Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs) at 12:46, 18 September 2015 (→Oppose: .). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Montanabw

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (78/20/2); Scheduled to end 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Montanabw (talk · contribs) – Montanabw is a longstanding member of the community with a plethora of great content contributions under her belt. She has been editing since 2006, has been an Autopatroller since 2010, and has that currently fashionable combination of a clear need for the tools and audited content. If you check through her talkpage and other talk contributions it is easy to find examples of people asking her advice or collaborating with her. In several ways she is already functioning as an administrator - high time we gave her the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw is a long-time Wikipedian who has created quite a bit of featured content, where she has a good track record of collaborative work with other editors. She's an experienced DYK nominator as well, and has expressed an interest in helping out with admin tasks there. Her work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI will help her know how to check material in the DYK queue for copyvio. While her past has not been completely drama-free, she has a clean block log and a deep commitment to the project. She's a mature person who is intelligent, capable, and willing to learn. Montanabw would be a very good addition to the admin corps, and could make good use of the tools in her work on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the gracious nomination. I accept. Montanabw 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ALTERNATE ACCOUNT DISCLOSURES: Per WP:VALIDALT, I have two alternate accounts. The first is User:MontOther, which I created in 2014 as a space for materials I use for testing, training and demonstration purposes. When that one got cluttered up, I created a "vanilla" sample user alternative account with default settings, User:Breadedchicken, in 2015, which I use to show new editors how things look to them when they begin editing and for viewing pages as they appear with default settings. I also changed my original username on this account to Montanabw back in 2006, within my first two months of editing because my first username incorporated part of my real name and I decided not to self-disclose my actual name on-wiki. I believe that the other user name does not appear anywhere on-wiki other than the rename request. Montanabw 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: With over 75,000 edits, I have become familiar with most aspects of the encyclopedia. In the process, I've performed countless non-admin wikignoming tasks on the backside of the wiki. From this experience, I wish to help address issues and solve problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting. I think I could help the most with the perpetual need to deal with vandalism, for wikignoming tasks, and, most of all, to enforce BLP policies and quickly protect editors who are being subjected to outing or other inappropriate attacks, particularly with the following administrative tools:

1. Using revision deletion to remove BLP violations about the subjects of our articles and/or our fellow editors.
2. Article protection, especially as a tool to bring parties in dispute to the table to work out their differences.
3. Wikignoming and assisting the mass of behind the scenes work that needs to be done every day, particularly putting articles into the DYK queue; I've filled prep sets from time to time and frequently been alarmed to see that there are no queues filled with a DYK update only a few hours away.

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

A: Content! I have created over 200 articles, have been a significant contributor to 20 featured articles, a couple dozen additional GA-class articles and recently reached the 50 DYK mark. As many people know, my primary focus has been articles within the scope of WikiProject Equine. I enjoy creating and improving articles in other areas as well, from the fellows who formed one of the first high-tech firms in Silicon Valley to eating Rainbow trout, to oddball topics such as horse roundworms or the Jackalope. In creating and editing content for nine years, I have had to spend time woking on non-content questions as well, particularly the behind-the-scenes work required for DYK, GAN and FAC.

• To give RfA reviewers a sense of my content work, my most recent big effort, in conjunction with some excellent other editors, was American Pharoah, which was ITN when he won the Triple Crown and was just recently promoted to FA. In addition, we also upgraded a related BLP article about the horse's owner, Ahmed Zayat, to GA class. That article tuned out to have some unexpected drama due to the scrutiny Mr. Zayat was under during the Triple Crown season (read the article and its talk page to see the details); the issues had to be handled with a great deal of care and discretion.
• Other examples of FACs where I worked with outstanding collaborators include Homer Davenport, where I had the honor of working with User:Wehwalt, and Yogo sapphire, which took a team of about six people, each with different areas of expertise, from geology to history.

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 have been an editor for over nine years and most certainly have dealt with many editing conflicts and stresses. I firmly believe in using process; most conflicts can eventually be resolved if people will face frustrations and work through their differences. I've handled many things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best. At the end of the day, thought I have not avoided drama, I have never been blocked and I have never given into the temptation to put up a "retired" tag. My strengths and weaknesses stem from the same set of traits; I do not easily give up and I tend to stick to something until it's fixed.

• One thing I know from the conflicts and stresses I have faced is that a crucial component to being a good administrator is to understand WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; when I am editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I cannot and will not use the tools. That said, there are thousands of administrative tasks and millions of articles on wiki that are completely unrelated to any issue where I might be involved with as an editor.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

4. What is your view of Process is important?

A: There is an adage about the concept of process that goes, "those who love law or sausage should not watch either being made." Process is messy, but necessary. I am fond of the law, I am fond of sausage, and I am fond of wikipedia, so I guess my view is that I am willing to deal with messiness and to stay with the process and see if through. While process can be tiring, frustrating and time-consuming, the work done often results in a better outcome. An explanation of the stages of effective group development is "forming, norming, storming and performing." Process is what takes users through those stages and gets to the goal: Good, encyclopedic content. Montanabw 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the most unsatisfactory outcomes I have seen on wikipedia occurred because process was ongoing but it was summarily cut off before resolution was reached, or the process was hijacked by a group who had no actual interest in a solution other than their own, so engaged in pseudo-process with an actual goal of subverting discussion, prevailing not because the process worked but because everyone else gave up out of sheer exhaustion. Montanabw 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That said, there is also a need to be proactive in controlling the process, or even closing it, when it is clear that there is not going to be further progress. Montanabw 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: CSD is a policy. The policy page for CSD is a rather long and complex one, but in short, a policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Therefore, the rebuttable presumption is that it should be applied as closely to the "letter of the law" as is possible. CSD is for obvious cases of articles where deletion is not reasonably contested. It is tightly limited to the specific types of articles listed and it should not be expanded beyond its scope. So I would apply CSD pretty "literally" and not abuse the policy by applying it to articles where it does not fit. If the situation is not clear-cut and/or there is any legitimate question of interpretation, it is best to use other methods to delete articles than CSD. Montanabw 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

6. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?

A: A "credible claim of significance" is a lower standard than notability; it's simply enough to survive speedy deletion, the article may or may not actually meet WP:GNG. I liken this to a Motion to Dismiss in a court case (such as a 12(b)(6) motion for those of you familiar with American law): If one accepts everything stated as plausible and potentially verifiable, is there a credible claim of significance made? As an example of A7, I recently de-prodded the new article Wiking (horse), "the all-time leading sire of Arabian racehorses." This is a good example of a stub by a new user that makes a credible claim of significance, even though the article is pretty rough. On the other hand, if I created an article about one of my own horses, such as the models for these images: File:BosalHorse.jpg or File:Green rope halter 01.JPG by saying, "Ally and Bella are Montanabw's famous wikipedia horse models," there is no credible claim of significance made (and I'd also deserve a trout slap). For A9, similar standards apply. An article saying "Joey and Jimmy have a garage band in Harlowton, Montana, would be a pretty clear case: Neither have a WP article and there is no claim of significance made. If it were a closer call, I'd look to past precedent and probably do at least a brief Google check to be sure that we didn't just have a new editor who didn't know that they needed to include in an article. If I had any doubts whatsoever, I'd use PROD or RfD instead of Speedy. Montanabw 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: IAR is a cousin to one of the "rules" of composition in George Orwell's famous essay on writing, Politics and the English Language: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." In other words, rules are excellent tools in most situations, but there are times when a rule does not actually fit the situation and blind adherence would result in something that is not useful, or unjust, or simply ridiculous. In such cases, there is a place to make an exception. IAR should be used when needed, but with caution and with a clear understanding of what the usual procedure is and why, in a particular case, the rule is going to be ignored. Montanabw 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A: It's something I'd like to do. I already enjoy directing traffic and suggesting solutions, as users such as SusunW can probably attest. I've done a little bit of work at DR/N, and found that even when keeping people at the table doesn't settle the dispute, at least no one gets blocked and it keeps the process going until tempers cool. With the mop in hand to calm disputes, one can step in with some authority and help potentially good, enthusiastic new users calm down so they don't get themselves blocked. One can also back off experienced users who should know better.

From my own experience, I think when there is a disagreement amongst editors who all are trying to edit content (as opposed to vandals NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia), it is important for an admin to first cool down a heated situation, not make a snap decision, and avoid a rush to judgement on any side. Then, even if the admin is forming a pretty clear picture of the situation, giving both sides a fair chance to express their views and then calmly explaining what the guidelines are will solve many problems. Often people start working together once their emotions cool. Even the most contentious editors usually come to the table once they realize that the other side isn't going away. There are always a few intractable situations, but those usually get that way due to user behavior rather than the content dispute at issue. If everyone can remember AGF and NPA, almost all other problems can be solved. Montanabw 02:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

9. As an admin, you are patrolling Category:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "In 1979-80 the <organization>, a feminist art center in <Major US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <Event name>." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, no context. What do you do?

A: CSD#A1 states, in pertinent part, "Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles...If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, there is enough context that A1 is not appropriate." So first off, I'd see how new the article was, and then do a web search to see if it really occurred. If it was real, and could be expanded, then A1 is not appropriate and Speedy would, appropriately be declined. If it wasn't new, I'd probably still decline CSD#A1 if there was, in fact, enough material to expand the article appropriately. (If I had time, perhaps I'd even do so myself) If the editor who tagged the article for CSD wished to PROD or otherwise suggest deletion, raising an appropriate justification, they could do so and that request would then be reviewed on its own merits. Montanabw 03:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from RO

10. At User:Montanabw/mopprep you offered "Blocking obvious vandals" as a primary reason for "Why do I want to be an admin?" In fact it's the second bullet point of your first reason for needing the tools. I agree that one of the more important things admins do around here is to protect articles from vandals. So will you please offer a policy-based explanation for why you labeled each of the following edits as vandalism?

1. September 12, 2015: ()
2. August 9, 2015: ()
3. July 31, 2015: ()
4. July 20, 2015: ()
5. February 28, 2015: ()

A: No, I will not. The relevant question for an RfA is if I would block a vandal under a certain set of conditions. And none of these diffs, taken alone, are conclusive for a block, it would depend on the totality of the circumstances involving any particular vandalizing editor. I also see this question is being challenged and discussed below by other editors, so I shall refrain from further comment on this question. Montanabw 03:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

11. Have you ever operated an account and an IP at the same time that edited the same pages? If so, did you ever claim the IP as your own? Did you ever make any edits with the IP that would qualify as vandalism? Have you disclosed it to ArbCom? If you used an IP and an account to edit the same pages, but never claimed the IP as your own, please explain here why it wasn't socking. If you haven't ever operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other, just state that fact clearly, and please accept my apologies for the tough question, but admins have to be tough. Don't you agree?

A: I have, occasionally, edited logged out by accident (as have most of us), and in most cases I have asked an admin to revdel the edit so as to hide my IP. Those cases, therefore, were all presumably examined for evidence of socking or vandalism. I choose not to reveal my RL name or hometown on-wiki, but any number wikipedians know my RL identity and can address any concerns privately with ArbCom or whomever. No, I have never "operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other." That is socking and I have absolutely, positively, never deliberately edited under an IP to evade scrutiny. If you believe you have a specific example involving me socking with an IP, please just go ahead and make the accusation with a specific diff so the CU folks can examine it. Montanabw 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you ever make edits with that IP that would qualify as vandalism? RO 02:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not vandalized wikipedia, (though there might be the occasional snarky edit summary from another user who thinks otherwise) and I most certainly have not with any anon IP. If you have any accusations otherwise, please provide the diff of the IP vandalism. Otherwise, I believe this question has been answered. Montanabw 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking/giving me permission to link you directly to the IP in question? RO 03:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the discussion you are having with other users, below, I suggest that you raise your concerns via appropriate channels and they can email me with your diffs, the IP in question and so on. But for the record, I absolutely have not "concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time." Montanabw 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever used a shared IP? RO 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But beyond that, other RfA reviewers do need to know that you and I have "history," and some of that history does involve me having reasonable cause to suspect that you were socking. Others who looked at the case determined that you were not, User:ItsLassieTime (ILT), though a different ILT sock was uncovered in that time period and my understanding is that you disclosed a previous account privately to ArbCom. As a result of that, I recognized the need to submit Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime and that LTA was approved. I learned a lot from the experiences I had with you in that situation and on your original, failed, Irataba FAC that Maunus was kind enough to fix and hope you take pride that the FAC eventually passed and that article has now been TFA. Montanabw 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And, if granted the mop, I most certainly will never use the tools in any situation where I know you to be involved because I would be WP:INVOLVED as to you. Montanabw 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

12. Dianna mentioned your "work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI", but your first article, Equine nutrition, was tagged as a copyright violation within the first week of its creation: (tagging; duplication detector report). Unless I missed it, it seems you never admitted it was inappropriate. If you did, I apologize and request the relevant diff/s. If you didn't, will you please explain here why it wasn't a copyright violation? Otherwise, how do you see yourself as an admin dealing with new users who you suspect have violated copyrights? What approach would you take?

A: That's an EXCELLENT question, RO! Yes, in February 2007, (eight years ago when I had been editing about a year) in creating a new article, I too closely paraphrased and inadequately footnoted from a source and was slapped with a copyvio tag on that article by Cyclopia. I was terrified!! (And, (ducks head) a little pissed, too) As soon as I realized what happened, I acted, rolled up my sleeves, went to work, and within about five hours had it fixed and it was restored. I DID apologize to Cyclopia at this diff for my mistake, and also told him/her in turn that I forgave him/her for acting so abruptly. I was particularly proud that about one month later, this article became my third GA. Montanabw 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That case is, in fact, one reason I became interested in CCI and related issues; I learned a lot from that experience. I have since had other experiences that have further informed my approach to CCI. One was the famous User:ItsLassieTime sockfarm and subsequent huge CCI involving something like 700 articles, many cut-and-pasted, and which is still not totally cleaned up. I learned what a mess a single editor can make if they don't understand COPYVIO issues. Montanabw 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

12b. Above you said, "I forgave for acting so abruptly". Will you please explain why you think they were "acting so abruptly"? Here's the duplication report. There are nine hits of 30 words or more verbatim copy-pasted. Were they overreacting, if so why, and how would you react to a finding a similar duplication report in a new user's writing?

A: Be sure we are clear on the issue, your diff is not the version where the tag occurred. The actual comparison at issue are these two. Your diff is "17:12, February 9, 2007 (Creating article)." That was the very first edit. And yes, in 2007, I did create that article by first copy-pasting the Rutgers content and then copyediting it from there. At the time of that tag I still was working on the article; the diff shows I was down to 6 hits over 30 words, which was still too much material too closely paraphrased, but I was still constructing content. That is definitely not something I'd do today! I think this article was evidence that I learn from my mistakes and become a better editor for the experience. Montanabw 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What I would do for a current editor similarly situated today, and what I wished that editor would have done at the time, was to have warned me first and not just shut down the article with a huge "scare tag"—it was a new article, there was active work going on. A better approach would have been to notify me of the problem, perhaps with the dup detector results, letting me know that I had too much duplicate phrasing, and emphasize that I needed to fix it pronto, pointing to the appropriate WP policy of the time. I had the article recovered into a sandbox, I fixed the problems, and in less than a day it was reviewed and the new version restored. As I stated, I learned a great deal from that experience and have not made the same mistake since. Montanabw 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Epicgenius

13. Do you plan on focusing in any one particular admin topic, or will all your admin activity be sporadic?

A: Because my focus is mostly on content, I suspect the answer is "sporadic." Most likely where someone alerts me to a problem where I can help, or when I come across an area where it looks like folks need a hand. I'll probably pop by DYK and RPP on a reasonably regular basis, as there always seems to be a need for extra hands in those two spots. Montanabw 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) To expand on this answer, I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop, so while I cannot use the tools where I am WP:INVOLVED, I feel that with the tools comes the responsibility to contribute to the community; just like my work on DYK in doing prep sets tends to correspond with my own DYK submissions, I have a strong ethic that where I ask for something, it is my duty to give back in return. Montanabw 01:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on comments below, I probably should clarify. As noted above, the areas where I have the most interest are 1) doing queues for DYK (as I have done a lot of prep sets, QPQs and now about 50 DYK noms of my own); 2) Revdel and BLP protection, following policy; and 3) RPP, a place I've had to go quite often, given that I watchlist articles that include asinus, manure, cow tipping and jackalope. In other areas, I would probably help with backlogs and focus on areas where I can be fully neutral in attempting to resolve disputes. Montanabw 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from LynnWysong

14. Do you plan to recuse yourself from administering equine articles and generally take a step back from your "stewardship" of them? Whereas I understand you have put a lot of work into this subject, your investment has led to what I and many others believe is a problematic attitude. As far back as 2007 other editors have been commenting on your ownership issues with these articles, and only seven months ago, you came right out and claimed to own one here. This page I think reveals a lot about the issue. The Advice section might as well be retitled: "My rules people must follow to be allowed to edit equine articles." I simply do not see how you could possibly objectively administer issues in this area, and I would think that other editors would be even more discouraged against trying to edit with a "helicopter administrator" weighing in on every edit they make.

A: Of course I would "step back" from using admin tools where I was WP:INVOLVED! As I stated above, I "get it" about WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; if I'm editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I just simply will not and cannot use the tools. WPEQ is one of them. It took some time for you and I to arrive at a place where we could work together in a collaborative fashion (that "forming, norming, storming and performing" thing) but we are working together in a collaborative fashion now and though we certainly don't see eye to eye on the issues, it's slowly making the articles better as we move step-by-step through the process. I look forward to the day when we can jointly nominate Mustang for GAN. If that happens, it will, in my view, be proof positive of the good that Misplaced Pages can accomplish when people can come together even though they have different views. Montanabw 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the other half of my question, of backing off of the "stewardship?" Do you think that you have an issue here that you should address? Because, even though I have chosen to put aside a lot of the things that happened between us in the past, I don't think that you have ever really acknowledged the gravity of the issue, and until you do, it will continue to cause problems.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that you and I both have strong views on the Mustang topics, and because we both have strong feelings on the issue - on opposite sides - we have not been at our best when dealing with one another. To be a steward of an article or project by its very nature forecloses use of the admin tools in that area per WP:INVOLVED. I think that's all that matters here. I don't use the tools on WPEQ articles. Simple as that. Montanabw 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In the long run, when I edit content, I am dedicated to ultimately getting it "right" — whatever "right" is (if there is a "right", and sometimes there isn't one right answer). As I have stated elsewhere on a number of occasions, I do give good faith viewpoints respect and consider if you are right and I am wrong. For example, you have helped me see that the feral horse issue in Nevada is very different from the feral horse situation in Montana and Wyoming. But you and I need to continue to deal respectfully and carefully with one another because the best we will do is agree to disagree. The genius of the five pillars, particularly the intersection of verifiability, neutrality and civility, becomes clear where people with serious differences of style, personality and opinion have to work together. Montanabw 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And to answer your question, what has to be made clear is that I weigh the evidence and over time do modify my views based on that evidence. I have changed my views on a number of horse topics over the years. One example was white (horse) where I originally didn't understand the genetics, but now I do, in part from working with another editor (who was at the time a graduate student in genetics) on Dominant white. Another example was Horses in warfare where the MilHist editors held me and others to a very high standard that I wasn't used to at the time, and challenged a number of my assumptions, but it became my second GA. Montanabw 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I take that to be a "no" that you do not intend re-evaluate your attitude and back off? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to edit the Mustang-related articles that you also work on; I've been here for nine years and my content contributions speak for themselves. Where I think any editor is not editing in a neutral fashion, where I think an editor is engaging in OR or SYNTH, I'm going to continue to say so. That does, and will, make a few people unhappy; I can handle that. Others have the same right to do so to me. Again, this would be a situation where WP:INVOLVED clearly applies and where I cannot wear the admin hat. I absolutely respect that policy. Luckily, there are thousands of other areas and millions of other articles where admin tools are needed and I am neutral. Montanabw 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if one doesn't wield the mop, isn't a disservice to the project to have an admin who doesn't acknowledge and temper ownership issues? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If there IS an actual problem. But here you and I have a situation where each person vigorously advocates for what they sincerely believe to be correct information and periodically get pissed off at the other. We each point out the biases the other has, and that's uncomfortable, but good for both of us. Fundamentally, you and I disagree on some highly emotional issues, and I think we both have done a decent job of dialing back our strong emotions enough to avoid blocks. I've repeatedly stated that I won't use the tools on equine topics, and I have also already given you examples of times I have changed my viewpoint and ways you in particular have expanded my understanding.

In conclusion to this discussion, understand that I follow WP:STEWARDSHIP: "...not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership." So yes, sometimes I get a bit testy when people make repeated POV-pushing edits I do not think improve the encyclopedia, and I have gotten testy at you for what I have considered OR, SYNTH and so on; you in turn have pointed out errors in my own assessment of certain things, and where you have provided solid sources, I've moderated my position. That is not "ownership," that's process, and as noted above, process is messy, but also important. Montanabw 01:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from SSTflyer

15. Your AfD statistics are not good, with a hit rate lower than 65%. Will you avoid closing deletion discussions (at least before gaining more experience) if you become an admin?

A: Yes. Frankly, I don't have much interest in AfD in an admin role, I'm only there if already WP:INVOLVED in some way, usually by AfD pings at a project where I'm a member. My primary involvement there has been to try and save articles from deletion where I think they are potentially salvageable, such as, for example, Hilda Plowright. I lean strongly inclusionist in general, so once I gained some more experience, I suspect that if I reviewed an AfD where I had no previous involvement and determined that consensus warranted deletion, that would be a pretty clear-cut case with clear consensus! (smile) I thought about doing some non-admin closures there before filing, as I know some people look at AfD stats a lot, but I decided that as the only allowable closures by non-admins are "keep" and I already have a reputation as an inclusionist anyway, that would not help me much here. Montanabw 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Liz

16. Since this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, do you consider yourself flexible on accepting that other editors, even relatively inexperienced ones, can improve upon the articles you have created?

I ask this because as an administrator, you should not be rigid. You have to at least hold the possibility in the back of your mind that you could be mistaken and be wrong about, say, an account being a sockpuppet who might not be. You have to consider alternate explanations for other editors' behavior. Administrators can get into trouble when they believe that they have unerring judgment.

A: Oh, absolutely! With the caveat that the edits DO need to be an improvement. You note on my talk page that I am wide open to WP:TROUT-slapping and when I realize I'm wrong, I do work to make things right. As for people I don't know or who are new to me, I really enjoyed working with Vesuvius Dogg on the American Pharoah article and that user was a wonderful help! I also met Cliftonian for the first time on the Ahmed Zayat article, and he was very helpful in an area where I had little background. Recently, I've been helping White Arabian mare who is very new and inepxerienced but has a lot of enthusiasm and I hope she stays. She's already created three or four new articles and done some helpful wikignoming elsewhere. Just today I saw extensive edits to Campolina by a new user, but the images they added are of uncertain copyright status, and English is not their first language, so there were some hiccups in phrasing. I had to revert for that reason, but I dropped them a note saying that if they can clean up the copyright question, I'd be glad to see at least a few of them go back in. I also pinged another WPEQ member, Justlettersandnumbers to see if he can help this person out because I'm kind of busy with everything right now. Montanabw 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from RO

17. "I admit I'm more prone to engage in cowboy diplomacy and administer justice with a wiki-Smith & Wesson."() While I assume this comment was tongue-in-cheek, I'm struck by how closely it mirrors concerns raised by others here, particularly Liz and Dennis Brown. Please explain what you meant by this.

A: RO, based on the discussions below, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to answer any more questions from you. We have "history" and it is clear you oppose my nomination. If granted the mop, I acknowledge up front that I will inevitably be WP:INVOLVED when it comes to you and thus I cannot and will not use the tools in any situation involving you. There are other editors who have blocked you in the past, I will not be one of them. Montanabw 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

18. "I don't worry too much about 'hounding' where there is a clear problem and pattern that can be documented with diffs, though sometimes I save the diffs in case they try to drag me to ANI. But that's me."() I assume you meant that you don't worry about accusations of hounding. Is that a fair statement? If not, what did you mean by this?

A: See above. Montanabw 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from jps

19. Is it possible for you to provide a full accounting of who you would consider that you couldn't act with in an administrative fashion? In other words, do you have an WP:INVOLVED list, and, if so, who is on it (besides RO, for example)?

A: Thank you for your question, jps. I don't keep that kind of a list and, honestly, I don't think it would be possible to create one. Over nine-plus years, I've probably dealt with thousands of wikipedia editors, most in a positive fashion, but too many to keep track in any event. Some editors I was wary of at first are now respected colleagues. Some people I've disagreed with have exercised RTV and returned with a new name, so I wouldn't know we had a "past." I'd probably have to check history on a case-by-case basis, and if I forgot that I'd worked with someone and they raised WP:INVOLVED, I'd probably have to investigate and most likely back out immediately and send it to another admin or, if there was something like a time-sensitive BLP issue or other serious problem, at least immediately notify and consult with other admins on my action, stay open to having my action reversed, and be sure there were other eyes out there. I would definitely not wheel-war. Montanabw 20:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to be very, very clear: I understand the difference between advocacy and adminship. I am passionate about equine topics, and I know that in that topic area I must be first and foremost an editor — and therefore would never expect to be acting as an admin in those articles, no matter who was editing. I also know there are usually a few editors I'm dealing with who raise my blood pressure, and those are people where I must never interact with them in an administrative fashion. Finally, I also have made some pretty good friends here on Wiki, and have met some of them in real life (such as Ealdgyth, Rosiestep and Keilana ). So I also have to not use the tools in a situation where personal loyalty compromises my neutrality. Where I have a disagreement that falls under any these categories, then I need to use ANI, DR/N, 3O, RfC or other appropriate venues, just like everyone else. Montanabw 20:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from User:MelanieN

20. What are your feelings about WP:CIVILITY? When is it appropriate to block for civility?

A: Thank you for your question, MelanieN. If I become an administrator, here's my thinking on how an Admin needs to look at civility issues:

1. An admin always should start with the policy: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." I think that's a good ideal. However, the devil is in the details because Misplaced Pages imitates life and everyone has less-than-ideal moments. Common sense and discretion is needed.
2. Misplaced Pages:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility is very helpful here. Blocking is for "serious disruption". I wanted to quote that entire section, but let's just say that I fully agree with the principles laid out there; immediate blocks are for when "nothing else would do" and that it is very important to look at the whole picture.
3. Policy also states, "Immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing. As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventative and not punitive." I agree.
4. In situations with a gray area, I would definitely try to review the whole situation and look at the big picture. In particular, I would look for WP:BAITing: often the person who has the meltdown and resorts to profanity is not the one with the incivility problem; they are actually the person who was bullied to the breaking point.
5. Policy is also clear that other than cases warranting immediate blocks, it's better to open a discussion via ANI and allow community discussion before reaching a conclusion.

Hope that was a complete answer to your question. Feel free to follow up if I wasn't clear. Montanabw 02:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Brustopher

21. Two editors FrenchToast and SwedishMeatballs get into an editing dispute. FrenchToast links to a reddit account named SwedishMeatballs as evidence that Meatballs is plotting against him offsite. The account has made multiple posts about Toast encouraging people to troll him. What do you do? Does this qualify as outing?

A: If the usernames were actually real names, then yes. WP:OUTING is clear: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address..." etc. So if we were talking real names as opposed to usernames, that's a serious problem; any personal information disclosed on wiki would require an immediate revdel and a referral for oversighting. If these were usernames in both cases and personal information was not involved, it still might be harassment, depending on the big picture. Once any identity protection occurred, we'd then turn to the users' behavior and look at the overall situation. I'd certainly seek additional help and not fly solo other than to deal with the immediate identity protection. SwedishMeatballs most likely is going to be looked at to determine if s/he was trolling or harassing FrenchToast off-wiki to gain leverage in an editing dispute. (I'm thinking of the example of the editor who was harassing Cwmhiraeth via an off-wiki blog a year or two ago, that was a nasty situation). However, FrenchToast may need to have his/her behavior examined as well, as the policy states, "dredging up their offline opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment." We would want to determine if someone on Reddit was trying to fake that they were the WP editor of the same name to get SwedishMeatballs in trouble. This is a complicated situation and one for a team of people to work on. Other than the immediate revdel for identity protection, the rest would require a thorough investigation and review. Montanabw 04:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

22. Jane Doe is a notable clockmaker with her own BLP on Misplaced Pages. Someone adds information about her being transgender to the article sourced to two separate investigative pieces from Gawker and Breitbart what do you do?

A: Well, our policies are WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, for starters, and anything potentially negative or libelous has to be removed if not properly sourced. BLP is specific: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Gawker and Breitbart are tabloid-type sources, so inadvisable as a RS on a potentially inflammatory topic. For that reason, I'd toss the info until the story was picked up by more reliable media outlets. The exception MIGHT be if it was an interview she gave to the source and it was a direct quote. But even then, I'd be careful and, frankly, dubious—it could be a satirical or fake interview and the potential of an The Onion-like misstep is out there. So I'd toss the material and ask the editor to see if it gets picked up by a more reliable source. If it's real, and matters, the mainstream press will have it in 24 hours or so, most likely. Montanabw 04:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

23. There seems to be a few people in the oppose section accusing you of horse related controversy. What's so controversial about horses?

A: Excellent question! I guess that people who are fond of them tend to have strong opinions about the details of their care, which ones are best, and so on. I see similarities with sports fans, dog owners, the dogs versus cats question, Macs versus PCs, Fords versus Chevys, and so on. There is something quite amazing about 1000 pound animals who will let us lead them around and ride them. It warps our brains, I guess. Or maybe it's the falling off part that does that... I don't know, but there is a lot of drama in horse-aficionado land! (smile) Montanabw 01:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from RO

24. "But for the record, I absolutely have not 'concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time.' Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) ()

I sincerely hope that's true, and I'll be the first to apologize if I'm wrong about this, but I've uncovered two different IPs that can be irrefutably connected to your account and vandalism. One predates, then overlaps with, your account, and the other vandalized an article on May 6, 2015 and last edited on September 4, 2015 (diffs available upon request). You might not want to respond to any more of my questions, but I really think the community deserves a straight answer to why there are two IPs that edited Misplaced Pages for a combined 5.5 years that appear to have been used by you and vandals. For the record the vandalism is super minor, but it's still vandalism. Plus you said you never used IPs and accounts except for a few accidents that were revdeled: (). Is that accurate? I promise this is the last stand-alone question I'll add here, so will you please offer the community an explanation? Have you been using a shared IP for years?

A: Hmm. You have given me a good smile, as when you said "predated your account", I looked at the Arabian horse article (where I began in March 2006) and I'm betting you found this IP: Special:Contributions/161.7.2.160 (all edits from this IP here). That is/was a State of Montana IP, and I did make my first edits from work at the (utterly miserable) job I had back then! (I worked for the state, though not in the town the IP currently geolocates to). It does show the first four edits I ever made on wikipedia, the day before I created my account! I forgot that, but of course, I would have tentatively tried to edit WP before realizing that I needed an account! That was a cool find, RO! I am impressed that you have been so thoroughly digging through every edit I ever made! Montanabw 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like I made some subsequent horse article edits without logging in up through December 2007 too (which is when I left state employment, FWIW). I doubt I knew revdel even existed then and I obviously didn't pay much attention that I had edited logged out! I certainly was not "concurrently operating" accounts to vandalize or evade scrutiny! - just editing logged out and not paying much attention to that fact! Totally forgot those ever existed. Montanabw 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

But definitely not vandalism! As you can see, I was not the only state employee editing wikipedia on company time! In that period, I most certainly did not edit Pogs, Aang, Bismarck, ND, or List of Peabody Award winners, I know squat about Bayesian inference or Rich Text Format programming languages, am too old to know much about SpongeBob and I definitely am not related to Tom Palmer! If the following was the vandalism you found, I am definitely NOT the person who did this, either! What a great, fun find! Oh LOL! Montanabw 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

::Yeah, email me the the other diff with the IP and the vandalism. If it's me, I'll explain. I have edited from within the State of Montana's firewall since leaving state employment and also have edited from inside the Montana University System's firewall when I've been teaching as an adjunct. I also edit wikipedia from the road, motels, coffee shops, airports... lots of shared locations. ( I have email enabled, so shoot me the IP and what article was allegedly vandalized). Montanabw 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I found the other: Special:Contributions/161.7.59.15, also within the State of Montana firewall. No, the vandalism on May 6 was not me; I wasn't inside the State of Montana's internet firewall on May 6 at all (I don't work for the state now, but I have done some wikipedia training for a couple different agencies there), I'm also not a kiddie vandalism type anyway. There is a research center and a library open to the public within the scope of that IP address. I made two edits logged out on November 3 when I was doing a demonstration of wikipedia editing for some state employees. One was obviously just editing logged out right before we got started, and thus I was a space cadet not to have logged in. The other one was an example where I hit a random article, made an edit, then showed people what an anon IP edit looks like and why it's a good idea to get an account, showing how the IP is revealed ... I remember joking with the group, asking who the Camper Van Beethoven fan was who had previously been editing from that IP, and got a good laugh! (and you have caught me red-handed, I knowingly made one anon IP edit that I didn't revdel.) The anon IP edits to Rose Hum Lee in August were probably were done by one of the participants at the Montana History Editathon we had that day; I was one of the facilitators and that was one of the articles we worked on. Have I now identified and explained the two IP addresses you found? Montanabw 07:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Gerda Arendt

25. I see that you have to answer many questions, so try to be short: please look at a diff and tell me if your gut feeling would be to ignore, block, talk to the user or what? Only if you have more time, look at the history and what other admins did, and comment if you feel like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A:

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. Support Yes, please! Great content work, level headed. --NeilN 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support as per nomination statement. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support, well qualified candidate. --kelapstick 23:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Strong support. As a content creator, Montana has done exceedingly well. She is level headed, calm, and understands WP policies. She would be a huge asset to the admin group. GregJackP Boomer! 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support - I have seen this editor around over the years, and trust her with the extra buttons. I was unaware of much of the content work, which is a plus. Proud to be in the first five supports. Jusdafax 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
6. Support. Honest, straightforward, intelligent, articulate, excellent content work.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC))
7. Support per Diannaa NE Ent 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
8. Support per nom. @Montanabw is: 1) a content editor, 2) a trusted user, 3) very useful in defusing fragile situations. Epic Genius (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Still support even though Montana doesn't intend to do admin tasks regularly (Q 13). Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

9. Support Need an admin like that. I do believe that she has the credentials of an admin --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
10. Support A user with over 70,000 is strong enough to become an administrator whom have good understanding in the Misplaced Pages's community and I believe she would use the admin tools to improve the community. Per as Diannaa nomination i support her candidacy. AYYYEEE! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 00:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
11. Support I think this may be my first time commenting on a RFA! Anyway, I've been coming across Montanabw's fabulous content contributions for years (one of my particular favorites is her work on Horse Protection Act of 1970). I too find her level-headed, and am pleased to see that she plans to help promote sets at DYK, as there tends to be a dearth of admins in that area. Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
12. Support Great content contributor, worked with them on Homer Davenport. Don't see anything "bar"ring them from being a great admin!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
13. Stephen 02:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
14. Support Montanabw is clearly an exemplary editor who has made large-scale content contributions and I have no reason to oppose. In regards to question 10, revert 1 removed a clearly satirical source, revert 2 was done to remove clear-cut vandalism, revert 3 was an instance where a constructive edit was made after someone had vandalized and Montanabw decided to revert to get rid of the vandalism but added the constructive content back in in a subsequent edit and revert 5 removed false information, inserted to deceive, from the article (Piebald, the article subject, refers to black and white, not blue as the reverted edit stated). The only error I saw in the entire list was revert 4, where Montanabw reverted vandalism, but apparently forgot to re-add a constructive grammatical edit. This was an incredibly minor mistake, and if this is the worst that can be dug up on Montanabw then I am even more confident in voting support. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
15. Support because I see no good reason not to. Both voters currently in the oppose section seem to have a personal beef with the candidate, and I find their arguments unpersuasive. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
16. Support lots of content creation under his belt and experienced as well! -Euphoria42 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
17. The entertainment value of this adminship should be off the charts. Townlake (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
18. Strong support Very happy to see this RfA finally! Montanabw has been at the top of my list for a long time both as an editor I greatly respect and as a prime candidate for adminship. She should have been promoted long ago! Swarm ♠ 04:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
19. Support. Having seen this candidate's high-quality contributions and being encouraged by her proposed focus on DYK, I am happy to provide my endorsement. –Grondemar 04:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
20. Support - Candidate is a solid writer and editor who has the potential to be an excellent administrator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
21. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

    Concerns about accuracy at AfD are serious. Concerns about attraction to drama are serious. But still support, due to a feeling of trust that she will never used administrative tools or privileges in support of personal preference in matters of deletion or drama. Administrators are not required to be boring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

22. Support. Montanabw is a great person who has been dedicated to Misplaced Pages for nine years and has a fun and upbeat personality. She has all kinds of content experience and experience keeping the trolls from the door. My only reservations to this adminship are that (1) I hope she does not spend too much time adminning, because we need her to keep doing the stuff she has been doing so well for the past umpteen years. (2) Part of the "large and colorful personality" effect is that she can be dramatic or snippy, and partisan, at times. Therefore, I hope that when performing admin or admin-related tasks, she puts on her most civil and neutral hat and leaves the "colorful" at the door. And I hope she recognizes where she is less experienced and lacks expertise, and accepts the need to learn or take feedback before proceeding. Heaven knows we all can't be, and all admins can't be, as neutral, composed, thoughtful, circumspect, and policy-knowledgeable as, say, NeilN, but I think that level of composure and neutrality and carefulness and policy knowledge is something all admins should aspire to. Anyway, best of luck to Montanabw. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
23. One of those candidates that makes me a bit miffed anyone would oppose. Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
24. Support I may not always agree with her positions on any given article, but she actually discusses issues, and her record at AfD is reasonable. I note further that having had a copyright problem in the distant past would make her a stronger admin on that topic in my opinion. Collect (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
25. Support Candidate meets my RfA standards. Mkdw 06:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
26. Support thanks for the nice diff from RO showing why we should support the candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
27. Support The candidate seems quite feisty and so we can expect the tools to be wielded with some vigour. For example, see the duck box incident. But the consensus in that case was ok and someone has to do the dirty work of mucking out the stable. Her content work is excellent and indicates that she's here for the right reasons. And the fact that this is her first RfA, after nearly 10 years of work here, shows commendable patience and restraint. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
28. Support. Based on content contributions and overall "clue".  Philg88  07:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
29. Jianhui67 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
30. Support - Damn right! Montanabw is fair, impartial, productive, approachable, and knows a thing or two about creating content. She also does not suffer fools gladly. I fully support this candidacy. This, in my mind, is the only stone-bonker RfA since Ritchie333's candidacy a few months back. Cassianto 08:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

    Support - no doubt about it. A scholar, a content developer, and knows her way around. You can say feisty or you can say knows how to stand up for herself, which admins do need, after all. The Equine Nutrition thing was a clear copyvio, but it was 8 years ago and she dealt with it by becoming a copyvio checker and remover herself, so I agree with Collect about that. And everything that Diannaa said in her co-nom. --Stfg (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Indented. There's too much background here and I don't have time to study it, so I'm not qualified to !vote on this one. Please note: not moving to oppose nor even to neutral; just bowing out as unable to investigate enough. --Stfg (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

31. Support without qualification; an eminently suitable candidate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
32. Support but may need to take more care with picture uploading, eg File:ShowHack.jpg. Otherwise answered questions well, and has a good range of experience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
33. Support I've come across Montanabw multiple times in the past and I've always had a pleasant experience. She shows good judgement and I think she'll do wonders if given the Mop. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
34. Support Have been impressed by the way that Montanabw has stood up to some of our more difficult editors. Number 57 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
35. After quite a bit of thought, coming down on this side. While loyalty is a commendable quality, Montanabw has in the past acted as enabler to some of Misplaced Pages's more obnoxious characters, which has led to decisions which should have been fairly clear-cut being stretched out into long timesinks before reaching their inevitable conclusions. (No, I'm not going to provide diffs; there's no benefit in reheating old disputes. Whichever crat closes this will no doubt be well aware of the incidents to which I'm referring.) Despite that, I think she's a fundamentally decent person who just happens to have some dubious friends, rather than a dubious character in her own right, and I don't consider her likely to join in the "unblock your friends and block your enemies" brigade (and even if she did, would have a long way to go before being the worst offender among the current admins). ‑ iridescent 11:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
36. Support per Philg88, who hit the nail on the head here. Graham87 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
37. Support On balance, yes. Deb (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
38. Support Long term user trustworthy see no concerns clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
39. —Kusma (t·c) 12:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
40. Support Great all-around editor, will definitely be an asset. I understand the concerns that the tools may not be needed, however if one good administrative action is taken it's a positive. Oh, and judging by the current expectations to write a five page essay in support !votes, let me just say that I endorse the nominations. Kharkiv07 (T) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
41. Support has clue. shoy (reactions) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
42. Support: Firstly, I admire Montanabw's answer (both paragraphs) to Question 8. This reflects a careful, considerate, thoughtful and intelligent approach that I already observe in her work as an editor. There will be no hasty wielding of the sword in a "rush to judgment". Secondly: I echo entirely Andrew Davidson's rationale in support number 28. I am thankful and excited that this RfA is finally taking place and it will be a pleasure to see Montanabw bestowed with the tools of adminship. Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
43. (edit conflict)Support. Overdue DYK updates are almost a regular occurrence nowadays, and DYK needs more volunteers. AfD statistics are not very good, but it is fine since the candidate is avoiding that area. Should be a net positive. sst 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
44. Heck yeah - I'm familiar with her administratoresque work and concur with the nominating statements.- MrX 13:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
45. Support - Genuine content contributor and appears trustworthy. -RoseL2P (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
46. Support well qualified. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
47. Support No concerns here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
48. Support -- an active, obviously passionate and well-qualified participant in the creation and discussion of Misplaced Pages content. I am in complete agreement with Dennis Brown's insights (No. 3 in the neutral section) -- but I support in the belief that Montanabw will take Dennis' advice and moderate any personal passions when they take on the somewhat mundane, by-the-book tasks of an administrator. — CactusWriter 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
49. Support - Excellent contributor and thoughtful participant. --Laser brain (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
50. Support based on review and agree with co-nom, Diannaa. Could be more objective on AfD work but a net positive overall. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
51. Support. Happy to do so. Sarah 17:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
52. Support Great content creator. Level headed and displays excellent knowledge and application of policy. Minor4th 17:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
53. Support Seems OK. Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
54. Support - basically, per Iridescent. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
55. Support - A mature, level headed editor with a lot of content and collaborative experience. She should be a welcome addition to the Admin pool.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
56. Support - fantastic. Level-headed responses to overt baiting by someone obviously trolling the nomination show great promise for someone with access to the tools, and a prolific content contributor to boot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
57. Support per Ivanvector, nom statements, and her potential to help out in areas like DYK. Keilana (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
58. Support The good far outweighs the bad Aparslet (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
59. Support likelihood of being net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
60. Had some initial concerns over the AfD stuff, but Softlavender's comment in the neutral section has convinced me that this shouldn't be a problem. Barring other issues receiving clearer evidence, support. — Earwig  19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
61. Support. Anyone who has been around this long, created this much content, and been as active as Montanabw is bound to have stepped on a few toes, and developed a few animosities. I've also had a few spirited disagreements with them, but in the end I see a mature, intelligent adult; willing to explain their position without soft-soaping their way through a discussion. I believe Montana will continue to have the project's best interests at heart, and will be a net positive in her actions and words. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
62. Support - Montanabw is passionate about improving this encyclopedia. That's not enough in and of itself, so also per noms, Softlavender's response to Richie333, candidate's answers to questions, and the candidate's understanding of WP:INVOLVED. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
63. Support Montanabw is not perfect, but is a very good editor and can contribute a lot to the encyclopedia.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
64. Weak Support per Iridescent and Ched, my support tempered by some opposes that seem to be rather troubling. Not that troubling though. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
65. Support, has competence and character to be a good admin. Cavarrone 21:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
66. Support Pokerkiller (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

    Pokerkiller - You need to provide a better reason as to why you think they should be given the mop..... –Davey2010 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

    No they don't. By tradition, voting yes means that you agree with the nom's statement. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    That was in 2006, It's now 2015 so people really need to provide a much better reason, If I were to oppose and not provide a reason I would expect to be questioned so I believe the same should happen with those who don't provide a Support reason. –Davey2010 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    @Guerillero:, Davey2010 has a valid question. I support Montanabw and explained why, but getting the bit for life is a big deal, and editors are entitled to inquire as to the reason for support. I will note that Davey's question was polite and non-confrontational, especially when compared to the harassment that most of the opposing editors have to go through. If you wish to address such questioning, you would be of more service to WP to start on the other side of the dividing line. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    If you would like to change the way requests for adminship are run or to create a de-adminning process that doesn't involve arbcom, get a consensus but please do not interrupt a part of the project to prove a point. Requests for adminship have been called "fraternity hazing ritual" and "chinese water torture" because each oppose vote is worth three support votes and the mood of the process changes at the drop of a hat. It is a vicious process that pushes good editors out. (Also, to call responses to opposes harassment de-legitimises the actual harassment that happens on this project.) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Really? Exactly what was interrupted? Besides, after watching the CF that the bureaucrats danced around in a recent crat-chat, trying to determine how to weigh supports which had no explanation for the reason, it makes sense to ask those that haven't outlined their reasons why they support the candidate. There is no prohibition on it, and as a number of people have noted, this is not a vote, but a discussion. Or would you rather just allow discussion on one side? Either way, editors are entitled to ask for the reasoning behind a position, and you are not entitled to shut down the discussion just because you are an administrator and an ArbCom member. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Montanabw#support_reason NE Ent 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

67. Support Why not? (iridescent is speaking some truth up above) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
68. Support. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
69. Support: People who hate drama don't want to be admins; drama comes with the job. If we find an editor with a passion for the encyclopedia, a strong history of content creation, and generally good judgement, we shouldn't exclude them because they have had some drama. Montanabw doesn't seem to be seeking out drama, but she hasn't shied away from it either. She should have the tools.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
70. Support I havent worked with you in quite a long time, but what I remember is entirely positive. Im not convinced by the opposes or the very difficult questions that youve suddenly become a whole different person. —Soap— 04:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
71. Support As per many above supporters. Some Opposers below saying that Montanabw is not sensible enough. We can ignore some issues related to general Human nature, but we can't ignore her contribution to many articles. She is content creator so she can be a better admin. Some people are having issues related to AFD, I have not gone deep into that but I think AFD closure should not be on the basis of number of !votes in AFD. It should be on the basis of policy. Because some users have some so called "enemies" on Misplaced Pages and these people comment "delete" without any delay when "enemy's" article gets nominated for AFD, so take that thing in account while closing AFD. Thank you. --Human3015  05:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
72. Support This editor criticized one of my very early contributions to the encyclopedia and she was right. I took her comments to heart and am a better editor as a result. She held no grudge whatsoever against me. Yes, she can be brash and sometimes a tiny bit combative but always keeping the goal of improving the encyclopedia foremost in her mind. The sad fact is that socks and trolls and vandals exist and must be opposed, which isn't always pretty but is absolutely necessary. If she is "overly inclusionist" in combatting systemic bias, then that is why we have consensus based deletion policies, and her general attitude about women's topics is commendable and worthy. As for equine topics, she is indispensible. I have watched her interactions with other editors many times over the years and am completely confident that she will use the toolkit responsibly. I support her candidacy proudly. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
73. Support Montanabw is first and foremost a fine content producer. She is level-headed, understands policies, and uses sound, balanced judgement. She is loyal, honest, fair, and responsible. She speaks with an authentic voice. She has my very strongest support. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
74. Support - What we have here is a long-time Misplaced Pages editor who has a clean block log (despite whatever "controversy" they've supposedly been involved in previously) and who has been an excellent content contributor so far. After looking at their AfD stats more thoroughly and adjusting for some eventual outcomes (no consensus = default keep), I see around a 69% "green" ("success") rate with a few minor issues, mostly in the AfD nominating area. While this statistic is a tad low IMHO, this editor here has apparently only participated in around 140 AfDs (and voted in only around 126 AfDs). In my personal observation of this editor's conduct on Misplaced Pages, I have found them to be very helpful and trustworthy. I also think it's important to consider that we are all human beings and that our current Misplaced Pages administrator corps is far from perfect. This user would make a good addition to that administrator corps. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
75. Support One of our best content producers, and someone who puts the encyclopedia first. My experiences with her have been uniformly good. We need a diversity of views on behavior and inclusion/deletion among admins. Acroterion (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
76. Support, mostly per Cullen328 (3-4 !votes above). I also reviewed the candidate's history at ANI, pointed out by Wbm1058 below, and found either several WP:BOOMERANGs against socks or POV-pushers, or some run-of-the-mill passionate head-butting. As User:Dennis Brown said in the Neutral section, Montanabw tends to be too passionate on occasion, which is not a plus for an administrator, but I still trust her experience and ability to restrain herself enough to believe she will not abuse the tools. No such user (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
77. Support - I have been urging Montanabw to stand for adminship for years. When I saw the standing for admin banner on her talk page, I had to come out of slumber and support. Superb content provider, can be trusted to stand aside at the slightest whiff of involvement, or effectively cut through BS when needed. Is she passionate? Heck yes. We need passion in the service of the project. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
78. Support Great contributor to the project. Montanabw has been very helpful and civil whenever I've interacted with her. Clear net benefit by becoming an admin. Gizza 12:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Pending answer to Q 24, but also for a terrible AfD record, refusing to answer good-faith questions (see #10, 17, and 18), has demonstrated why she wants the tools, but not why she needs them, especially the answer to question #13, in which she says she'd only use them "sporadically". But most of all because multiple editors have agreed that Montanabw was stalking me for several months. Here's a few examples, and I have several others that I could share. Sitush: "OK, I've done some digging around and it looks like all of this stuff from Montanabw may be an extension of her ongoing stalking and feud with Rationalobserver and Dr Blofeld."() Dr. Blofeld: "Stop stalking RO and acting like a 7 year old school girl bully around her waiting to pounce on her edits and inviting others to criticize her work".() Sitting arbitrator Yunshui also thought Montanabw had targeted me: "I'm not disagreeing that you have been targeted by other editors (or editor; I think we all know who we're talking about here), and that's to their shame".() I also have a major concern that she's been mislabeling edits as vandalism that aren't, and I think a good candidate for admin should have a strong understanding of what is and what isn't vandalism. Particularly when "blocking obvious vandals" is a primary reason for wanting adminship. Also pending satisfactory answers to questions 10, 11, and 12. RO 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

   Extensive discussion moved to talk page: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Rationalobserver's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   More of the discussion was moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion that continued after the one above was moved. Epic Genius (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose The candidate has a terrible AfD record, and insufficient grasp of the deletion policies and guidelines. Also, she casts indiscriminately "keep" !votes at women's topics, and when in fear of not to get it her way, assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dating Violence Awareness Week. Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   That's a genuine concern which needs attention, but still I will support her. Action Hero Shoot! 04:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC) WP:Sock comment struck. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

   In those two examples I don't see anywhere that she "assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women". I do see where she disagreed with your delete !vote, and you later withdrew that vote (because following article re-factoring you believed the subject might be sufficiently notable). I think if you are going to make a case here, you need better examples. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   You're mistaken. After refactoring the article (Dating Violence Awareness Week) I reserved judgment, needing some time to re-evaluate the situation. I withdrew the !vote that was cast judging the article as it was at the time, and later re-instated my "delete" !vote with a different rationale, addressing the shape of the article as it is now. Check the editing history, at no time I cast a "keep" !vote. Kraxler (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   I wasn't mistaken, that's exactly what I said happened; and you've not countered my concerns about your mischaracterization of Montanabw's actions. Softlavender (talk)

   You wrote "you believed the subject might be sufficiently notable". I did no such thing. I suggest you stand by what you write or cease to take part in debate. As to her !vote at the Marta Urzua AfD, read Sandstein's closing rationale, Montanabw's !vote was so far off the guidelines, I can only hope she'll not be tempted (Iif this RfA passes) to close any AfD following that line of thinking. Kraxler (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   In the Dating Violence Awareness Week AfD Montanabw wrote: "I'm kind of offended by Kraxler's tone that implies that this is an irrelevant event of no consequence. We have a lot of problems with systemic bias on wikipedia and this dismissive tone toward both women's issues and an Asian topic suggests this is a factor to be considered." Now, Softlavender, you say "I don't see anywhere that she "assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women" Well, open your eyes. (Note: Article was deleted because it was a one-time event with only very little local coverage without lasting impact.) Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Could ya'll (Kraxler, Softlavender) give it a rest? Kraxler has provided wikilinks to support their opinion; I'm confident Rfa voters are capable of reviewing the linked pages and forming their own opinion.NE Ent 12:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Kraxler, in the AfD you wrote: "The article has been edited to completely change the scope and actual content, so I withdraw my !vote." The only reason to withdraw a delete !vote is the presumption that the subject might be sufficiently notable; as you said above, "I reserved judgment, needing some time to re-evaluate the situation." And as far as your claim that Montanabw assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women, you still have not provided any evidence of any of that -- that is, no evidence of assuming bad faith, and no evidence of accusing other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women. Nowhere did she assume bad faith about you, and nowhere did she accuse you of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women. In point of fact, she avoided accusing you or anyone of wilfully promoting anything, while at the same time reminding you that there is a systemic bias on Misplaced Pages against women and non-Anglophones that needs to be brought to light and avoided. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Systemic bias can not be addressed by compulsive hoarding. I have written 46 out of 140 entries at Category:Women state legislators in New York. 140 is about the total number of existing women state legislators in NY where women conquered the right to vote in 1918. There have been thousands of male state legislators, so you see that "systemic bias" is a question of fact. To override the Misplaced Pages deletion guidelines and policies to forcibly change that is poor judgment. To write articles on really notable women (as I did) is the path to follow, not to (in the future) throw one's admin weight around to force non-notable subjects to be retained. Kraxler (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   You're still making a lot of completely off-topic statements, and a lot of allegations about Montanabw not backed up by any facts. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

   You're mistaken again. AfD has always been one of the most important RfA topics. Kraxler (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

   Misdirection yet again. This is my last time repeating this: You have made a number of allegations about Montanabw not backed up by any facts. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose Too in the thrall of the cult of Corbett for me. No credibility. --Drmargi (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   I doubt Montanabw has ever even heard of him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   See User talk:Montanabw/Archive 7. (Not that I agree with the postulate.). NE Ent 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

4. Regretful oppose, primarily due to temperament issues—specifically, long-term ownership behavior at WP:EQUINE (which drove me elsewhere when I first began editing actively here) and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (again, long-term) which is incompatible with adminship. Miniapolis 13:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'm sorry, I don't like doing this, but I'm going to have to oppose for three main reasons. For one, as some people have mentioned already, I've seen irregular tactics at AfD and battleground mentality are a cause for concern. Secondly, I've witnessed various personal feuds with other editors in the past, and finally, the attempt of ousting out RO's physical location in what was considered "stalking". This is a grave concern. I hope that by having the tools she won't attempt to oust out other people's locations in believing that they were socks. I was involved in this briefly, so for those who don't know, I'll lay out some diffs:

   • Me on 11 April at the "Attempted ousting" ANI disccusion: "...This appears to be an attempted outing on RO and it may be supported through this diff "RO edited, logged out and and geolocated to Las Vegas" and also editing patterns appearing similar. I am very concerned that this is polemic and an attempt to find out RO's physical location"
   • Here's Dennis Brown: "At some point, you need to pull back or you are just harassing an editor".
   • Here's me: "This is stalking and harassment"
   • Here's Liz: "it's also important when, proven wrong, to let it go and stop trying to prove that they are guilty. That can eventually bring on charges of harassment or stalking." JAGUAR  16:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

6. Oppose. (Moved from neutral.) Jaguar's "oppose" statement pushed me over the edge. I cannot support a candidate with so many recently-proven instances of failing to assume good faith. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
   • Also, I am not comfortable with the existence of User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. This page looks like a grudge hitlist of sorts. This page really needs to be off-wiki, or at least deleted from here. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
     • ...Looks like the page User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox is here to stay though. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I'm sorry, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting this candidate. As pointed out by another !voter above me, I looked through Montanabw's AfD record and, despite the inevitable objections which will arise, she does seem to invariably !vote keep on any topic relating to women/feminism/third-world nations, and multiple times the final result was delete. For this reason, I fear that she would have an unhealthy bias whenever taking administrative action related to these topics. She also seems to have a difficult time just letting go of previous disputes or grudges, as shown by the years-long compilation of diffs at User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. I also seem to personally recall an encounter between her and SMcCandlish last year (it was something about an RM for a goat breed, which I unknowingly got involved in by closing the discussion), and I was less than impressed with her handling of the situation. As shown by Jaguar, I'm also disturbed by her treatment of RO, and in particular her attempt to make it well-known that RO edited while logged out and that it geolocated to a particular place. This very much calls into question her conduct when involved in disputes. --Biblioworm 17:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
8. Oppose- Because of the campaign against RO, and the weird erroneous keep votes pointed out by Kraxler. Reyk _YO! 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
9. Oppose per the excessive campaigning and skirmishing noted above. Esquivalience 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose One of the primary functions of admins is to reduce drama. Montanabw orbits it like a moth to a flame. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I've seen her take some bone-headed positions, most usually rushing to somehow back up one of her wiki-friends she perceives needs support, jumping in with passionate argument but basically consisting of nothing more than thoughtless conceit and insult. Do we really need/want an admin of that nature?? She called me a "Randy" when I questioned one of her wiki-friends who was indirectly calling me a "narcissist". (My editing skill and knowledge of WP has not been perfect, like most editors it has evolved and improved over my editing history, but I don't believe I've qualified for "Randy" label re any WP article. Please explain the basis for calling me a "Randy", Montana.) I think I remember her musing to become admin based on idea to balance out the Wikicop/civility-obsessed admins who like to block Eric Corbett. (That seems more like war mentality, than simple battleground.) IHTS (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
12. Oppose per everyone above - I can't support giving the mop to someone who has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, Constantly !votes Keep on every single women-related AFD, and cannot let let go of disputes, In all I think handing the mop to this editor who quite honestly be a disaster!. –Davey2010 19:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Man am I disappointed. Earlier today I was looking at your user page, thinking you might be a fun dinner date, feeling warm and fuzzy at the prospect that soon two of the four most recent promotions would be women (a 50% ratio!), but then a few things I saw started pricking some holes in my bubble. So I reluctantly concluded that I would need to do some due diligence. I'm truly sorry, my search of the Administrator's Noticeboard turned up 96 hits. I don't need to go into details, as the section headers speak for themselves. I didn't have the stomach to glance through more than a few of them. For comparison, searching on myself, I only found 15 hits. And mine are just mostly routine stuff: some testing that I mentioned in my RfA, a report about one of my bots' predecessors being down, adding a permalink for reference, etc. One substantive discussion I noticed was about conduct relating to my RfA, which I wasn't even aware of until I just looked at it. I can grant a few passes, but sorry, this is way more drama than I can handle. I hope the community doesn't hate me for this. SO SO sorry. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

    You judge the suitability of female admin candidates by whether or not they'd be a fun dinner date? Brustopher (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

    No. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Spit take. I had 689 edits to ANI when I had my RFA. You need to actually do due diligence to figure out what is drama, how many boomerangs occurred, and what is Montanabw seeking admin assistance. --NeilN 23:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

    My similar search on you found 275 hits. What I was looking for was incidents, not individual edits. Your record doesn't have any "headlines" screaming at me, and appears like you patrolled for bad actors. Lots of "User x reported by User:Neil N." We're comparing apples and oranges. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    I just spent some time going into the details of your search, as the section headings do not speak for themselves, and I don't find Montanabw perfect, but I see nothing that indicates they shouldn't be an admin. I see that she has tangled with some tendentious people and supported some experienced editors, but when people have tried to say bad things about her, the conclusion has generally been that she is not the problem.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

    • section: Montanabw allegedly bites Bu************
    • section: User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark ********
    • section: Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior (?)
    • section Montanabw personal attacks
    • section User:Montanabw reported by User:Alv******** (Result: Both warned)
    • section Montanabw behavior
    • section Montanabw personal attacks
    • section User:Montanabw reported by User:Nom************* (Result: Article Protected)
    • section User:Montanabw reported by User:Sh***** (Result: Protected)
    • section Pattern of abusive behavior from Montanabw

    and on it goes. I realize that these are just charges I'm looking at, and if these were brought before ArbCom they would need to be thoroughly investigated. There's just so many of them, from so many different editors. It's a lot of smoke, and when there's this much smoke, there's usually some fire. Y'all have a benign explanation for this? Why can't she stop these from escalating? Wbm1058 (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    She can't control what other editors do. RFA candidates really are in a no-win situation here. Spend your time doing cleanup tasks and you have no idea what content contributors go through and out of ignorance will block them when they rise to some bait or argue too passionately for their edits. Be a prolific content contributor and you don't need the tools or you'll abuse the tools because you've been content disputes that have been escalated. If you're going to ding an editor for being at ANI too often then your view would have more weight if you provided specific instances where the outcome pointed towards their disruption. --NeilN 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    You say when there's this much smoke, there's usually some fire. Then find the fire. I don't find blowing smoke or innuendo persuasive. I didn't read all of those 96 hits, but I didn't find reason to oppose in the ones I did.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Let's look at these a little closer. I am making some assumptions here but I think these are the threads, assuming they are taken in order from the search results:

    • Montanabw allegedly bites Bu************ is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Montanabw allegedly bites Buttermilk1950. Click on through and you will find that Buttermilk1950 is a sock of veteran socker and copyright violater ItsLassieTime. Date of thread: 2009.
    • User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark ******** is the thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive238#User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Mark Marathon blocked). The other editor was blocked for one week for edit warring and Montanabw was not blocked. Date of thread: 2014.
    • Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior (?) is the thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive528#Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior (?). This is the LassieTime sock Buttermilk1950 opening a thread about Montanabw. LassieTime also participates in the thread. Result: LassieTime, Buttermilk, and four other socks are blocked. Date of thread: 2009.
    • section Montanabw personal attacks is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Montanabw personal attacks. Gist of thread: two editors in huge bunfight. Result: both urged to try to get along. Date of thread: 2013.
    • section User:Montanabw reported by User:Alv******** (Result: Both warned) is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive265#User:Montanabw reported by User:Alvesgaspar (Result: Both warned). Edit warring board. Date: 2014.
    • section Montanabw behavior is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Montanabw behavior. The complainant, an IP editor, was blocked for 48 hours. There's speculation in the thread that the IP was ItsLassieTime. Date of thread: 2010.
    • the second hit for "Montanabw personal attacks" points to the same thread as the first one (the one I described as a bunfight).
    • Two edit noticeboard threads, dated 2013 and 2014. Both resulted in article protection.
    • The section Pattern of abusive behavior from Montanabw is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#Pattern of abusive behavior from Montanabw. Closed as no abusive behavior found. One editor commented "If anything, Montanabw consistently demonstrates the exact opposite." Date of thread: 2015. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    To Wbm1058: As I noted (or at least hinted at) in my Support !vote, Montanbw is one of the fairly few editors who care enough about Misplaced Pages to spend a lot of her time keeping the trolls (and their socks) away. The trolls and vandals fight back, and try to get Montanabw in trouble at ANI. She has emerged with a perfectly clean block log and a record and reputation for exposing and ousting the most problematic of trolls and abusers. Other Wikipedians are not made of such stern stuff. Your complete lack of due diligence and your basing on oppose vote on ANI mentions alone is way out of line and based on completely erroneous logic. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Okay, I wasn't going to go here, but SoftLavenders's last comment was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm sure she remembers this ANI (it was only five months ago) in which three editors, of whom I was one, were being harrassed with accusations of sock puppetry, and in which she (Softlavender) stated to one of us: ""TheGracefulSlick", if anything at worst you are just digging yourself in deeper and calling attention to your disruption and probable sockpuppetry." Outrageous. The reason this ANI was closed wasn't because there wasn't a raging fire burning, but because one admin decided to close it with a veiled warning. There was plenty of fire there. And, Wbm1058 asks a good question in "Why can't she stop these from escalating? It's because she goads her suspected socks or what she perceives as problem editors into taking her to ANI, hoping for a boomerang. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Lynn, my opinion is you've done nothing but grudgematching on this entire RfA, unlike TheGracefulSlick, who is now a big Montanabw fan and friend, so I think your motivations and opinion here are a bit suspect. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    You're entitled to your completely unsupported opinion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Softlavender, regarding

    User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark ******** is the thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive238#User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Mark Marathon blocked). The other editor was blocked for one week for edit warring and Montanabw was not blocked. Date of thread: 2014.

    That was a serious miscarriage of justice. In that instance, Mark got railroaded by Montanabw and her mates. (Don't read the various executive summaries on ANI or user talk pages; follow the actual dispute, diff by diff, on the article and its talk page.) This is my concern about this user and why I'm not voting. Undoubtedly bright and a strong-willed contributor, but heavily embedded in a mutual support group that get each other's back - regardless of who's in the wrong.

    In the Mark Marathon case, he put 3 tags and 2 tags on one of Montanabw's articles. One tag was a mistake - the source at the very end of the paragraph supported the claim - but the other tags were all valid. Montanabw edit-warred all the tags off the article, at one point adding 20-odd tags to the article just to make a point.

    At ANI, User:Wehwalt and User:RexxS (sorry man, you know I love you) and others backed her up; Mark was accused of "tag-bombing", etc. Dangerous Panda blocked Mark for the edit war then lied that it was for something else. It. Was. Appalling.

    Call me a dreamer. I honestly can't say why - but I think/hope Montanabw is better than that, and can rise above the instinct to savage anyone who dares to challenge her perfectness. I also have a lot of sympathy for her and the others in her gang who have had to deal with some awful socks over the years. So, let's just say a little prayer together now that Montanabw won't be using blocking or threats of blocking to unduly govern topic areas she and her friends own. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    I believe you mean to ping Dianaa on this; I have not commented on the item(s) you are highlighting. My post was about the sum total of M's ANI results, not a particular one out of the hundreds dozens of results where she is mentioned or accused or where she participated in or opened a thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC); edited 11:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Ugh. I'm on a phone and stupid. Yes. User:Diannaa. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Well, I won't disagree with the last part of that anyway. Were the substance of the rest even true, given that I do manage to get the occasional article through FA, I'm reminded of Lincoln's comment when told General Grant was a drunkard. A barrel of my brand of whisky, coming your way C.O.D.! I've worked with MontanaBW on an FA as I have many people, even people I deeply disagree with. Because content is what we produce and the reader doesn't care about petty grievances backstage. Which apparently you hold towards me, given your past and present comments towards me, though this seems particularly ... outlandish. I'm not behind the bush where you see the conspiracy. Any bush.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    I know you're trying to back up your "mate" Softlavender, but I'm not sure that by representing the number of times that MB has been brought to ANI as "hundreds" to try to make the number of times there was legitimate cause sound like a tiny percentage, is doing her any favors. But, I think it's a perfect example of her "heavily embedded in mutual support group" Anthonyhcole speaks of. I've experienced it myself, by some of the same people he has mentioned, and the way they will twist the story to "get each other's back - regardless of who's in the wrong" Is. Appalling. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

14. Oppose quite disturbed that any admin candidate already has a long standing feud going on before they even started and the afd failures are just not what is required for someone with the delete button. Unsurprisingly, I find Kraxler's oppose compelling. Spartaz 23:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
15. Oppose: I hardly ever participate in RFA's but I remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale for the keep !vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa. Otherstuff is an argument frequently seen from the creators of articles up for deletion and new users. I would expect an experienced user to dig deeper when they are "surprised" by the amount of content on an obscure subject, not use it as a rationale for keeping said content, regardless of the article subject's gender or geographical location. Vrac (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
16. Oppose I rarely ever oppose an RfA candidate, but in this case I can't ignore what Kraxler has said. Aside from the obvious bias present in the keep rationale, far too many of the articles ended up being deleted anyway. The answer to question 15 failed to swing me to support or even neutral simply because this behavior gives me a clear indication you are not the kind of editor I would want with the tools, irrespective of whether you would actually take part in AFD in an administrative capacity. —Frosty ☃ 03:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
17. Oppose As others have said and I have personally seen, the candidate habitually !votes keep on AfD's related to women. While countering systemic bias is an admirable goal, you can't use that as a blanket reason to keep non-notable articles. Conifer (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    I wasn't going to say anything here, but having viewed a few of the articles which she voted "keep" on which got deleted in all honesty I don't think it's her fault, I think it's actually often the fault of the others at the AFD that they got deleted. I've checked a few of the ones she supposedly blundered on and in my book they meet content guidelines and should not have been deleted. The AFD process is deeply flawed, without good content contributors trying to save them we'd lose even more decent articles. I've lost count how many times people have blindly voted "delete, non notable" and then myself or Aymatth2 or MichaelQSchmidt have expanded something and them changed their vote to "keep". I'd be interested to see a list of the ones she voted keep on which got deleted and how many in fact should not have been deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Thats why I said in my comment above that AFD should not be closed by counting !votes. Misplaced Pages is not democracy, I think only RFA is done by counting votes otherwise no need to count the votes in AFD, closer should judge rational in "keep" comments even if they are 2 in number it should be closed as "keep" even if "delete" votes are 6.--Human3015  08:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

18. Regretful oppose. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Montanabw's contribution to the encyclopedia, especially her content work and her passion for the project as a whole. But, there are too many red flags for me, and I don't think bestowing the admin toolset is the right thing to do at this time - sorry. Please, Montanabw, continue your outstanding work here! — sparklism 08:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
19. Oppose. I'm here after much hesitation, as I used to like Montanabw a lot — as somebody said, you get a warm feeling reading her userpage — and in many ways I still do. Several of my socks are fond of her. But I had a contretemps with her in 2014 where I thought she behaved terribly — not towards me by any means — but IMO loyalty with a friend caused her to treat an opponent of that friend like dirt. I believe her actions were part of the reason the user in question left Misplaced Pages in frustration for a time, requesting a self-requested block from me (he has no other blocks, although Montana was under the impression he had, wouldn't check when he protested, and made much play with these imaginary blocks). An admin really shouldn't have friends in the sense of protecting certain people at the expense of running roughshod over others, and that's the reason I'm dubious about giving this candidate the tools: she's too loyal a friend. I don't like to oppose. She's a great content contributor and a very pleasant person to those she likes — but this is about adminship. I think Montana knows what I'm talking about, even though it was quite long ago. Montana, if you want to take issue with my description, I will of course give diffs so others can decide for themselves. It would be nice if anybody else who's curious took it to e-mail and I'll respond fully, but that's obviously not up to me. If there has to be detailed and inevitably painful discussion of the episode, we should probably take it to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC).
20. Oppose. I really didn't want to be here. She's an intelligent, productive content creator and we need a lot more of those but the more I think about the partisanship I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, the less comfortable I am with her having the block button. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, leaning weak oppose. Moved to oppose. It's refreshing for me to finally see a nominee whose "User talk:" edits are not in the top 2 highest amounts of edits they have done; the nominee's top 2 are the "Article:" and "Talk:" namespaces, both valuable namespaces to participate in regards to ensuring that the main reason why we are here, content creation. However, in regards to this editor becoming a administrator: I'm not completely sold. Here's my main concern: "User talk:" edits are significantly higher than the amount of edits in the "Misplaced Pages:" namespace. For an administrator, I consider experience in the "Misplaced Pages:" namespace a very necessary trait. The "Misplaced Pages:" namespace is where most, if not all, of the WP:XFD forums reside. In addition, all of the "request fulfillment" pages (such as WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:REFUND) are all in the "Misplaced Pages" namespace. Long story short, if one doesn't have ample experience in participating in consensus-based discussions or being a "requester", then I do not see supporting evidence to need to give them the administrator tools to close discussions to "delete", or "be the one fulfilling requests". Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The answer to Q13 is putting me on the edge of changing my vote. If there is not a major drive or the need to use the tools, then why should they be granted? It seems that less than 5% of the existing administrators are active in performing administrative tasks; I'd rather not contribute to making that percentage lower than it already is. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am curious why you feel that the relative percentage is more important than the absolute quantity. I don't believe anyone should be obligated to meet certain admin activity requirements beyond a basic level required to maintain competence (awareness of policy developments, etc). She does indeed say, "I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop". Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others. — Earwig  02:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The question is why would you give the tools to someone who will only need them sporadically. RO 02:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My answer to that is, as above, "Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others." The only exception to that I can think of is if their infrequent actions are poor (due to, e.g., inexperience) that they cause problems and other users need to spend time reviewing them. Given Montanabw's consistent activity over nearly ten years, I can't see that applying here. — Earwig  02:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To me, stating that they have seen "a need" doesn't equate to them having the experience and knowledge of going through the proper channels and forums that exist on Misplaced Pages. If a need is found, it should be reported on the proper board as soon as possible so that an existing administrator can resolve the issue, and so its existence can be validated for our fellow editors who don't have the privilege of being an administrator and only have the option of reporting it. I'm honestly a bit tired of seeing an editor being granted the admin tools, but doesn't have the drive to manage or understand the boards that existing administrators monitor and assist ... which I have found is usually due to lack of experience participating on them as a "requester." Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had not had an edit conflict, you would have noticed that Earwig points out The candidate has been editing for 10 years in March. I am pretty sure she's filed many requests at the various boards over time, and has no lack of experience in doing so. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw the edit ratios, and even noticed that the amount of edits in the "Misplaced Pages:" namespace is over 3000. Experience may be there, but since that namespace is not even in the top 4 of their most-edited namespaces 10% of their total edits, it doesn't seem to be a focus of theirs. (However, I found a different reason for opposition, so I'm sticking where I moved my vote.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Neutral I like Montanabw, she's a great editor and fun to be around, so I can't really bring myself to oppose right now, but I privately discussed nominating her for RfA myself in June and concluded I couldn't, partly because of the track record at AfD. As it stands today, it's just under 65% called correctly on 140 debates - that's just not quite enough to show a good understanding of basic inclusion policies and how to demonstrate them in an argument. Specific examples I raised previously are Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karuna Institute (2nd nomination) ("Keep:Adequate notability established. Needs expansion, but that is not grounds for AfD. See WP:DONOTDEMOLISH") and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition Survivors ("Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, the thing is two days old, for chrissake, let the creator work on it and expand it a bit.") both of which just sound too much like wanting to keep an article based on wishful thinking than improving it or supplying sources. Since my discussions with her, I now see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of cities impacted by current sea level rise ("This article has a clear criteria for inclusion (cities currently affected and those having a plan to deal with it) and per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, it is a valid topic that will, no doubt, expand.") with exactly the same problem! These aren't the only examples, but the most obvious ones that come to mind. In short, I feel there is a serious risk that Montanabw will end up causing more drama and controversy than reducing it, simply by being herself. Sorry. Still, this RfA looks like a slam dunk pass, so what do I know? Ritchie333 08:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Comment: It's one thing to play AfD as a numbers game, and try to get one's AfD stats up by going with the existing !votes so that your own !vote will match the final close. It's another to be a courageous inclusionist and genuinely care about articles that one considers potentially useful or encyclopedic, and to go to bat for them. Folks can turn AfD stats into a weapon and claim that poor matches indicate someone who does not understand notability or policy and therefore someone who would make a bad admin or who would close XfDs against consensus. I'm not at all sure that follows. Being a heartfelt inclusionist does not necessarily mean that one would close XfDs against policy, and it certainly does not mean that one does not understand consensus. Having courageously unpopular opinions in AfDs is probably a good thing, and a sign of someone who thinks for themselves and is not playing a numbers game for the "stats". All of that said, I commend Ritchie for having this unpopular !vote/opinion, and if it has merit, I hope Montanabw takes it into consideration if and when closing AfDs and making other notability or other policy decisions. Cheers, Ritchie. Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Ritchie, don't you think she's smart enough to recognise consensus (or no consensus) and has integrity enough to close per that - regardless of whether she agrees with the outcome? (I do.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Most of the time, I think she'll be okay. It's more a gut feeling that every now and again there'll be one that results in a massive noticeboard thread somewhere. Ritchie333 11:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   I am also uncomfortable about User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox - I appreciate that gathering evidence for an ANI or Arbcom case has merit, but this could easily be interpreted as "A list of people Montanabw doesn't get on with" ... keeping a log of editors you've butted heads with seems incompatible with the fairness and level headedness we expect from admins. I am certain I have either told her, or at least intended to tell her, to get the page deleted per WP:CSD#G7. Ritchie333 10:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Please post a diff of you asking her to get it deleted or remove the statement as irrelevant. The community, or at least a small subset of it, endorsed the page at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Montanabw/ANI_sandbox; certainly there's nothing untoward of her keep a record of the times her own behavior was raised in dispute resolution forums. It's fair to ask her to remove out of date content and I shall do so forthwith. NE Ent 11:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Just a note, Ritchie and NE Ent, that the ANI sandbox you have linked above contains material on only one user, who has had multiple identities, including a recent sock that resulted in an indef block on that user about a month ago. Like ItsLassieTime, I probably need to prepare a LTA for this user so that I can blank that sandbox. Montanabw 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I don't question Montanabw's contributions to articles, which are tremendous. Her AFD record is cause for concern, but I would have to dig more and see why the percentage is so low before using that as a deciding factor. What puts me here is different. Montanabw would probably make a great lawyer because she knows how to be an advocate for a person or cause, and I think that is a very good quality for an editor here. Passion and persistence (to a degree) are helpful to move things forward and to insure that both sides of an argument are heard, but being an admin requires being able to step back, be less involved in the mix, and simply apply policy using experience and your belief in what a consensus of the community would agree to. I'm not sure she can make that transition. This isn't a negative statement on her character, quite the opposite in fact, but it can get in the way when you are an admin and that those same qualities that are helpful in hammering out difficult content, make you a lightning rod for drama and criticism when you are using the tools. There are a great many editors at Misplaced Pages whom I hold in high esteem, typically due to their content contributions, but that doesn't mean I think they would make great admin, often because the passion they show in editing (and sometimes fighting about that content) could get in the way if they had the tools. So for now, I'm here in the land of neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Kudos to Dennis for making a genuinely clueful and relevant statement here. I hope that M takes these words to heart, and steps way back when using the admin tools. Perhaps if she sticks to the mundane and the obvious for quite some time, and saves her passion and opinionatedness for non-admin edits and posts, all will be well. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   I'm generally not going to pop into these discussions as I am the candidate, but here, I feel it is appropriate to note that I am following these discussions and I appreciate Dennis's comments and do take them to heart. Montanabw 17:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

General comments