it for me. I am well aware of the candidates' formidable abilities, and I have been watching this RfA, but did not comment because it had all been said in terms of competence. Yet that. Sometimes it's the little things..Irondome (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
225. Support - This one is a no-brainer. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
226. Support; no issues. Jc86035 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
227. Support - Excellent contributor on every level. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
228. Ideally I would like to see someone who would use the tools more often and help with administrative backlogs outside their topic of interest, but I trust her to only restore articles that clearly meet WP:N and improve them to a reasonable state. feminist 09:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
229. Support I have collaborated closely with MLG for some time and can only complement her on her competence, helpfulness and positive approach.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
230. Support I've looked at the qualities of this editor, and personally I think they would make an excellent admin.. TomBarker23 (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
231. Strong support. I am very impressed by this RfA so far - the candidate's commitment to Women In Red, her public promotion of Wikipedia, and the accountability she has shown through in-person meetups all make me want to support her. She has demonstrated a clear need for the admin buttons in editathons and Women In Red tasks. I am overjoyed to see a candidate with this portfolio of experience, ambition, and temperament volunteering to become an admin. Deryck C. 12:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
232. Support Answers show good understanding of how to do the work, and how to go about it in areas where the understanding isn't there yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
233. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
234. Support. As I indicated I would at the optional candidate review. Good editor, no major warning signs. Malinaccier (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
235. Support -- A fantastic candidate that I pleased to support. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
236. Sopport and good luck in your future work. ~Awilley (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
237. Support Sums up a persoal theory of mine that librarians rule. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
238. Username checks out . Even though I've never interacted with Megalibrarygirl directly, I've seen her contributions around Wikipedia and think she is trustworthy. epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
239. Support - Very helpful, I believe she will do good work with the tools. BOZ (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
240. Support - An editor who does excellent work and can be trusted with the tools. Hmlarson (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
241. Support - Have very much appreciated this editors willingness to use her librarian super powers for good, both encouraging others in our field to get involved and also in ferreting out sources that are hard to find. She's so encouraging I believe she'll be an excellent admin. I think her responses to questions show her willingness to grow and adapt. Merrilee (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
242. Support Her responses to each and every question here mirror the dedication, care and rigor she brings to her editing and outreach. Wikipedia is lucky to have her devotion to the project. Shameran81 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
243. Support Hard-working, clueful, patient, and a good communicator. Understands policy and content well. Happy to support! The Interior (Talk) 20:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
244. Support Excellent candidate! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
245. Support "I think finding common ground is important", a perfect philoophy for admins to believe in. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
246. Support All the good, pithy comments have already been taken. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
247. Pile on support. Jonathunder (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
248. Support -- Dedicated contributor with an admin-worthy temperament. Thank you for your work on the Women in Red initiative. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
249. Support Good COI statement on their user page. No concerns Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
250. Support one of our most effective editors editors working on systemic bias issues. Patient and conscientious (maybe a little too much... if I were in MLG's shoes I would've tapped out when we hit literal 20 questions ;) Opabinia externa (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
251. Support Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 05:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
252. Support Positive in all aspects of editing contributions and interactions with others in discussions. Unreserved support from me. Loopy30 (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
253. Support Experienced in all areas, is an effective editor which is polite. Redgro (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
254. Support - Will make a great Admin.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
255. Support The answers to questions indicate that, before participating in administrative areas with which they have little to no experience, they will perform the required research and will ask questions. Admins don't need to know everything, but they do need to be willing and able to find out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
256. Support Wow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
257. Support. Not because she's a lady, but because she's a sensible level-headed editor with a strong track record. I was going to stay out of this when it was 100% but I feel the current opposition, such as it is, needs to be drowned out by overwhelming support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
258. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
259. Support examined contributions, after my attention was caught.→StaniStani 13:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
260. Support Dedicated contributor who believes in quality content and is always eager to help! MLG will make a strong admin. Jackiekoerner (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
261. Support without reservation I have known this editor for years and we are lucky to have her. Pleased to see this is a pile-on support as I would be embarrassed if it was otherwise. Victuallers (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
262. Support. My impression is that Megalibrarygirl is a level-headed, experienced editor with very good judgment who communicates in a friendly, positive, collegial manner. I think she's a fantastic candidate for adminship and I hope more candidates like her show up soon. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
263. Support Looks fine to me. --DHeyward (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
264. Support. A very good candidate and do we need good admins!(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]
265. Support - Will be a net-positive, no problems! –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 19:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
266. Wizardman 19:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
267. I don't think we've crossed paths before, but I saw nothing in your responses and a scan of your edit history to give me given me concern. Happy mopping! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
268. I don't participate much at RfA anymore, but I feel compelled in this case, for a couple of reasons. First of all, Megalibrarygirl is exactly the sort of person that we need more of. Her answers to the questions are eminently sane and thoughtful, and I appreciate the calm and patient way in which she's explained herself. (I only wish that it were more contagious). She's shown dedication to the project and a clear understanding of its underlying principles. I think she'll be a great admin. Secondly, I think it's worth going on record because of some of the nonsense in the "Oppose" rationales, which reflect poorly on a subset of the Wikipedia community rather than on Megalibrarygirl. But that is really a secondary consideration - I'd support regardless because I think she's a great candidate. Do good work with the admin tools! MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
269. Support – I was waiting for WP:300, but that seems unlikely to happen at this stage. She's an experienced user and will be a great asset to the project. J947^{( c ) (m)} 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
270. Support: No real issues. Issue being talked about in oppose #3 is a bit irritating but not really a big deal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
271. Support – Seems like a fine editor who will do good work with the tools. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
272. Support per Mastcell. --JBL (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
273. Support – I'm pretty confident they won't break anything. Harrias ^talk 15:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
274. Support, excellent candidate. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
275. Support, for her openness. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
276. Support, though unneeded at this time. MLG is levelheaded and very intelligent, and I'm glad to see this passing so clearly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
277. Support A welcome addition to the admin corps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
     
278. Support no concerns. Thank you very much for your hard work Megalibrarygirl! Good luck with the bit! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
279. Support Excellent candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
280. Support - A calm and helpful editor with a great track record of many things. She is fully qualified and experienced and would make a good admin. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
281. Support: Thanks for making yourself available! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
282. Support She's a contributor, experienced and would be a fair and calm administrator. Rhondamerrick (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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)[reply]

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Do not strike out this !vote.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Discussion about moving discussion to the talk page moved to the talk page. The collapse box kills the numbering, forcing Oppose #2 to be inserted between Oppose #1 and the collapsed comments about moving the comments about Oppose #1. If you follow me. Please let's keep the dysfunction organized. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. what found. --MarkSewath (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   — Vote struck: CheckUser or behavioral evidence suggests that MarkSewath (talk · contribs) has abused multiple accounts. (block log) --QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @MarkSewath: I don't understand your reasoning here, can you clarify? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @MarkSewath: Больно толсто тролишь. The account is 20 days old and the user barely speaks English.--Catlemur (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Ich versteh' euch nicht <я тебя не понимаю> Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Я рад, что понимаю!)) My name continues to not be dave (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   ":ich bin froh, dass du froh bist! Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Historically, we did not strike !votes, no matter how ludicrous we thought they were. It being the province of the 'crats to weigh the merits/demerits thereof. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @Dlohcierekim: You are welcome to join the discussion at WT:RFA regarding this matter, where I have drawn up some ideas, that with you will outright oppose anyway. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   User has been CU-blocked by BU Rob13, making this a moot point. GAB^gab 00:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   In keeping with the polyglot nature of this thread, Très intéressant.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   Discussion moved to the talk page - section title Oppose #2. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   Discussion moved to the talk page - section title Oppose #3. Getting lengthyMontanabw^(talk) 17:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. (Moved to "Support". Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)) I'll probably move from this section after the nominee comes back to editing and answers the new questions presented (the nominee has not edited for about 12 hours now), but I feel the need to voice this concern prior to changing my vote. Until the nominee is able to clear up some of my concerns (which, again, will probably be resolved after they answer the outstanding questions), I am concerned that the nominee's Wikipedia proficiency is exclusive to aspects of Wikipedia pertaining to articles, and may not have any (or much) experience working in any of the other aspects of Wikipedia which have been established over time (blocking vandals, assessing when pages need protection, etc.). Yes, Wikipedia's main focus is articles, but I'm weary to approve someone the admin "mop" if they haven't "recommended its use to other admins" for anything other than matters that pertain exclusively to article maintenance and deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what you are quoting when you state "recommended its use to other admins?" I'm quite confused by this statement. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I understand that to mean using venues such as RPP, AIV, AN3 etc. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 15:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Fuzheado: Basically what Neil S Walker said. Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are RPP, AIV, AN3? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, respectively. Mduvekot (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943 and Neil S Walker: Thanks for the clarification. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks too. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Neutral leaning support. (Moved to support. Deryck C. 12:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)) I am very impressed by this RfA so far - the candidate's commitment to Women In Red, her public promotion of Wikipedia, and the accountability she has shown through in-person meetups all make me want to support her. However, she seems to be tiptoeing around the crux of the issue in her answers to questions about potential conflicts between her personal interest (or countering systemic bias) and established practice (or other editors' opinions), so I'm temporarily parking here to see if my question could elicit a clearer position statement from her. Deryck C. 17:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: Can you elaborate about where you feel like she's tiptoeing around these issues? I've not gotten that impression. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I think Q1, Q7, and Xxanthippe's comments alluded to the possibility of preferential treatment and a possible ambition to put herself as a representative of WIR among admins, so I asked an extra question to try to understand her position on these issues. I welcome "political" nominations to adminship where we deliberately seek to nominate editors because of their useful but unconventional opinions, because a little bit of active preference for diversity is important! (I was nominated partly on a "political" premise myself due to the lack of born-and-bred Hongkongers among en.wp admins before 2007.) I would have supported her regardless of her actual position on the issue of affirmative bias but initially parked here to start a discussion. Deryck C. 12:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: - Thanks for the clarification and for relating the parallels to your adminship and the HK community. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it it just me, or is Q.8 rather (and/or completely) innappropriate? — fortunavelut luna 13:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought the same. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 13:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally out of order. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. If there is a specific incident behind that question, Xxanthippe, I would suggest to either give the context if you can, or strike it if you cannot. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answering it could lead to WP:OUTING, question 8 should be removed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OUTING if it is done by yourself. The candidate can always decline to answer, but that may trigger opposes, so... Is extortouting a word? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi et al.; I have struck it through (struck through it? strikethroughed it?). Drmies (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*@Drmies:Probably just "struck it." Yoshi24517^Chat _{On Wikibreak} 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No - "strukened" is correct, I thunk. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, all we know is that Drmies is striking. All out! — fortunavelut luna 18:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"[I have] stricken [through] it", professor. --IHTS (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Xxanthippe's question may be somewhat justified since there's a previous incident where the disclosure of external discussions may have contributed to an editor being denied an elevated role in the project. Samsara 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked what I thought was a reasonable question and I received what I thought was a reasonable answer to it. Rather (and/or completely) innappropriate (sic), totally out of order: strong words! Please explain why. Possible OUTING is insufficient as the candidate has already outed herself. Please will Drmies explain the reasons that led him to strikethrough (or struckthrough) my question? I will not inquire into the semantic distinction between rather inappropriate and completely inappropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  I think this kind of question can only be somewhat acceptable if there are reasonable doubts that activities outside of Wikipedia have suggested questionable decision and judgement on the editor (this came up in one of the recent RfB I think). Still, regardless of whether or not the editor is comfortable with their real life identity, we probably shouldn't ask anyone to "give links" to their off-site activities, as this is explicitly outlined in paragraph 4 of WP:OUTING. Alex Shih^Talk 02:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  In this particular case, the question was probably fine, since Megalibrarygirl is and has been open about her off-wiki work and real-life identity. However, in the future, I would be very cautious when asking for off-wiki information. In a case where a candidate is not open about their activity on other sites, asking them to reveal it at RfA puts quite a bit of pressure on them to do so—nowadays at RfA a candidate could get opposed solely for not answering all of the questions. For that reason, I think striking the question was a reasonable response—we have to be clear that we don't expect users to be open about their off-wiki work or their real-life identity and that Megalibrarygirl was under zero obligation to answer a question about it. Mz7 (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What Alex Shih says, except more categorically. But also, as an admin I feel like I should try to enact (or enforce...) what a consensus of well-informed editors say, which is what I did. I still don't understand the need for this question. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer the implied question above: the reason I asked Question 8 was that a contributor to my talk page [2] made the suggestion that there had been off-Wikipedia stealth canvassing in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Ballard to which the candidate contributed. I am pleased to find from the answer to Question 8 that there is no evidence for this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• In this particular case, the question was probably fine, since Megalibrarygirl is and has been open about her off-wiki work and real-life identity. I disagree. If the question had been limited to whatever could be readily found on the candidate's userpage, fine, that was already disclosed. But asking for what could be additional information is inappropriate. Yes, the candidate has already shared much and it is probable that they would not mind sharing a bit more, but in the improbable case that you hit a point they do want to keep private, they have no satisfying exit. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see where you're coming from. What I meant to say was—and I definitely could have worded it better—since Megalibrarygirl herself wasn't shy about answering the question, we have a case of "no harm, no foul" for this specific RfA. As I noted, I did think striking the question was reasonable (that hopefully would have provided that satisfying exit), and I definitely agree that for future RfAs, asking for additional information is inappropriate. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've unstruck the question as the candidate has answered it. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Given the timeframe, I think this RfA might turn into most voted, and most successful ever. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to prejudice the result, WP:RFX200 lists the most successful RfAs to date. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hush... Don't jinx it! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again, what's the marginal utility of another support vote? I think good faith RfA candidates deserve better than thoughtless pile-ons, either for or against. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's still possible that 100 oppose votes could show up. Not likely, but strange things happen around here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your input, as always, is much appreciated, Chris, thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, I see no basis for describing these votes as "thoughtless pile-ons". I am certain that the candidate takes the comments of every editor quite seriously, including yours. Are you going to provide specific examples of editors you think are being "thoughtless" here, with reasons why? Otherwise, I am unimpressed with your dismissive comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: So what exactly are we doing here? My understanding was RfA supposed to determine consensus. There was a functioning consensus 100 votes ago. I don't see RfA as an opportunity for editors to make public their opinions about the candidate just as an academic exercise. This also isn't meant to be a public airing of grievances. There was no marginal utility in any vote after consensus formed. Xxanthippe has, assuming it wasn't a troll comment, made a principled opposition for which they are being denounced. I'm not criticizing any particular editor's reasons for individually supporting the candidate except for the fact that at some point their voice became unnecessary, lending to the belief that they either wanted to be part of a political craze or curry favor with fellow sheeple. I have no opinion of the candidate as it made no sense for me to research once the outcome became clear. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman - Every member here is entitled to their opinion, and is allowed to share it one way or the other. Sure, this is a complete landslide and the results were obvious after 100 votes were cast. However, this does not mean that an editor can't and shouldn't voice their own perspective on the matter. If a viable reason can be given as to why someone should not get a mop (*and bucket*), they should feel free to voice it. Yes, it would sometimes be an unpopular choice, as we see above, but if it brings to light a situation that might have been overlooked previously, then you're helping the process, even in the smallest of ways. To say that "it made no sense to me to research once the outcome became clear" seems a bit indulent. Every vote matters, whether it's 100-99 or 199-1. Yep, it looks silly after seeing the votes add up, but this happens when you have well qualified candidates - Just look at Cullen's results...  ;) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Well, it took a while, but having had their question struck, Xxanthippe has, delightfully, found another means of fucking around: a spurious 'Oppose' !vote over something that 200 others have discussed in the round and are comfortable with. Ffs. — fortunavelut luna 10:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am somehow reminded of number 15 in the Perry Index. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Neil S Walker, Excellent! Sour grapes, or an "embittered whine"?! Ha! — fortunavelut luna 11:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• I have been musing a bit on the topic of ES after seeing it brought up is several of the last RfAs. I believe in the use of edit summaries for communication quite strongly, but I wonder how much communication can be derived from , . - .. re 1 q and my alltime favorite +? I mean all of those are farely useless summaries, they communicate nothing except that the editor wants to show 99% use rate of edit summaries. If I write a comment on a talk page, using the ES "comment" or "reply" is self evident. Is there a way to search for ES usage rates in the mainspace? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 15:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• User:MarkSewath's oppose !vote. For the record, this user appears to have been on WP for 20 days. Their understanding of what is currently taking place, may, whilst with the best of intentions, be incomplete. — fortunavelut luna 16:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in all fairness, the user could have been an IP editor in a prior life, thereby giving a broader sense of understanding than the 20 days might reflect. (*even though the actual reasoning given makes no sense...*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, although the depth of their reasoning probably can be taken to reflect the breadth of their understanding  ;) — fortunavelut luna 16:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Please do not attack contributors. Samsara 17:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the checkuser block, a second opinion would be... satisfactory. — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving pings, sorry) 22:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: I was reflecting on their inexperience in a place where experience is a necessity. How inexplicable is that. — fortunavelut luna 17:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (What FIM said though) Eh what? that's not a personal attack. If somebody gives a poorly (low depth) reasoned argument it can be taken to reflect a lack of (small breadth of) understanding. It'd be a personal attack if FIM was suggesting that they only had a small depth of reasoning available to them, but they're not, they're making a cogent argument for why the depth of reasoning is not there. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) x2 It blows my mind to think that someone who I hadn't even heard of until yesterday could wind up being our second editor with a final tally of >300 supporters. Maybe I really have been away for too long... 😏 Kurtis ^(talk) 16:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that having a few oppose votes in an otherwise overwhelmingly supported RFA is actually a good thing. It means you're working hard, and occasionally making the kind of tough calls that are bound to displease those on the 'losing' side. As an administrator, you will inevitably come across discussions where the consensus position is clear and well-grounded in policy, but opponents of that position are strident and obtuse. This is not to say that everyone who disagrees with you will be strident and obtuse, but those are the ones who will hold a grudge. Good. It means you're doing work. Keep it up! bd2412 T 12:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would even go as far as to say that it is unhealthy to get there unopposed (we are talking about 100+ voters; 10+ would be a different story). It can give wrong signals to candidates, and I believe this happened in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are less than 24 hours before closure, it should also be noted, for the record, that as of this writing, the count at the top indicates (264/3/0) and there are 267 votes under "Support", 3 under "Oppose" and 0 under "Neutral". One vote under "Support", though, #202, is actually an "Oppose" vote, cast by the same editor who submitted the sole "Oppose" at Tony Ballioni's RfA. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: That's a sarcastic oppose. There is no chance the closing bureaucrat will actually count that as a real oppose vote, unless they can't tell from the context of only 17,000 edits in mainspace and only 327 new articles created. (Lankiveil, why?? The support section went unopposed until you posted your !vote... ) epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lankiveil's comment on Tony's RFA, on the other hand, is a real oppose. I can see how you could have gotten confused. epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was a joke. Let the closing bureaucrat note Lankiveil's edit summary. -Thibbs (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one, in the above postings, had previously commented regarding "Support" vote #202 being sarcastically or jokingly cast as an "Oppose" vote, it seemed appropriate to put it on the record in the unlikely event that anyone other than myself could have gotten confused by the coincidence of the two rare "Oppose" votes at each RfA. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's law strikes again, I guess. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose, only 17,000 edits in mainspace and only 327 new articles created shows candidate does not have enough experience with content building for this role. /s – epicgenius (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually one of the ones to joke oppose. Where do you find thw WMFtool that shows a user's votes at RfA?L3X1 (distænt write) 16:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-da! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.