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

Liz[edit]

Final (200/72/9). Scheduled to end 10:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC), placed on hold at 11:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC) by WJBscribe pending outcome of bureaucrat discussion and closed as successful per bureaucrat discussion by Maxim(talk) at 00:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Liz (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you an outstanding candidate for adminship, Liz. Liz has been around on Wikipedia for a couple of quite a few years, but I can't remember a time without seeing her name in conversations. I'm pleased to say that whenever I look, she's the one talking sense! A quick look at her talk page will show you how helpful she is and how much of a difference she makes. Liz is active at the Teahouse, helping out new users, helps out at places like BLP noticeboard and does an exceptional job dealing with difficult users as an arbitration committee clerk. Her diplomatic skills are exemplary and she has managed to remain a calm and sensible voice in our more contentious areas. When she's not doing that, she's gnoming away categories, making sure the encyclopedia is organised.
I do always have a concern when a candidate does not have significant content work - it makes it harder for them to empathise with those editors who do and lack of empathy leads to a significant portion of admin problems. Liz, however, has demonstrated empathy, understanding and helpfulness. That certainly allays my fears there.
Overall, we're left with a candidate who ticks the right boxes. When it comes down to it, I trust her to be an excellent administrator, and that's all I could ask for. WormTT(talk) 06:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

I've been aware of Liz primarily through her work as an ArbCom clerk, and the way she approaches this role has convinced me that she would be an excellent candidate for admin rights. Liz has two major points in her favour: firstly, she's proved to be a model of diplomacy and discretion when dealing with complex, heated issues; and secondly, she's never been afraid to ask for help and advice when unsure of something. I'm absolutely confident that, if handed the tools, she would be one of our most cautious and circumspect administrators.
The spectre of content creation (or lack thereof) will undoubtedly raise it's head during this discussion; my position is that content creators are at the heart of Wikipedia, and that those who don't deal in content have the primary duty of supporting those who do. Liz already provides this support - how much more effective would she be with administrative rights as well? Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another conomination[edit]

It is my great pleasure to conominate Liz for adminship. It's not often that one encounters such a versatile candidate, somebody who can work both in extremely out-of-the-way places and tackle issues in the most high-profile parts of Wikipedia, and Liz does both. For better or for worse CfD is about as backwater a place as it gets, and she has been invaluable to the process and keeping it from falling into total disarray. At the same time, whenever I see her username come up during an ANI dispute or during an arbitration request there is always a helpful and thoughtful comment attached to it. She has clearly demonstrated excellent knowledge of Wikipedia's myriad policies and forums, and giving her some extra administrative tools to carry out her work will make Wikipedia that much better a place for both our readers and editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Thank you to my Worm That Turned, Yunshui and The Blade of the Northern Lights for the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work in areas I'm familiar with, specifically, in my clerk duties for ArbCom and also in WP:CFD discussions. I'm becoming more familiar with deletion discussions and would start off cautiously with areas like WP:EXPROD, WP:EXPRODBLP, CAT:EMPTY,Category:Expired editnotices and CAT:G13. I'd also like to help out on noticeboards like WP:RFPP and WP:UAA. Aside from working in backlogged administrative areas, I also want to spend time discussing with new editors problems that might occur regarding appropriate usernames and user page issues like WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm primarily a wikignome and I do a lot of work with categories and categorization. I think the biggest project I took on was categorizing all 3,916 Signpost articles that were issued over its 10 1/2 year run. Aside from some of the articles covering WikiProject reports which Ottawahitech categorized a few years ago, the vast majority of articles were uncategorized and the archives were very incomplete. I view the Signpost as an invaluable resource in understanding how Wikipedia, Wikipedia's editors and policies have evolved after 2005 and the archives are available to both editors and researchers who are interested in seeing, for example, how Wikipedia has been portrayed in the media, how the arbitration process has changed and how new technology has been introduced to the project. I know that I learned an awful lot about the Wikipedia editing community when I went through all of the articles. I should mention that there is an additional indexing/tagging project that is starting at the Signpost but I still believe that, aside from the search tool, categories are the primary and most basic way to find information and that having the articles correctly categorized will facilitate that project.
The other large project I undertook was in March 2014, I went through 1,174 WikiProjects (along with their task forces), reviewed their status (active, inactive, defunct or semi-active) and updated their tagging and categorization. In some cases, editing a dormant WikiProject caused a conversation with a member as the page unexpectedly popped up on their Watchlist. I was able to see the incredible diversity in WikiProjects that have been created and how activity levels have changed over the years. Also, in the past, I spent a lot of time on noticeboards and I like to think that I helped the discussions there stay on topic.


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: Unless one edits in a rarely visited topical area of Wikipedia, editing will sometimes involve conflict. Editors have different levels of editing experience, work with different knowledge bases and bring their own point of view. Well-intentioned people can disagree when they collaborate. But conflict isn't always destructive and full of animosity, sometimes lively discussion about an article can lead to improvement. I know there are several editors I greatly respect now but my first encounter with them was not initially a positive experience. I try not to take criticism personally and look for the kernel of truth amid cautions and warnings I've received. I also find it helpful not to edit when I'm tired because when one is sleep-deprived, one can get sloppy or be overly sarcastic or bitey towards other editors.
When I think of serious conflicts I've had on Wikipedia, they haven't been about editing, they have been about my choice to defend some editors that I thought, at that time, were being bullied. I believed that every editor deserved to have their say and thought these editors were getting shouted down. My defense of these editors made me unpopular among regular editors in this subject area (biographies that were related to pseudoscience). This didn't cause me stress because at the time I truly believed what I was doing was helping reach a consensus. In hindsight, I see that I shouldn't have participated in divisive arguments without knowing the more of the details of the articles in contention along with their history. Also, while many new editors are simply unfamiliar with the editing and consensus processes at Wikipedia and they have the potential to get clue, other newbies are extremely persistent, unwilling to drop the stick and are here to right great wrongs. I've learned to be more circumspect when entering areas that have become a battleground. I'm careful when editing an article that falls under discretionary sanctions because there is a reason why the sanctions exist, because the discussion surrounding the subject has been contentious.
Additional question from Northamerica1000
4. How do you perceive the overall present state of AfD on Wikipedia?
A: Although I first nominated an article for deletion right after I started this account (which was kept), I consider myself a newcomer at AfD. I'm hesitant to pass judgment on an area of Wikipedia where there are regular editors and admins who devote a lot of time to discussion and determining notability while I have limited experience there. But I think, like many areas of Wikipedia, AfD could benefit from wider participation of a larger pool of contributors. I've been looking through a lot of AfD nominations lately and there are many which have one or no other editors weighing in other than the nominator. And sometimes articles get deleted based on an AfD nomination and one other editor arguing for deletion which seems like a low bar for deletion of content. Relisting can help but it doesn't always draw in fresh eyes.
But having participated a lot at CfD and a bit at MfD, I can say that there is often a small group of regulars who actively prevent backlogs from occurring. Editors who participate in focused areas like reviewing GAs, FAs or at AfC might have the same lament of needing more editors to help out a core group of regulars. On Wikipedia, editors tend to specialize in certain activities but I believe it helps the project if editors with a variety of different perspectives and experience participate in deletion discussions.
Additional question from Nsk92
5. Could you give some examples of articles you created or substantially improved?
A: No, I can't. In article space, I generally perform wikignomish tasks like copyediting, formatting (there are lots of problems with tables) and fixing references which are bare URLs or are incomplete. As you can tell if you look at my edit count, I haven't spent a lot of time focused on specific articles and have breadth, rather than depth.
If I can just make a comment here though because I knew this question might come up. When I started seriously editing Wikipedia, I had left a long stint in graduate school where I wrote dozens of referenced papers for courses, conferences and a few publications (including one printed encyclopedia). I was exhausted by the end and, coming to Wikipedia, I wanted a break from that especially since my area of study (sociology of race, gender, religion), is full of conflict on Wikipedia. I focused on organization, that is, categories, and small editing fixes rather than content creation. But the sociology articles on Wikipedia could use some improvement and I feel like I should making a contribution there. So I hope this can change in the near future and, after educating myself on the differences between academic writing and creating content on Wikipedia, I can work on expanding Wikipedia's coverage of sociological topics, literature and scholars.
Additional question from Brustopher
6. Jimmy Wales descends from the heavens and gives you the magical power to ignore all rules and salt and delete any one Wikipedia page of your choice. Which page do you choose to salt and delete, and why?
A: That's easy, it's was just deleted last month but I would salt Wikipedia:Don't be a pussy. That essay existed on the project too long, long after Wikipedia:Don't be a dick became a redirect to Wikipedia:Don't be a jerk. I hope that page would never be recreated but I'd salt it just to be sure.
Additional question from Brustopher
7. If given the mop, do you have any plans to get involved in discretionary sanctions enforcement? If so, what approach will you take towards sanctions enforcement?
A: Yes, I think enforcing discretionary sanctions comes with the territory. Of course, if I pass this RfA, I would never take action in a subject in which I am involved. The only area covered by DS that I consider myself involved is Gamergate.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
8. What is your view of Process is important?
A: My view is highly favorable. Although to an individual editor, processes on Wikipedia can be frustrating, there is a reason why specific processes are proposed, created and developed over time...to standardize how important decisions are made rather than making their outcome variable and arbitrary. Decisions based on processes like deletion discussions or RfAs involve determining the consensus of those editors participating rather than having one editor acting on what they believe to be true or right. An important element of Wikipedia processes is when an editor questions why their contribution has been deleted or their article failed a Good Article review, they can be told policy-based answers that will hopefully lead to content improvement rather than being told "I didn't like it."
While acting out of process and taking shortcuts can be tempting to impatient editors or admins, doing so can lead to sanctions, blocks and even desysopping. While all Wikipedia processes can be imperfect in execution, they are a safeguard against unfairness and editors need to know that there are certain conditions that result in an article, category or template being deleted, disputes getting resolved or an editor becoming an admin, bureaucrat or arbitrator.
9. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: Very strictly because a speedy delete tagging can have an immediate impact. If there is any question about whether the SD criteria apply or if there is significance to the subject, a PROD or AFD nomination is warranted. If the reviewing editor believes that there are specific problems with an article involving issues like COI, NPOV or inadequate referencing, they can fix it themselves, tag the article or post a notice to the article creator outlining ways the article can be improved.
10. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: I think it is an important pillar but should be invoked sparingly. Sometimes, as when an editor indulges in wikilawyering, they can argue for a technical interpretation of policies or guidelines that goes against their intent or purpose. So, IAR acknowledges that breaking a rule is possible if it is preventing one from improving the project. But in all cases of IAR, an editor or admin must be prepared to explain their action and supply justifications for why a specific technical reading of policy is not in keeping with the spirit of the policy. In the case of administrative actions, I believe that explaining an IAR action is part of administrator accountability.
11. 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: I think this is an important role for both editors and administrators. While many people focus on the tools an administrator has at their disposal, an less appreciated skill is the ability to communicate with editors, particularly ones that are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's many guidelines. When I moved from being a casual editor to a regular one, I was pretty frustrated, finding myself corrected for not following so many rules I didn't even know existed. Calm explanations from editors and admins, like Redrose64, made the difference between me learning the ropes here or leaving embittered. I believe in a revised version of Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance and I appreciate the editors and admins who take the time to explain procedures before chastising new editors for not following them. I aspire to follow their example.
Additional question from Ritchie333
12. A brand new user creates an article. Its entire content is : "Wings Place is a house in sussex". What do you do?
A: Initially, this looks like a CSD A1 but doing a search quickly provides information on the ‘Anne of Cleves House’. I find that Anne of Cleves House already exists on Wikipedia but I'd have to do a bit more sleuthing to see if the two houses are one and the same since I'm not familiar with Sussex. If they are the same house, I would change the Wings Place page to a redirect to the Anne of Cleves House and notify the creator that their article duplicates an existing topic. If they aren't the same house, well, I'd use whatever information I found to provide referencing to this newly created article.
Additional question from Ritchie333
13. An IP removes a paragraph from Moors Murders. An experienced and popular editor who helped get the article through FAC reverts with a summary "not an improvement". The two editors revert each other again. The IP adds a note to to the talk page and reverts. The experienced editor reverts again with an edit summary "have you got shit for brains or what?" An uninvolved third party posts a note to WP:AN3. As an admin, what do you do?
A: I don't know the span of time over which these reverts happened (a day? weeks?) but assuming it is over 24 hours, they haven't gone over 3 reverts. But this is clear edit-warring. I'd post a warning notice to both the IP and the experienced editor and encourage them to discuss the proposed changes on the article talk page. I think the IP would need to make an exceptionally strong case to justify the wholesale removal of a paragraph from a Featured Article. I'd also make sure that Moors Murders is on my Watchlist so I could see if there was further disruption to the article.
Additional question from Hawkeye7
14 A Wikipedian sneaks into a portaloo at Wikimania and removes the contents left by Jimbo Wales. A home canning outfit is then used, and the results are sold on EBay as "Jimbo Wales's canned shit." This attracts mainstream media attention. Can an article be created about the product? Which of our policies and guidelines apply here?
A: @Hawkeye7:, points for originality. First, I doubt that a story about anyone's canned excrement on EBay would be covered by reliable sources (WP:V) but since this is a hypothetical case, let's assume that the New York Times and the BBC publish a story about "Jimbo Wales's canned shit" rather than the incident being covered by tabloid sources (WP:BLPSOURCES) which would not be considered reliable. An article can be created on any subject but this one would be deleted due to violations of WP:BLP policy, specifically, "biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." While an argument could be made based on Wales being a public figure, BLP policy states that a negative allegation or incident can be mentioned in an article if it is "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented". In this case, I would argue that this incident isn't noteworthy or relevant when considering the entire biography of Wales and is a trivial incident that has little to no influence on his life, career or impact on culture.
Discussion moved to talk page
Additional question from Bishonen
15 Liz, I note your response to question 3 above, where you mention your "choice to defend some editors that I thought, at that time, were being bullied" and that you would have acted more circumspectly today. I hope you don't mind if I ask a little more specifically about your choices now. What are your present ideas wrt WP:FRINGE and fringe POV-pushers? A year or two ago, I thought them dubious, indeed to be absolutely frank I regarded you as something of an enabler of fringe editors. Strong words, I know, and I totally know you act differently now. You're a tactful clerk on arb pages, you're helpful all over the place, and I don't really know if you edit wrt to fringe editors at all these days. (Your gnoming edits are very helpful, Liz, but the sheer copiousness of them means your contribs are hard to parse.)
Your input on the Tumbleman SPI was deplorable IMO. But it's from a year and a half ago, and so Wikipedia's "it was ages ago, AGF that the candidate has learned better since" principle kicks in, and Manul removes his question. But I would like you yourself (not so much your supporters), if you would, to state whether or not you think differently now. I think your emphasis on popularity and circumspection above may not do you justice, and, well, I'd like to feel able to support without misgivings. A few examples: do you have any opinion today about the campaign that drove IRWolfie off Wikipedia? I'm not suggesting you took active part in any campaign, but I noted your post (diplomatically speaking of "certain editors" but chiefly meaning Wolfie) in this thread (the thread is important context). That's not a huge deal on your part, just one edit and just something I happened to be aware of, since Wolfie asked me twice for long self-requested blocks, and I know how those unreelenting attacks affected him. Somewhat bigger examples: Do you feel any differently today about your support of Askahrc or Tumbleman[1]? BTW, I would ignore Hawkeye's question just above if I were you, maybe remove it. It's a troll. Oh, I see you already replied, while I was fiddling with this post. Up to you, but it's still a troll. I'd have removed it. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
A: Thank you, Bishonen, for providing me with such nuanced feedback. I don't want to write a wall of text in response and I feel like no matter how much I write, you might find the answer incomplete. But I'll do my best.
I was a casual editor of Wikipedia until July 2013 when I began editing more intensively. From July-October 2013, I was rather zealous, idealistic and prone to want to right great wrongs. I am a strong believer in assuming good faith and, until the sockpuppet investigation indicated that the Tumbleman had used a number of accounts, I believed in giving the editor the benefit of the doubt. I didn't view his commentary on the Rupert Sheldrake talk page as disruptive, I thought he was just presenting a different point of view than the editors who were actively working on this article. But it was a battleground at that time. I was not aware of IRWolfie being driven off of Wikipedia as, the way I view it, he was very successful it bringing editors to AE when he thought they were violating pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. I wasn't aware of unrelenting attacks against him but as there are blog entries discussing me, using my real life identity, because of comments I've made on Gamergate, I can sympathize with him if he was a target of off-wiki maligning. It is disheartening and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
As for the area of pseudoscience, I give it a wide berth. I haven't edited any pseudoscience articles, I never received a notice about pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, my comments regarding editors working in this area (not the subjects themselves) were in project space, user talk pages and article talk pages. What my issue has always been is with labeling people as being "fringe". I know that fringe POV pushers, trolls, socks and otherwise disruptive editors exist and that they consistently cause damage to Wikipedia. But I also see that these are labels that once given to editors, especially new editors, are impossible to shake or overcome. Being called "fringe" by an editor is basically a sign to others that this individual is here to cause trouble and should be given the boot. I think there should be evidence that an editor is here to promote a point of view contrary to mainstream science and I don't think talk page comments hold the same weight as edits that shape articles on sensitive subjects.
As for how I would act differently now, well, when a number of well-established editors criticize an editor as being disruptive, I don't dismiss their concerns, I view the situation objectively rather than as a battleground between editors with different levels of influence which is how I viewed it two years ago. But, to be honest, since I returned to Wikipedia after a wikibreak, I spend little time on noticeboards, especially compared to my past behavior, and I'm no longer drawn into controversy. The one exception I see is Gamergate where I keep a limited presence on the talk page as I think it is important for at least one female editor to participate there.
I don't know if these answers will reassure you, or anyone else, or whether it tilts your vote in one direction or the other. But you asked me valid questions and I think editors participating here should know where I used to stand and where I stand now. Please let me know if you have additional questions you'd like me to address if this answer is insufficient.
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
16. You come across and block a new user named "Fuckmyass69" who posts nothing but spam, including on their own pages. How likely are you to revoke talk page access?
A: The default for blocks is to allow talk page access for blocked editors so that they can request an unblock. If this editor continues to post spam on their user talk page after they are blocked, then it is appropriate to disable this because of continued abuse of their talk page.
I'd just like to point out the imporbablity of this scenario. An editor with a name like this would be blocked within minutes of registering this username, if the filters even allowed it in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is improbable indeed, Beeblebrox, though I did once come across a user named "Bigtits82" who managed to get in several inappropriate article talk page posts before being blocked for that and the username issue. The user requested a name change before being confirmed as a sock puppet and having talk page access revoked. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from IHTS
17. Explain please why you feel it is more important to keep your username physically larger than 99.9% of other users' user signatures, instead of shinking it sufficiently such that it doesn't perpetually throw off line spacing where ever your posts might be read. (It's a constant minor irritant that never goes away, since it's 99.9% unexpected, since is so unusual. Why is your personal signature size worth messing with line spacing for all readers where you might ever post? Each time it causes a flashed thought of missing a user post causing a paragraph break, a user forgot to sign in the previous paragraph, "is something wrong with my computer", etc. etc. These "flash-thoughts" are involuntary BTW, just like if I say "cow" you can't not flash-think of that animal. You never got this feedback from me, do you think I'm alone? Would it cause you to cry to shrink your username to not throw off vertical line-spacing? Vertical line spacing has meaning on WP, which other than images is all about text, sentences, paragraphs. If you think your username distorting vertical line spacing is "not disallowed", I'm not interested in hearing that because that isn't the point.) IHTS (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have to be honest, Ihardlythinkso, this is the first complaint I've received about my signature. My signature used to be in a cursive font and a standard size but, for some reason, that font is no longer available. I saw another user's signature I liked and borrowed this font from them. I'm sorry you find it so distracting. I will search for a font that is less oversized but still distinctive so you might see changes to it in the near future.
Discussion moved to talk page
Additional question from Go Phightins!
18. I hate to pile on with another question, but do have one: What do you make of all the oppose votes concerning your lack of content creation? Is that an area you will explore in the future, regardless of whether this request passes? (I saw you alluded to this above, but wanted to give you a chance to expound.) Thanks.
A: At this point, I see this as a friendly question, Go Phightins!. I appreciate it. I knew that my lack of content creation would be an issue, but I didn't expect anything like this response at an RfA. I was just looking at your user page and remembering in April 2015, I was named Editor of the Week! That seems like a long time ago.
As I responded to Nsk92, I do hope to do more content creation in the future. I'd link to my master's thesis and the first draft of my dissertation as proof that I can write referenced work but they aren't online. I know academic writing is different from writing articles on Wikipedia but I did write some entries for the Encyclopedia of African-American Religions so I have some experience writing for an encyclopedia. As I said, I was in graduate school for a long time and when I started editing Wikipedia, I wanted a break from writing papers. But I do feel like I should be contributing more content-wise, I have an awful lot of reference books that are not being taken full advantage of, and I hope to write more content in the future. I'm not sure what else I can say, I'm a little speechless at this point in this RfA.
Additional question from Godsy
19. A follow-up to Question 6.- Why would you choose that particular page to delete (if it still existed)? In other words: what would your rationale be for its deletion or [as the question this is following was a WP:IAR hypothetical, striking part of this] why didn't you care for it? Under the conditions of the first question that this one is a follow-up to, it's reasonable if you simply didn't care for it. I'm unfamiliar with the page and what it contained, so a bit of context may be helpful as well. Respectfully, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is intended as a serious question or not. Question 6 was asked tongue in check, the fact that Liz didn't take to it is implied in her answer. Clearly enough members of the community agreed with Liz's assessment for this page to be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LT910001: There was no deletion discussion, see User talk:Guerillero#A question about a recently deleted page, so I'm not sure the latter part of you statement is necessarily true. I didn't particularly care for question 6. either, but I was curious about their rationale about the page. As I stated above I'm unfamiliar with the page and what it contained. "That essay existed on the project too long" and "I hope that page would never be recreated but I'd salt it just to be sure" are strong statements. I can't view the page myself, perhaps the content was ergreious. It was in the essay namespace though, so it could simply be an opinion disagreed with. Perhaps my question is not the best, but my curiosity got the best of me. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, I was deleting this page based on WP:IAR as stated in the original question and I assume that was the rationale for the deletion of this essay.
I don't have access to the deleted page so answering why "I didn't care for it" is coming from my memory. The article outlined undesirable traits for Wikipedia editors and identified them as indicative of being a "pussy". This is not only slang for a vagina but it is also a put down of men when they exhibit behavior that is perceived as feminine or weak. I believe this is disrespectful to both female or male editors. Considering that the editing community is a global one, the essay was potentially vulgar and offensive to editors from many cultures as a man being called a slur indicating female genitals is typically seen as rude and provocative.
Of course, these are reasons why I didn't care for the essay, which is what your question asked, and are not policy-based reasons for deletion.
Additional question from SMcCandlish
20. Can you explain what you mean by something you said in answer to a previous question: In the case of administrative actions, I believe that explaining an IAR action is part of administrator accountability. Do you have examples of where you think WP:IAR is properly applicable in an administrative action in particular (not a regular editing action by someone who happens to be an admin)?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think that the deletion of Wikipedia:Don't be a pussy under an IAR rationale is properly applicable. The reason given for deleting this page (No valid reason to keep this page. Has never been used and I can't think of when this is appropriate) doesn't explicitly say it's an IAR-based deletion although the stated rationale could be seen as falling under this policy.
I don't recall coming across many examples of admin actions that specifically declare them to be following IAR so no other examples come to mind. This isn't surprising to me as IAR should be used sparingly and if there are policy-based reasons for an administrative action, it's preferable to cite these reasons for a particular action.
Additional question from The Devil's Advocate
21. At what point does incivility rise to a level worthy of blocking and how much should an admin consider mitigating circumstances? Should the level of contributions an editor has made to this site be considered cause for more lenient action?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: While demonstrating respect for and civility to fellow editors is a pillar of Wikipedia (WP:5P4), editor blocks based on incivility are often controversial. I think incivility rises to a level worthy of blocking if it is an indication of disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT. Specially, WP:DEPE states that violations of civility or personal attacks can be be a campaign to drive away productive contributors even if actions are on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.
As far as mitigating circumstances, there are several to consider: Is this an isolated, out of character incident or a consistent pattern of behavior? Was the incivility provoked and was the editor baited? Where did the incivility occur, on the user's talk page, in project space, article talk space or in an edit summary? Was the incivility directed at a specific editor or an exclamation of exasperation? The context of edits is important, especially if the outcome is a block.
The level of contributions of an editor might be a factor in determining the severity/length of a block but I don't think they should be a strong influence in determining whether a block is warranted. This may not be the mainstream point of view, but I think the role of administrators is undermined if there is the impression that there are different standards for behavior based on an editor's contributions and the view that some editors are unblockable. That said, I don't believe that becoming "The Civility Police" is a proper role for administrators or editors. If incivility is disruptive and serves to drive away editors, action should be taken on that basis.
Additional question from BU Rob13
22. Could you provide an example of your participation in an AfD discussion that you are particularly proud of or consider substantial? ~ RobTalk 06:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm a relative newcomer to AfD discussions so I am still learning the ropes. To do so, I've read a lot of closed discussions to see what the standard practices are since AfD is so very different than CfD. I don't have one example that I'm particularly proud of but I think my reasoning was solid on these discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.
I haven't had the chance to say this but if I do pass this RfA, I would not leap into deleting articles. I'd continue to participate in discussions, then at some point start closing some uncontroversial, self-evident AfDs. I've started closing cases at CfD and right now, my interest is in participating there and working with category discussions.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Just in case anyone didn't spot it, while the RfA has been going on, Liz has contributed a significant amount to Nokuse Plantation, so I'm happy she is taking oppose comments on board and trying out some in-depth content work herself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ritchie333, that content was overdue to be written.
I thought I'd check back and see if there were any last minute questions and I found one on the talk page. I hope I was able to address some of your concerns. I just want to emphasize that if this passes, I will act cautiously. As I said, I want the tools to help with my work as an arbitration clerk and at CfD, not to act as the "Civility Police."
An RfA is about experience and trust. For those who support me, I appreciate your faith in me and your belief that I'd make a positive contribution. If you're neutral, I understand that every candidate is a bit of an unknown and that you might have some reservations. For those who oppose, well, I'll admit that some of you surprised me. I wonder how many candidates could pass this level of scrutiny. I have made mistakes, as has every editor and admin, and I think I have learned from them.
I'm grateful and overwhelmed at the amount of attention this RfA received. I can't believe there was a time on Wikipedia when there was 10 or 20 RfAs a week! Thank you for spending some of your editing time considering my candidacy. It will take a couple of days to process all of the feedback I have received. I look forward to being off the hot seat and returning to general editing. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nom. Yunshui 雲水 10:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I'd re-affirm my support here. As nominator I looked into Liz's background thoroughly. I didn't look into her political opinions, as they just don't matter to me. I felt (and still feel) her contributions to the encyclopedia were more than sufficient to show that she was dedicated to the cause and could empathise with anyone else who is. She's inquisitive, helpful and friendly. I do not believe she would be heavy handed with the tools, but rather cautious and use good judgement. Frankly, between the "you need GA/FA content to be an admin", "too many edits to ANI (without looking at quality of the edits)", off wiki discussion (at least GamerGate and Wikipediocracy, probably far more due to the turnout) - I'm just plain disappointed in how this RfA has turned out. It says something that Liz has seen more support than almost any successful admin request, and definitely more than any unsuccessful adminship in the past 7 or 8 years. WormTT(talk) 08:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Don't see why not. -- haminoon (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Absolutely qualified for the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Yep, seems a good editor. Looking at her talkpage I am satisfied for her becoming an admin --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No brainer. Bazj (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Trust me, I was waiting for this nomination for months. She is an excellent editor, I have worked with her in ArbCom related thingy and I always thought why on earth is this editor not admin. From dealing with difficult editors to helping newbies, she has proved herself to be one of the best. I bet, you can't bring up a single red flag. Jim Carter 11:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Patient, involved editor. No issues. Kuru (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Highly deserved. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a note to say that I have read through all the discussion but my support is unchanged. I think Liz is a level-headed person and her services would be useful for the project. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This is a no-brainer. Jianhui67 T★C 11:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Obvious support as conom. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, one of the best, most level-headed editors I've come across, will definitely be a benefit to the project. ansh666 11:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Looks good to me. Deb (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And the opposes haven't altered my view; some of them have actually reinforced it. Deb (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support The editor has done some amazing work, and I really thought she was an admin already. She seems like she would be a great help in admin areas that don't really seem to be patrolled that often, so that's an added bonus. BenLinus1214talk 11:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support precious inquiring mind, + I appreciate openly saying when a discussion is over, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Liz is someone on whom we can all always count to approach any situation with knowledge, tact, and "cautious decisiveness" (the best of both). She will be an excellent administrator. Go Phightins! 12:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Easy support - I've been anticipating this nomination. The candidate is well-qualified and someone that we can readily trust.- MrX 13:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support As close to a no-brainer as I've seen. Fine temperament for adminship and plenty of clue. Miniapolis 13:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, I do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC) A bad answer to Q16 is alarming, but insufficient for me to move to neutral.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, at the risk of making the rest of us admins look bad in comparison. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, a shoo-in. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Thought she was an admin already. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support with pleasure and without hesitation. (One note to Liz: try your best not to allow your edits to articles, already a little low, to drop lower as an admin.) I know you'll do a great job. BMK (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I considered nominating Liz for adminship a while ago - I'm glad to see she's running now. She's an excellent editor and I'm sure she will do well with the mop. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Of course support – from what I know, she should have been an Admin long ago. She'd already be in the top 10% of Admins in terms of what she knows about all the ins-and-outs of Adminship. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - As proven a million and one times here you don't need to create articles to be an admin and I personally don't think it should matter but hey ho, Anyway excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck although you probably won't need it as you'll sail through this :) –Davey2010Talk 16:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC) (Moved to Oppose. –Davey2010Talk 16:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  28. Support. This is a no-brainer. Calidum T|C 16:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, Worm was right with the "always talking sense" part; I can confirm that from all my interactions with Liz. Huon (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Whenever I have seen Liz around I have thought she should be an admin. Davewild (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just acknowledging that I have seen the opposition since I added this comment, for which some raise concerns that I think are real, while others I disagree with. However I will remain a supporter as I think the tools will not be abused if Liz did get the tools. Davewild (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. It might seem lazy, but I'm simply supporting because she seems like a good candidate and my procedural checks didn't turn up any serious reason to oppose. Good luck! --Biblioworm 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Absolutely. I have not come across another editor who is as cautious and truly open to learning and understanding the ways of Wikipedia than Liz. If she applies even a portion of the common sense she has shown to date to admin duties then the encyclopedia will benefit substantially.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - no issues at all, and the fact that the best the opposers can muster up is "no content creation" says it all. No content creation = no big deal. GiantSnowman 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Her article work is not the strongest, but Liz is so level-headed I'm glad to support her for admin anyway. Would definitely be a net positive. Altamel (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. As for many other editors above, this is an easy decision for me, having in particular seen the candidate's work on behalf of ArbCom. Strong nominations and good answers to questions, the latter sufficiently articulate to put to rest any concerns about the ability to write or the ability to interact intelligently and thoughtfully with editors who are heavily involved with content creation. I looked at the diff in the first oppose comment, and frankly I see it as reflecting well, not as reflecting badly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I entered my support fairly early in this RfA, and I would like to follow up on what I said, in that my support remains strong. I've looked carefully at the opposes and at the RfA talk page, and tracked down a fairly large number of the discussions that have been linked to. In particular, Bishonen, Casliber, and Drmies are three of the people whom I hold in the very highest regard on Wikipedia, and so I've looked at what they have said most carefully. And I just am not seeing what they say they see. With respect to what Bishonen brings up, I myself am quite vocal in not liking WP:FRINGE edits (especially as regards science), as a quick look at my user page will confirm. I spent some time reading the SPI and some related discussions, and what I'm seeing is not a problem for me. I'm seeing an attitude that I might characterize as "first, do no harm" in the SPI, that I think would not be a bad thing in the administrator corps, and the recent user talk page replies do not strike me as passive-aggressive – under the circumstances, I'd be disinclined to reply to that e-mail myself. Drmies did not provide links, but listed archive numbers of ANI archives, which I have to say made it very difficult for me to see for myself. At least one archive number either does not have the indicated discussion, or I failed to find it after spending an awful lot of time. But consider for instance Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Editor removing commas at random, where Drmies felt that Liz was too quick to recommend SPI. Really? That hardly seems to me to be a reason to oppose an RfA. As I said, I respect these editors very, very much. But nothing I'm seeing there has made me question my support in this RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tryptofish, the feeling is mutual--thanks. That SPI comment by itself isn't much, of course, though I think that someone with that many edits to ANI should know better (if that stupid tools thing wasn't down again I'd tell you how many). It is also indicative, in my opinion, of someone who is spending a lot of time on ANI, making quick comments and closing easy threads--the positive look on that is to say that someone is doing a yeoman's job, the negative look is that someone is making a lot of easy contributions to ANI (which require little judgment or knowledge of policy) to prepare for RfA. I didn't provide links because my time was limited and I got the information from looking through the archives; getting the diffs would have cost me another hour. I guess I could have given bluelinks for the sections, but visually and rhetorically that would really come across as a kind of badgering, so I chose to be economical. My apologies if that added to your labor. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I won't entirely disagree with your observation of "a lot of easy contributions", but I also observed that the contributions were pretty evenly split between defending editors and not defending, so that does not seem to me to support the concern expressed by other opposers about being too prone to defend editors who should not be defended. Also, about "easy", one can read that instead as not wanting to overreach (a good quality), and perhaps also as a realistic appraisal of what results in opposes at RfA; in any case, what I saw was consistent with the "clue" that is requisite for learning over time how to deal with the less "easy" cases. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I really find that characterization quite unfair. You can actually learn a lot of policy at ANI by reading ANI. I can tell you I've learned a lot by looking around there (and AN, and VP) the last few months. And probably most of what I learned didn't come from the "easy thread closings" (though properly closing even those can get you to poke around in places, and learn things, that you most likely wouldn't have otherwise...). So implying that someone like Liz isn't "learning" anything and is doing "easy closes" at ANI simply for "careerist" purposes is really quite unfair, bordering on objectionable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, with some advice. There's no doubt Liz is diplomatic, even-tempered, patient, and receptive to criticism, and her unusual profile of interests on wikipedia would be valuable as an admin. I do want to reiterate some of what I said in this thread last month, about approaches to "civility" and the general sense of a project space/content creator dichotomy; I guess I never did get back to that thread, but there's more to the question than "why can't people just be civil?" and I hope that's reflected in Liz's admin decision-making. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further concerns have emerged about this tendency toward playing civility police, and I want to add here that comments like this one that Liz posted on Sitush's talk page (to which Sitush linked here on this RfA's talk page) really are a problem. Caring about making sure "the little guy" gets a voice is fine, but dropping in on someone else's talk page to finger-wag about their language is Not Cool. A recurring problem with handling disputes on Wikipedia is the tendency for passersby to opine about the seemingly simple things like who's being uncivil to whom without really taking the time to understand the context.
    That being said, I'm staying in this column because one of Liz's most consistently positive attributes is a thoughtful attitude toward constructive criticism, and I think she's had enough (constructive and otherwise) to see where she can improve in this area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support courteous and clear when it comes to policies and guidelines as far as I can tell. Content creation is now secondary as far as admins are concerned, indeed admins who create content are treated worse than those who just make sysop edits. Liz is a great candidate, and in time when editors like her are hard to come by, we should jump at the chance of allowing her to continue to improve Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Incredibly qualified for the tools, level-headed and has an eye for doing right when needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Of course. Ticks all the boxes. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nigh superhuman diplomacy skills. Brustopher (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Nothing to add that hasn't already been said more eloquently than I could manage. —Cryptic 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Absolutely and with pleasure. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Easy decision. Liz has the kind of experience and temperament I'd want in an admin. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Well qualified, no significant issues, asks good and sensible questions to inform herself. Looking forward to having another woman on the admin team. Risker (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, subject to change based on responses to questions and further investigations. My several interactions with Liz and the times I had noticed him or her editing were all positive. Indeed I had thought that he or she was already an admin, and a good one. DES (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Knows policy well. Works many areas. Friendly and helpful. Best of all, great AfD numbers. Plus, great nominators who do their research. She could be half as good as she is and I'd still support. She is deep into "of course!" territory. Unless skeletons pop out of closets, like some old, massive copyvio spree, Liz has my full support. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC) (Moved to oppose. Will give rationale there.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I have found nothing that would lead me to believe this individual would abuse the tools. They pass my checks and would be an excellent addition to the team, I think. Good luck. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seems like a good candidate. I don't view content creation as the only critical criteria, and a small army of useful gnome-admins would benefit the project greatly. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my support after a review of the vote-comments that have come in since mine. The opposers have demonstrated that the candidate is not perfect, but not, in my view, that this RfA shouldn't succeed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. This easily could have happened a while ago. Courcelles (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support: everytime I've seen Liz in action, she seems reasonable and able to keep her cool. She puts in a huge amount of effort and is not likely to cause any major issues or drama. Content creation concern is overrated: it takes all sorts to keep Wikipedia running. Give her the mop already. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. It's about time this was posted. People have been trying to convince Liz to run for what seems like ages. Great temperament, experience, and knowledge of policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good candidates like Liz don't come along all that often. A valuable contributor to the project, whose history indicates she will be a thoughtful admin. Moriori (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I am not a content creation hawk, but I normally like to see some, and there really isn't any here. That said, her record is otherwise so strong that I think we can overlook that admitted shortcoming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Liz has been a great contributor to the project, especially in her work as a clerk at ArbCom. For an admin candidate who wants to do work in deletion, her PROD logs and AfD logs look good. There are a couple handfuls of blue links in her CSD log, but a lot of them are for articles that have since been recreated or were reasonable to tag in the state that they were in when she tagged them, so I have no concerns there. Everything else so far looks good, and the answers to the questions have been satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support wikignomes often make good admins , if they;'re aware of content problems, and the difficulties contributors have. I think she understand both of them. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Excellent candidate; I am happy to support. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support embodies the spirit of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - yes, yes. Wasn't sure I was going to take a side in this one, but I just noticed something you did to greatly encourage an editor (a small critter...). I have sometimes encountered stormy weather here on English and taken my cat alter-ego into hiding for a bit, but I know I have a few admins in my corner because they are kind and helpful and encouraging. To me, for the work of anyone who volunteers to take on the duties of an admin, temperament rules way above any other qualification. Many best wishes. Fylbecatulous talk 01:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Sadly, withdrawing support. In light of all the deep concerns that have been uncovered and are now in the light of day that is this RfA, truly I did choose to support for what is now a superficial reason. Will make comment in neutral section. Fylbecatulous talk 19:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support – No concerns. A voice of common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Generally clueful. I have no problem with your sabbatical from writing, sounds like you've more than earned it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Good temperament, helpful, knows policy, good analyst of deletion candidates and issues. Experience and willingness to work in the "backwaters", with a good record, is a plus. Gnomish work is good experience for much of the administrative work that needs to be done. Has clue which mitigates content creation concerns. Great candidate. Donner60 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - user seems sensible and strongly suited to adminship, which is a rare enough trait that a shortage of content creation shouldn't be disqualifying in this case. Diffs show that maybe a year ago they didn't know much about certain procedures, but seems to learn quickly. Geogene (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I have agreed with about 99% of everything I have seen Liz say here on Wikipedia. Yes, I wish that she had created more content, since this is after all a project to build an encyclopedia. But we need "support staff" and everything I have seen about her indicates that she is an excellent candidate for administrator. As for her comment on Eric's talk page, we all know that he is very far from the typical content creator. He is an outlier and he is "special". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Nomad to Kirk, concerning Spock] "This unit is different. It is well-ordered." ("The Changeling", 1967) IHTS (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have considered the recent opposes, many written by editors I greatly respect. I have considered their points, many of which have some validity, which I am sure that Liz is also considering in a careful fashion. I have weighed those opposes and believe that the best thing that I can do at this point is to reiterate my support for Liz and her candidacy, because I remain convinced that she would be a good administrator, whether now, or in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - I love the nominations that I don't even have to do research on. No concerns whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - I have only positive impressions of her contributions to discussions and demonstrated understanding of community norms. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support – A clueful candidate, well-versed in policy. gobonobo + c 06:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Whenever I have seen Liz's signature in a discussion at WP:ANI, it has always been preceded by an intelligent, diplomatic, and helpful comment. So I am completely confident she has the required skill and judgement to assist productive editors' collaboration in an admin capacity. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - "duh". In more explanatory terms, candidate is trusted, versed in policy, and a pleasure to work with as an arbitration clerk. No reason to oppose. Certainly will be a net positive. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 07:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, of course. Graham87 08:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Level-headed and hard-working. I've been watching Liz' edits from the sidelines for a few months now. This RfA was an inevitability and I'll gladly give my support. -Thibbs (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: Meets my baselines with their activity in arbitration matters, and rumour has it that AE needs more admin attention, so that would be a good reason for seeking the mop besides. While some of their AfD votes/nominations are sort of weak, it's not enough of an issue to justify an "oppose". Behaviour and experience also seem to fit the mold. Putting some work in article writing would be good, but not enough of an issue to justify an "oppose" from me either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Affirming my support in light of other comments. The concerns about lack of content creation are not really persuasive; the administrator position is only tangentially concerned with content creation, and inferring from the activity (or lack of such) on one side to the suitability to adminship is too thin for me. The civility issues mentioned appear to me to be more one-off than a problematic pattern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Rzuwig► 11:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - echoing Opabinia. Alakzi (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - We need *more* pro-civility admins, as the current admin pool have turned one of the five pillars into a joke that is occasionally nodded at depending on their personal relationship to the subject. Since its practically impossible to remove admins for failing to uphold standards, the only other option is to promote admins who will. I would prefer more experience in resolving content disputes/mediation between editors however and I feel the oppose's below have merit (for similar reasons) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support- it seems to have become fashionable lately to heap contempt on wikignomes. I don't know what's sillier, the idea that one cannot behave responsibly towards people who do some task if you haven't done that task yourself, or the notion that wikignoming isn't content work. I have seen nothing from this candidate to suggest she would be a bad admin. Quite the opposite, in fact. Reyk YO! 13:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Level-headed, civil, knows policies, experienced. That's all I need to see. More than qualified for adminship. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still supporting. There is a lot of "insufficient content creation" in the oppose section. I don't mind a lack of content creation, as there is a lot of different kinds of work that needs doing and different people have different tastes. Full disclosure on that: I have no GA/FA myself. As for the drama, it didn't seem that Liz was causing the drama, just going where the drama is, at least from what I looked at. Not all administrators, or editors for that matter, are willing to wade into those areas, so I think it is good that Liz is willing to do so. Particularly given that some (most?) RFA candidates will instead stay only in the most cut-and-dry areas of Wikipedia in the time preceding their RFA. That all being said, I would suggest staying away from the "men versus women" stuff because people's sex is not relevant to anything, most of the time is not known, and results in pointless arguments. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, as Liz is a mire than qualified editor. Epic Genius (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Liz is exactly the type of person we need in our admin corps. Thanks for running! RO(talk) 15:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support She should have been an admin long ago. Her work with new users is amazing and shows she will never become an abusive admin. Her work as a ArbCom clerk shows good knowledge of policy. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Usually, I want to see some content work from candidates. This is mostly because I would like an admin candidate to have a feel for how conflicts may arise from our content policies and guidelines. However, I'll make an exception when I see someone who has demonstrated an strong understanding of how WP works in their comments. Liz has done that. Liz also exemplifies a de-escalation approach to disputes, which is sorely needed at venues like ANI. She seems to focus on underlying issues, and tries to defuse interpersonal tensions. I have never seen an intemperate comment from her, despite the fact that she gets involved in some very heated areas of dispute. The Interior (Talk) 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Liz is asked below what she is here for, if not for creating content. I can't answer for her, but I came here specifically to remove some rubbish, and have been doing it for over seven years now. I've come across Liz here several times, and wondered why she didn't have a mop. Looks like a good candidate to me. Peridon (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I am disgusted with the apparent growing attitude that people must be content creators otherwise they're just not here to build the encyclopedia. Therefore, they are something bad. Good lord open your eyes. This project requires an ENORMOUS amount of work that does NOT entail content creation. Some people just aren't content creators, and never will be. If this were not the case, we would only have authors, and every editor position in the world would be vacant. Just because you aren't a content creator doesn't mean you somehow can't be trusted with the tools. This nominee's mainspace edits comprise more than 1/4th of their edits. As a percentage, this is higher than half of ArbCom. I guess ArbCom can't be trusted either, huh? Afterall, they are not here to build the encyclopedia. <facepalm>. Can anyone...ANYONE...come up with anything actually BAD this editor has EVER done? Come on...just one thing. ANYONE??? What, no takers? I'm waiting... --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick pop onto your user page certainly gives me the impression you prefer to start fights than write an encyclopedia! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you aren't a content creator doesn't mean you somehow can't be trusted with the tools. Not everyone believes as you do. It's that anti-hive mind problem that content creators tend to have. The fact that her mainspace edits are higher than ArbCom is an indictment of ArbCom, not a positive for her. Finally, for something bad she's done? Look at the diffs (below) showing her poor attitude towards content creators. That's BAD. Satisfied? GregJackP Boomer! 19:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know not everyone believes as I do. Vive la différence. Doesn't mean I can't find fault with it. The point of comparing to ArbCom is that ArbCom's time is taken up performing a huge amount of work on dispute resolution. It is not an indictment of them at all to note they don't edit mainspace as much as some would like. Rather, it's more like applause for doing the work they do. Of course they would spend less time in mainspace! Yes, I've looked at the diffs. Nothing leaps out to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Frequently appears to be the most levelheaded person in a given conversation, and is clearly well versed in policy. Those are prime admin qualifications.-- Elmidae (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. No problem! Malinaccier (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  87. If I was able to pick any editor to be an admin, it would've been Liz hands down. And, as a side-note, if admins had to be content creators we'd have next to no good admins and Wikipedia would slowly descend into a hell of vandals and chaos. Just my two cents. Kharkiv07 (T) 19:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I forgot that she wasn't already an admin because of the way that handles the work as ArbCom clerk. And while I like to encourage everyone to add content, some people find doing other types of volunteer work for Wikipedia to be their primary focus, and that is fine. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirming my support after reading the oppose comments. We have a strong preview of her ability to work with difficult users from her work as ArbCom clerk. Thank you, Liz, for volunteering to do more work around here. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support only caution is lack of featured content. But that is more than made up for all the work done in helping the smooth running of the project. With admins we need people who do administrative tasks. Go New Jersey Liz! --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, suitable candidate, I see no reason to oppose. I have always seen featured content as more of a nice to have, rather than a mandate for administrative candidates. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support: candidate has a very positive reputation (which is well-deserved) and gave good answers to the questions. Spot checks turn up nothing bad. Others are entitled to their opinions on whether content creation is important for an admin but I don't consider it crucial or necessary in this case. I agree with Liz's statement, "it helps the project if editors with a variety of different perspectives and experience participate in deletion discussions" and think it's implied that these editors should be well-versed in policy or at the very least know what they're talking about. It seems like a comment in the same vein as if I were to say "I wish there were more female admins": it means I want the gender gap to lessen, not that I want to promote underqualified users solely because they are female. The SPI comments were a while ago and I don't really consider them to be an issue in the first place; anyway, I'd rather have an admin that has too much AGF than too much BITE. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support I have seen her around, and have interacted with her on several occasions. I am confident that she will be a good admin. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, I´m a content creator (mainly), but I highly appreciate those folks who do the "rest" of the work here, and Liz seems definitely sensible enough to trust with the tools, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per Worm That Turned's nomination.-gadfium 22:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support absolutely. KrakatoaKatie 22:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support based primarily on previous observations of the editor. WP:RFX100. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I think is an excellent move...Modernist (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. I understand concerns about minimal content creation. At the same time, she is a highly experienced user with a great reputation, and holds positions requiring reliability and trust. Wikipedia needs users to create content, but it also needs users who will work to maintain that content. North of Eden (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Saw her in the Recent Changes a lot, and all I've seen of her has been constructive. Dakar (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - While I agree with GregJackP that it's good to have some GAs and FAs under your belt, you have done some incredible maintenance work on this site, including as an ArbCom clerk. With that, I believe that you can be trusted with the tools. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Some of what's been brought up in oppose is making me reconsider, so moving to Neutral for right now.[reply]
  101. Support. She has a lot of experience. As an SPI Clerk, I met her at some sockpuppet investigations. She was very helpful. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support, no major issues. Nakon 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Liz is already a great member of the administrative team here and has been for quite some time. I think formally granting her the tools will allow her to be even more helpful around here and I look forward to having her on the team! I also wholeheartedly endorse Hammersoft's comments above. While content writers are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia, the non-content writers that keep the project running are its backbone. Swarm we ♥ our hive 03:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  104. I have little to add that hasn't already been said, so I'll just say that Reyk, Swarm, and Hammersoft nailed it. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 03:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - Seems an ideal candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support – I've never interacted with her, but looking through her contribs, she's a great editor who would make a great admin. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  107. I'll support, because I think that Liz will make a good admin, but there are some wise words in the 'oppose' and 'neutral' sections below - I think it would be a good idea for the candidate to pay heed to them. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 07:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Strong on policy, brings a valuable perspective. Techtacular (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - a sensible and experienced editor.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - Liz is one of those people who isn't ashamed to ask for advice when necessary, sometimes on my own talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Obvious support - I have been seeing Liz around at ANI and AFD (and maybe AN3 as well?) and all I have to say is that they do a good job. --TL22 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Of course support - I've come across Liz here and there and she has always been a level-headed voice of reason (and policy where required) in places that attract drama. I was really tempted to oppose because I was really sure you were already an admin, and seeing your name in the RfA list made me spill my coffee. I really needed that coffee today. Winner 42 hits the nail on the head - that you're not already an admin shows the failure of this forum and the community at promoting the good candidates to administrative duties. You'll be a fine admin, I have no doubt. Good luck! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Long overdue. It's an honour to have the opportunity to support this candidate. Kurtis (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed the opposing points carefully, and although I am still supporting on balance, I would urge Liz to take greater care when diving into a disagreement or a content dispute - look at it from both sides, and avoid passing judgments based on first impressions of a given situation. Context is essential in deciding on a particular course of action. I believe you will make a great admin, but I encourage you to take the opposing points on board, as they have your best interests at heart and want to see you succeed every bit as much as any of your RfA supporters. Prove to them that you can rise above the fray as a truly seasoned and judicious editor. Kurtis (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - Myopic complaints about the candidate lacking article creation don't cut it for me. Adminship isn't an elite club for academics, it's a trust position. I trust Liz with der toolz for being a helpful and level-headed gnome. Her adminship will free up more time for the editors who were born with FA writing talents. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Absolutely. I am not usually comfortable supporting those without large content contributions, but Liz' track record is phenomenal, and I have no concerns whatsoever. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - Per all above.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 17:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support The "Oppose because no content creation" !votes do not convince me. Administrators have nothing to do with content creation, and their tools have to do with site maintenance and fighting vandalism. To oppose someone for the mop because they do things that could use the mop is ridiculous. If Wikipedia had nothing but content creators, Wikipedia would fall. Think about it. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Per k6. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - She left a friendly welcome on my page when I started editing here, which was also useful to my editing here. Haqua121 (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support – She'll definitely be a net positive as an admin. I might have opposed if the concerns raised by the opposition were more recent, but they're not. People can change, and I'm convinced she has. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - wait, she isn't one already? Weird. Good answer to Q12. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - Entirely on principle. Most of the opposes centered around the entirely irrelevant point of "no content creation", the argument given when you really want to oppose a candidate but there is a complete lack of real reasons to do so. You don't need to be an admin to create content, so it strikes me as bizarre that people use that as a reason. —Frosty ☃ 05:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  123. SupportChristopheT (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support, largely echoing Yunshui's nomination statement. I've had many good interactions with Liz in her role as an arbcom clerk, and some before that and she's never been afraid to ask for clarification or assistance when necessary - exactly what we want from an administrator. The lack of content creation is irrelevant - article writing requires different skills to admin work, with very little overlap. The argument that you need a GA/FA to understand what content creators face is equivalent to saying that you need to be an arbitrator to understand what admins do - that logic would allow only arbitrators to vote at RFA (something I sincerely hope never happens). Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Has all the attributes needed for a good admin. While I can understand the concerns some have over her lack of major content contributions, they aren't really what we need admins for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. An admin happy to do noncreative work is a blessing. There's a lot of it to be done and not all that many people who want to do it. I've had to practically beg for admin help on multiple occasions, and knowing there's someone who actively welcomes such requests for assistance is very useful. valereee (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support sounds good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Well-rounded, will make a good admin. SpencerT♦C 17:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Tough decision as there are a lot of people I respect in both the support and oppose collumns. I do recall the era Liz alludes to when she was constantly trying to "right great wrongs" with poorly-conceived policy changes and so forth, but I have also noticed that she seems to have become more thoughtful in her approach to such issues. And frankly some of the opposes (If you're not here to build content, what are you doing, for example) are just stupid. Look at it the other way, we won't be losing a good content creator, because she hasn't been one. She's been working with all the other, less rewarding crap that needs to be dealt with here. Why not let her do that instead of trying to force her to create a GA first? In truth, no admin knows what the hell they are doing until they actually get the mop, and probably not even then, but I am convinced Liz can pick up the job and do decent admin work. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "In truth, no admin knows what the hell they are doing until they actually get the mop..." Yes, and truth be known, that is one of my biggest problems with this whole process... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    irony alert Several of the more thoughtful opposers are presenting the argument that Liz is too empathetic to content creators of any kind. And yet lack of empathy, based on the absurd premise that it is impossible to empathize with someone unless you have had the exact same experiences as they have, is the basis for many of the opposes. This is why RFA is supposed to be a more nuanced process, knee-jerk voting when you don't like the look of some pie chart is not a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion it's the same issue -- being over-helpful/enabling to those that destroy content, and not understanding content creation or the consequences of its disruption/destruction. It is indeed impossible to completely understand something unless you have had that experience, and Liz has apparently made no effort to create content beyond a stub, and has admitted (above) she doesn't even know the difference between academic writing and creating Wikipedia content. Softlavender (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been an admin for six years, a functionary for five years, and served a year on ArbCom. I've never written an article that was better than B-class. That hasn't hindered me from taking prompt, decisive action when I see someone disrupting our hardworking content writers or otherwise harming the project. It's completely specious logic. Not everyone is a writer, which is good because we need people whose talents lie in other areas to do all the other things that need doing here. Writers creaste the content, and the admin corps maintains and defends it. Different roles, different skill sets. We don't restrict people from working on FAs if they haven't made enough requests for page protection or reports to AIV. The reverse should apply as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is specious logic indeed. The very idea that these are different, mutually exclusive skill sets. Writers create the content and do the admin work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support I deeply respect the opinions of the nominators and many of the supporters above. I also respect the views of the many of the opposers below, especially the detailed analyses of Drmies and Bishonen. Some of the points they make are good but dated. Others I interpret more favorably. The answer to question 5 reduces my content creation concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support: I believe that Liz will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia as an admin. I understand that there are some concerns about a lack of content creation, but I am not particularly concerned by this (I say this as someone who is primarily a content creator) as I feel that we need editors who have skills in many different areas to make this place work. Thank you, Liz, for taking a chance and volunteering once again. Good luck. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Answers to the questions above show good understanding of what Wikipedia is and does, and also shows level-headed decision-making.  Etamni | ✉  01:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Liz has helped me at the Teahouse many times, and I think the answers to the questions are great as well as participation in many admin areas. MrWooHoo (talk)
  134. Support Well qualified and has a good temperament. -- Shudde talk 04:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I think you'll go far. Way to go! ShyGuy8 talk 04:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Weak support. I don't like Liz's supporting of problem editors and weighing into discussions (sometimes bringing more heat than light, IMO), but I hope that Liz is sensible enough to take account of the feedback this RFA provides on her edits. This [2] edit from February (which was reverted 12 minutes later) was bad in several ways (e.g. the edit summary of "ME"). And this [3] did nothing but cause watchlist noise and add to Liz's edit count, but we all make mistakes sometimes. That Liz mostly performs administrative/wikignoming roles rather than content-building shouldn't (IMO) be a bar to adminship; many (perhaps most) admin tasks (e.g. WP:UAA) have no direct connection to content-building. An analogy: in a theatre the actors may be the most important staff, but front of house and backstage staff also have important roles; if the person who cleans the toilets at the end of the evening is the last person to leave the building (and they can be trusted) then they need the keys (whether or not they have ever appeared on the stage). DexDor (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Content creation is lacking, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Should spend some more time writing content agree, but do not see it as a deal breaker. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Weak support Some opposers have legitimate reservations (e.g. Drmies or Bishonen) but I still believe that giving Liz the bit will be a net positive. Pichpich (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - Liz wants the job. She is competent, committed, and enthusiastic. These are good things. I've had the impression she might want the job a lot. This is not, on reflection, a disqualifying factor. She'll do well. Begoon talk 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Overall shows well balanced judgement, calm temperament and considerable drive. Buistr (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. Thanks for taking this on. --Djembayz (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Concerns brought up by Gamergaters &c are wholly irrelevant. Liz has integrity and exhibits good judgment, and lack of content creation alone does not merit an oppose. Cloudchased (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Liz is a well qualified editor and will be a net benefit as others have said. Gizza (t)(c) 23:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Liz takes far too much time to be civil and evenhanded. Won't fit in at all. --Elvey(t•c) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support, mostly per Hammersoft.Hal peridol (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support on the grounds that it is statistically highly probable that this candidate's contributions will continue to be a very strong net positive in all areas of activity in, on, and for this encyclopedia. – Athaenara ✉ 02:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support The worries about the lack of content creation are well-founded, but I think on the whole content creation doesn't significantly affect how future admins behave. Conifer (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support From opposition !votes I was expecting to see a duck egg for article space edits. 12k+ edits in main space is more than enough. So what if they aren't of the classic "content creator"-type edits? We love gnomes too. Lots of stuff in categories. Nice work there. Kind of light on article talk but I didn't see anything that worried me. Nothing that would make me think this person would abuse the tools and lots to suggest they will be used well. Good luck to you, --Tóraí (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  150. "Support" Many excellent qualities. No editor has every ability or experience or does a human being for that matter. Liz will make a good admi, and we need good, honest, fair admins. She is running for a Wikipedia admin position not president of a small country. Finally, what she doesn't know she will learn as she has shown. I've been watching her for awhile and am impressed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  151. Support. Well-qualified candidate. Kirill [talk] 13:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support I see no good reason to oppose this candidate. Those complaining about lack of content contribution are asking a janitor to be a great writer, it is silly. Those who are upset that she thinks that great content creators should *gasp* follow the same rules as others have been unconvincing in their arguments. We need an even hand here. Chillum 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That analogy is flawed. "[...] the 'janitor' analogy doesn't reflect the true power admins here possess. Janitors don't have the power to ban entrants from participating in activities, policemen do. Alas, too many of the police here prefer to sit on their hands and claim to be janitors. And the project suffers. Townlake (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)". IHTS (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually admins are not supposed to ban people, that is done by the community. We are not police. Chillum 02:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is close I will point out that I still support this candidate and have read the most recent opposes. Chillum 05:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Strong support How were you not already an admin? I'm travelling overseas right now and I found an internet cafe just to login and put down my support. Mkdwtalk 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did? That begs the question of how you heard of the RfA. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. Is Liz the 100% perfect can-do-no-wrong admin candidate? No, of course not, because nobody is. I think Liz will be a good administrator, and from what I've seen on here, she's willing to learn from others' concerns. That's all I can ask for. I think the folks voting oppose have valid problems, but I also know that there are plenty of current admins who struggle with the same kinds of issues, and I don't think that makes them bad admins. agtx 17:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. "Not enough content creation" opposes should be discounted. I fail to see how content creation is related to a technical ability. Some people just don't write well in an encyclopedic tone, myself included, but I can tell when an article belongs or not. With that in mind, Liz said that she wants to work mostly in areas that content isn't necessarily a requirement, but rather knowledge of the policy. This good enough for you? Frood 00:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you are very old user, we expect a good reason. "Not enough content creation" is actually a valid point, even though in case of Liz we want a leniency due to her contribution to other areas. Aero Slicer 19:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frood, and your support should be discounted on the grounds of poor reasoning. CassiantoTalk 21:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. I would have liked to see some more substantive content creation experience, but ultimately different editors have different strengths, and Liz' contributions in gnomish work, work with categories, and in being an arbcom clerk are valuable and substantial. In fact, being an arbcom clerk is a particularly thankless job, since no matter what you do there, you will piss some people off. Arbitration is an extremely contentious venue and many people come there prepared to be outraged and offended by just about anything. Being retired, I originally did not plan to !vote in this RfA. But there is too much ugliness and nastiness on display in the oppose section (including some really bizarre conspiracy theories put forward at the talk page) and I feel the need to counterbalance them at least to some extent by a support !vote. Nsk92 (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. Someone has to work the drama boards, Liz seems to do a good job of it. It's unfair to judge her on things she did early in her editing career, as she seems to learn from experience. If she returns to editing after this lambasting I'm sure she'll learn from this experience as well. --Versageek 20:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support From what I've seen of Liz, she's been levelheaded and compromise oriented. She would be a fantastic admin. I don't believe that content creation should be a requirement for a non-content creation related position. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. The candidate is qualified. The opposes are disturbing to read, for their number and clarity, but they do not resonate with fear of abuse of privileges or risk of damage to the project. There is some strong criticism from the opposers, but I am confident the candidate will not repeatedly act in such ways in an admin capacity. Attempts to defend the bullied are to be applauded, but finding the right balance can be very difficult. Any mistakes in interpreting notability, closing discussions, or poor block decisions very quickly result in review and salutatory feedback from the community. I see no good reason to refuse this offer to volunteer for a difficult job, and am very confident she will rise to meet all expected standards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support I'm not much of a content creator here, or an image uploader at Commons, but I've got close to 400,000 log actions as an admin between the two projects, and I was good at it. Someone has to take out the garbage, and there's always plenty of it. INeverCry 08:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    INeverCry, my problem is precisely that, in situations where the garbage needed to be taken out, I see her defend the garbage, or take issue with the person who's marking something as "garbage" (the metaphor is breaking down), or say things like "you can't set the garbage out until it's past midnight, and it's only 11:56" (now I'm really stretching it, but I hope you catch my drift). Drmies (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    INeverCry, this was a tough one for me, but I didn't get into detail because I didn't want drama here. I think Liz is a valuable Wikipedian, but I'm convinced that very costly mistakes will be made, based on several observations I've made. For the record, I've been following and monitoring her for a very long time, as it was easy to see that RFA was her destination. I simply think it would be very unwise to promote her at this time, as I think she lacks intuition and judgement when dealing with many or most problems, yet she gets involved in a lot of problems. In time, but not today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support a well-meaning, well spoken and qualified candidate for the mop. I hope the sheer weight of supports here is enough to reassure Liz that she has community support. per Opabinia regalis: "There's no doubt Liz is diplomatic, even-tempered, patient, and receptive to criticism, and her unusual profile of interests on wikipedia would be valuable as an admin". A number of great comments above attest to this.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support – I'm not at all swayed by the opposes' rationale to negating this candidate's RFA, especially with those "non-content creation" comments. I trust Liz with using said tools, and that she won't compromise the community's trust. I look forward to seeing Liz grow in the role of administrator. Good luck, and all the best! —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support - cool, calm, collected, trustworthy. Will put her neck on the line to do what she thinks is right, in the best interests of the project and will help people. While no (significant) content creation is sure to garner opposes I'm confident that she knows what she's doing, and it seems the 163 people before me agree that content creation isn't a necessity. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support - While I do think she could use a little more experience, much of what has been said and her answer to my question tells me that she will be much more deliberative and lenient about using the tools than many in our current admin corps. It is important that admins are willing to consider every angle carefully before opting for action. This is what has lead to some of the criticism, but it is a good attribute to have in an admin.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support - To be honest I wasn't going to weigh in here but the people citing lack of content creation as a reason to oppose prompted me to look at this editor's contributions. Not everything is content creation. I've seen plenty of content creators who know very little outside of that area. What I look at is the overall picture and the overall picture that I see deserves support. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - Having had a few interactions with Liz, I've always found her behavior to be civil and adminly. NickCT (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Strong Support - One of my favorite people on the project. Even when you disagree, it's not a battle. It saddens me that some editors I respect are opposing. I think this shows how difficult it is to go through this process these days. Especially for people who run afoul of certain groups. I almost never !vote in RfAs, it's depressing more than not. Dave Dial (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support - The only criteria for choosing an admin is "can they be trusted with the mop?". The answer certainly appears to be "Yes" in this case. Manning (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support TheMesquitobuzz 17:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support - Even when working in contentious areas, this editor keeps a level head and works toward improving the encyclopedia. Mizike (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I see you've been editing wikipedia for a number of years, I note that you have made very few edits and that this your first to an RfA. May I ask what brought you to this discussion? WJBscribe (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had the same question. Something amusingly obvious is going on here. Townlake (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support I've had positive experiences with Liz, and I think it is desirable to have a wide variety of skill sets in the admin corps – including the "not afraid to work in controversial areas" skill and the "not afraid to hold a principled or reasoned, but unpopular, position" skill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support per the above, but with the obvious caveat that there are some really good and reasonable concerns being listed below. The candidate would do well to take some of those criticisms on board as they move forward. Tread lightly as you get started, and take the time to figure out how things will change as an admin - and you should be fine. Good luck. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support We need experienced Wikignomes as admins too. I'm concerned many Oppose !votes are a proxy war from certain content creation chauvinists rather than any concern for the strength and future of English Wikipedia. Worth Overdoing (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    — Worth Overdoing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Striking comment from account created to participate in this RfA. Worth Overdoing, I would encourage you to spend more time contributing to Wikipedia before engaging in RfA discussions. WJBscribe (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sort of WP:Edit conflict: Worth Overdoing (talk · contribs), I can't help but find your support vote suspicious, given that you apparently created this account just to comment in this WP:RfA. Yes, you might move on to other topics after this, but that doesn't make it any less likely that you are a WP:Sock (I don't mean of Liz, but rather of some other editor). And, yes, I see the explanation you left on your user page (it's an explanation I've heard from various WP:Socks), but that does not explain how you heard about this WP:RfA or why you chose this WP:RfA as a platform to return to editing Wikipedia. I completely support Drmies tagging your vote with a WP:SPA tag, and WJBscribe striking your vote. If you want, we can discuss this on your talk page; I prefer there than mine, so that the questioning of your previous Wikipedia editing is noted there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you went to WJBscribe about this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support. (edit conflict) The valid concerns of the opposing users should be considered and addressed by Liz in the future but her contributions convince me that she will do so. The content creations concerns are invalid imho. As I said oftentimes before, an admin needs to be aware of good content, not necessarily be able to create it themselves - after all, writing is a skill that comes more easy to some than others. The question one has to ask when considering someone for adminship is not whether this user can create more GAs/FAs - they don't need a mop for that - but whether they can be trusted not to destroy good content others created. Those who argue that admins need to show significant content contributions forget why the admin's symbol is a mop and not a pen. Regards SoWhy 18:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support Liz seems to have a good head on her shoulders. A few opposers raise some valid concerns, but I'm sure she will take their thoughts into consideration while performing in the role as sysop. Avicennasis @ 19:14, 18 Av 5775 / 19:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support Yes, content creation is very important and, I believe, this candidate has a fair bit of experience creating content. I say this because in my opinion Category creation is content creation on Wikipedia. Since the candidate indicates she intends to work mainly in WP:CfD I believe having experince in Category creation is of paramount imprtance. See her answers to questions 1,2, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Questions_to_Liz. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Per answers to questions and Ritchie333's observation about content creation—not so much because I feel content creation is a rigid requirement for admin status, but because it shows a willingness to take constructive criticism and improve from the process. I was ready to support even before I saw that, but seeing it is the icing on the cake. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Satisfactory answers to the questions posed. Along the lines of what User:SoWhy said, it's more important to understand what good content is rather than to have been a prolific content creator. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support I thought Liz was already a sysop.--Jorm (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support In my experience Liz is a diplomatic quiet achiever who has always been fair in their edits and decisions. --Jobrot (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support On balance, willing to go with the nominations. Liz will very likely be net-positive to the project as an admin -- having seen content editing from her, that's not a disqualifying problem, and it seems she learns from past mistakes, and grows, so past mistakes are not disqualifying, either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  182. The Opposes make a convincing case that the candidate wasn't ready two years ago, and possibly not a year ago. I'm not seeing enough recent issues in the oppose section to trouble me, as for referenced content, I do agree with many opposers that being able to add cited content is a basic skill for an admin, but I'm seeing enough of that from the candidate to put me in the support column. GAs and FAs would be nice, but edits like this are sufficient to meet that part of my criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support: Content less of a concern for this candidate than most, if she survived grad school and is just sick of that side, it's not a worry, she clearly still understands what we content creators go through. Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support: I'm hopeful that a degree of hesitation, reluctance to criticize poor decisions, and excessive tolerance for bad actors can be chalked up to anticipation of an RfA and its legendary difficulty. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support: Just because someone wasn't ready two years ago doesn't mean they haven't grown. You will do a great job! Thereandnot (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support per answer to question 22 and follow ups on talk page. My only concern with Liz is that she'll jump too quickly into areas she has little experience. She's expressed no interest in jumping into deletion discussions or disputes where she knows little. She's even stated her recent AfD activity is largely due to the RfA, meaning it's doubtful that she'll continue at that pace or close discussions in that area after it's finished. Her willingness to work with a mentor and be cautious leads me to think that it's unlikely she'll screw up in any significant ways. I'm not concerned with her interactions with other editors from what I've seen; if we're setting a higher bar for admins than Arb clerks in that area, then we're doing something wrong. The lack of content creation doesn't really matter for the area she's planning to do work in, and her contributions in other areas clearly demonstrate her value to the project. ~ RobTalk 00:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support, the only qualifications that matter are common sense and good judgement, not some arbitrary amount of added verbiage or editcount. The candidate has shown that they have these things in spades in my interactions with her. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  188. Support, despite agreeing with many of the statements in the oppose section. I'm tired of all the whining about how so few new adminships have been granted this year, and I don't want you to have to go through this exercise again. I have faith you will take the comments here to heart and will learn from them. I'm hopeful, as MarkBernstein above, you'll get past these issues. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support BethNaught (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support. A hard-working and thoughtful editor, with the right temperament to be an administrator. A number of good faith Opposes have been based in concern over a lack of content contributions, but I have been pleased to see that situation has now been fixed during the course of this RfA. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support - After thinking a lot, I moved here from oppose. I think Liz will be a good admin. Some opposes do raise some concerns but I felt that they are not enough to oppose the candidate. Best of luck. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 08:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support. Looking over the contributions from the candidate, I find nothing objectionable. Admirable work, stellar judgement, in my view a near ideal candidate. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Good candidate, good past record. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support Only had good encounters with her. Good answers to questions. TheMagikCow (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support (moved from neutral) - mostly moral. Having expressed concerns about content creation, Liz has directly addressed them and is now on her way to getting her first DYK on the main page. Provided she carries on doing that, I'm cautiously optimistic we'll be okay. CfD is hideously backlogged, and we need more admins in that area. Please take on board everything the oppose votes have said and I really hope you move towards alleviating their concerns. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support She is an arbitration clerk. Will be a good administrator. Aero Slicer 10:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support - I waited till the end to see how Liz responded to difficult situations. I could have easily supported, but the piling of Opposes was something that made me wait. I wanted to see the way she handled this RfA and I can say that I am very much impressed. I used to believe that Liz was a cool, calm and level-headed editor and this RfA has only strengthened that opinion. I have full faith in Liz and she will do great with the tools. — Yash! (Y) 10:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support As you deserve WP:200. Excellent communication skills, cluefull, great nominators. On other hand, for once I find much to agree with amongst the opposes. Dr Blofield has earned the right to tell editors to get over themselves thanks to his colossal contributions - and coming from him it just sounds like a top of the head remark that he didn't mean that seriously. For an admin to make such a remark would be different. Content writers deserve consistent respect, and some allowance for occasionally grumpiness. The phenomena Iridescent taking 8 hours to write an FA is the exception. It's easy to spend over 300+ on an article, as I've done for both my GAs, and my most recent rewrite which isnt even a rated article. And my little creations are dwarfed by the contributions of many in the oppose section. Once you've read sometimes upwards of 100 papers and books to ensure you have the correct facts & how to weight them for NPOV, there's the strain of complying with the conflicting demands of WP:OR, avoiding plagiarism, and presenting information in a way that's easy to understand for the non specialist reader. Quality content creation involves blood, sweat and tears, as you'd know from your Grad school work. Granted, gnomes, vandal fighters and social oriented editors are just as essential, but other than perhaps Arbs few others put in the sort of painful effort needed for writing quality content. Also, there's been recent studies suggesting about 40% of university students now suffer from anxiety. Quite a few editors seem to have that too. As an admin sometimes it's best to be blunt and direct, but there's many situations that are handled with gentleness and making concessions even when you're confident you're in the right. As per some of the oppose diffs you don't always do this. In fairness, even a reincarnated Talleyrand would struggle to handle every situation perfectly if he was on the drama boards all the time. Maybe involve yourself in fewer situations, then you should be able to avoid the occasional provocative remarks that have concerned the opposes, and maintain your normal very high standard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support because a woman editor being opposed for disagreeing with a known mysogynist is just so wrong. Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Who? - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  200. SUPPORT - Been on the fence too long on this one. The bottom line is that Liz is a clear "net positive" to the project and those opposing her have not convinced me that she will put her own personal beliefs above Wikipedia's consensus norms and accepted forms of best practice. Thank you for enduring this RFA with grace and class Liz; best of luck to you.--John Cline (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I don't frequent this board and thought this editor was already an admin. She has no content writing experience to speak of and per this diff appears to have little understanding of the pressures some content editors endure. Most of the heated stuff starts about content but you only discover that when you've actually written something. J3Mrs (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, no content creation. Has only created 2 articles (one since deleted), and, as far as I can tell, no GA/FA content. GregJackP Boomer! 17:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    GregJackP, can you clarify why you believe that would make Liz unsuitable for an administrator role? Thank you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of content creation is often cited as an oppose reason, possibly because people want admins who understand content creators and are in tune with Wikipedia's overall mission. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See User:GregJackP/Admin criteria. Too many admins are not content creators, as are too many arbs. The diff provided by J3Mrs explains my position perfectly. She has no clue about what content creators put up with. GregJackP Boomer! 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my view that content creation is not a major part of an admin's job as an admin, and in particular by the time an article gets close to GA/FA, Admin intervention should be little needed. I have never done serious work on a FA, nor been the major person getting an article to GA level -- I usually stop about B-class or lower. But I think i've been a pretty good admin over the years. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to others. DES (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the exception to the rule. GregJackP Boomer! 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By that reasoning, a large number of active admins are "exceptions to the rule" -- many of us would not consider ourselves GA/FA/creators of article content... so I have a hard time of thinking of us as "exceptions". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making an assumption that I was placing DES in a class of many other admins. My comment was directed towards him individually. I know his admin work. I don't know yours, so I'm not making a comment on you, but a great majority of the admins do not under content creation. GregJackP Boomer! 04:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As another of those "exceptions to the rule" admins let me say GregJack's opinion is not Wikipedia expectation. Our article Wikipedia Administrators -- a Wikipedia policy -- does not even mention article content, let alone demand it. Moriori (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out a second time that my exception to the rule comment was directed at DES individually. I don't know you or your admin work, so I'm not making a comment on whether you are an exception or not. As to the duties of being a admin including content creation, I never said that it did. I said that I would not support someone for admin who did not understand content creation. Whether they ever create another quality bit of content after they become an admin is not material nor relevant to my grounds for supporting or not supporting their candidacy. Look, I get that admins without a background in content creation don't like my position, but it is my position, and I should not be ganged up on every time I express my opinion at an RfA—unless only a hive mentality is allowed at WP. GregJackP Boomer! 04:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You never said you “would not support someone for admin who did not understand content creation.” You unambiguously wrote “no content creation” in your No 2 oppose above, and that's what I commented on, saying it is not Wikipedia expectation. Agreed, you have a position and you are perfectly entitled to do so, but it is at odds with the nearly 100 people (so far) who have supported this RfA for Liz. Consider that maybe it is you who is out of step here with the hive mind which includes “collective consciousness or collective intelligence”. Moriori (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand that being part of a "hive mentality" was not meant to be a good thing for Wikipedia? That you think it is a good thing is not something I would be proud of. In any event, I don't care that 100 others have supported her, nor 1000. Unless she knows how to create content, she should not be an admin, in my opinion. Finally, if you want to comment further on it, do so elsewhere. I really don't care what your position on my criteria are. GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: GregJackP: I understand where you are coming from, I am basically a content-creator myself. However, being a target of this joker for the last 5 years, I *so* do appreciate vandal-fighters and all those who do the "mopping-up" around here. I would not be around here any more if it were not for them, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I have to agree with GregJackP. If you are not creating content, then why are you here? Too many admins are not content creators, and even one arb who is not here to work on the encyclopaedia is one too many. The idea that GA is anywhere near FA is also kind of disturbing. So if you want to be an admin, I say, learn. I hate voting against someone, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We are here to make sure good content stays that way. Or did you want to spend your time dealing with vandalism, spammers, editors who are here to push a viewpoint, editors who have no interest in following content guidelines, etc? --NeilN talk to me 16:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, of course I would. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to your increased participation in these areas. --NeilN talk to me 23:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I tried to ignore this comment, but I find it so utterly ridiculous that I just can't. "If you are not creating content, then why are you here?" I absolutely cannot in good faith believe that you've looked at Liz's 45,000 edits and came to the conclusion that she is somehow not here to build an encyclopedia. You decided that all 45000 edits were not helpful and Wikipedia would be just as fine without them? While content creation should be the primary concern of the Wikipedia community as a whole, belittling someone who primarily carries out important behind the scenes work that ensures the smooth running of the site is absurd. Sam Walton (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At first I thought you were talking about Neil's comment about increased participation. It was never my intention to belittle Liz's contributions. I came to no such conclusion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Mainly per GregJackP. Clearly this one's going to pass, but I think it's important that the candidate understand that people do have concerns about their lack of content creation. I also remember seeing the comment highlighted by J3Mrs and cringing. Intothatdarkness 13:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Largely per GregJackP. I'm not even asking for an FA. All I want to see is one single GA-quality article put together at least in majority by the candidate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Liz has shown qualities that one hopes to avoid in admins: strong partisanship and a disinterest in examining evidence.
    • At this SPI, Liz came in with the preformed notion that the accused sockpuppeteer was being unfairly treated, and defended him on those grounds. She did not show an understanding of the actual evidence of sockpuppetry, nor did that appear to be a priority. The sockpuppeteer in question would later become a dedicated off-wiki harasser and serial sockpuppeteer, and would enshrine Liz's uninformed comments clearing him of sockpuppetry. I eventually wrote this supplement for those who (like Liz) somehow failed to process the (really quite obvious) evidence.
    • Liz similarly weighed in on another SPI case, defending the accused sockpuppeteer without looking at the evidence, even casting aspersions on the filer (me). Despite two admins affirming the sockpuppetry, and despite the sockpuppeteer being "strongly admonished for using an IP address to harass other users and waste the community's time",[4] Liz continued to defend him, claiming that he "has not abused sockpuppets".[5] She indicated no understanding of the level of disruption outlined in the SPI. (The sockpuppeteer had been bullying users through sockpuppets as a pretext for bringing an arbitration case on bullying, and later cited the same evidence in an ANI he brought.)
    • Liz's conclusions in these SPIs are starkly at odds with those of admins. While having a diversity of perspectives across administrators might be valued, not understanding and/or not looking at evidence isn't a "perspective" we should seek. Though I have not come across Liz much this past year, it would surprising for these problems to be corrected so quickly. (I did notice this no-explanation revert from April which seems suggestive of the partisanship of old.) In the now-likely event that Liz gains adminship, I hope she will recognize these problems and aim to do better.
    Manul ~ talk 17:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, whoa, whoa. Defending people who you think are being treated unfairly is exactly what an admin should be doing. Even if it turns out that you're wrong and the user was socking, it's far better to give them a fair ear and find out they abused your trust than to follow the Banning Kulture and "hang 'em all, and let the devil sort them out"! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaper, the above was trimmed considerably from what it was, and stuff got lost in translation. Of course an initial stance of AGF is always correct. That's not the problem, here or ever. At some point one has to examine and apprehend the evidence, and that never happened, and that is the problem. It is the combination of partisanship and ongoing (not simply initial AGF) credulity that turned toxic in this case, with Liz supporting the harassing activities of this individual, applauding his polemics that attacked Wikipedia editors[6] and rationalizing his personal attacks.[7] While Liz is otherwise eager to denounce partisanship, she maintained extreme partisan stances that are contrary to the evidence. Those harassing polemics are rooted in the demonstrably false claim that this guy was not sockpuppeting. Manul ~ talk 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is for something that happened 18+ months ago... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff (above) depreciating the persecution of content creators was this month. GregJackP Boomer! 17:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the main point here is that that's not the main thrust of Manul's "oppose", which is instead the kerfuffles at SPI a year-and-a-half(-plus) ago. As to Liz's other comment that you are alluding to, I will leave it to other editors to draw their own conclusions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I can't support this one based on my experiences with Liz, and that's a shame because we need more women admins. Unfortunately, she seems to spend her time on various talk pages and noticeboards, while content creation is minimal. I'm not a great believer in an admin having to have voluminous content creation, but there must be some working knowledge, and Liz seems to actively avoid the task: I've noticed a tendency on her part to put comments on article talk pages pointing out edits others should make, but only rarely does she simply make needed changes herself. She talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk, and that's not acceptable for an admin. --Drmargi (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With over 12,000 mainspace edits do you really think that is fair? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Sharing reasons already elucidated by others. This user seems to comment nearly everywhere, what is the point or value of that beyond ladder climbing? In areas where I've had concerns the candidate's shallow analyses have routinely disappointed. (Another admin added to the ranks ill-positioned to empathize w/ content creators' experiences?! Good going, folks.) IHTS (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I find disturbing most of Liz's answers to the questions, which show bias, insufficient logical thinking, short attention span, lacunae in knowledge of some typical situations during the editing gruntwork, and misconceptions of some roles of an admin. Clearly Liz knows all buzzwords about adminship, but I have serious doubts as to abilities to rein the ropes. (I do know that admins are live people and may err, but not that much.) I do have solid reasons for my opinion and will readily present them, if it can influence the vote balance. Otherwise I don't want to waste anyone's time. -M.Altenmann >t 05:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is surely going to pass, but I can't support this. I appreciate WTT's description of Liz's "empathy, understanding and helpfulness", but I've not seen any evidence of these qualities; I don't think I've ever seen Liz in any context other than hanging around contentious areas trying to pick fights. I also agree with the lack-of-content opposes (7.05% of her edits this year are to mainspace); to re-use a comment I made many years ago, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. – iridescent 09:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unopposing per comments here. – iridescent 10:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And sorry for flip-flopping, but back to opposing again. It was (just) outside the three months of edits I examined (see talk page), but the attitude displayed here is (ironically, for someone who appears to be taking such pride in civility and attention to detail) both unacceptably rude and a demonstration that the tendency to wade into arguments fists-flying without bothering to try to understand what the background is is still very much with us, and I no longer feel that "hanging around contentious areas trying to pick fights" was an unfair comment. Per my comments on this RFA's talkpage, I don't consider rudeness a deal-breaker at RFA if the candidate has positives elsewhere that outweigh the negatives, but Liz appears to have no Wikipedia interests or ambitions beyond minor edits and injecting herself into other editors' disputes. – iridescent 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sorry. It's a marginal oppose from me. Were the numbers closer I might land elsewhere. The nominator says "I can't remember a time without seeing her name in conversations." That's not praise; it is an indictment. It is borne out by the lack of meaningful content contributions. And further borne out by weak AfD !votes - many of which are turning a 5-0 AfD into a 6-0 AfD or just plainly off the mark ([8]). I'm also annoyed by the nominators' disguising of the fact that the candidate has only been actively editing for about 15 months once you exclude wikibreaks (not "two years") and is currently only six months back from a long break. Comparatively that's not much experience: I'd be prepared to vote for someone with that level of experience but only with evidence of high competence. The evidence falls a bit short here. In this case I'd have wanted to see that short period be spent on activities that gain my confidence: content creation, more thoughtful AfD contributions, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Crats - please disregard "Were the numbers closer I might land elsewhere". My comment about a "marginal oppose" still stands. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Not an easy call to make, given the numerous supporters, many of whom I have interacted with for years and deeply respect. And the candidate is also worthy of respect, having a reasonably even temperament− and has accomplished a fair amount in her time here. I find myself in agreement with her often in discussions, and in the philosophy of the encyclopedia. For me the objection is that the candidate simply does not have enough time here to be granted a lifetime adminship. I'd like to see another year before the extra buttons are granted. That said, I thank the candidate for service to date, and barring a dramatic turn in the consensus here, my congratulations and best wishes. Jusdafax 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is not granted for "a lifetime". Please see my post of 11:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Clarifying adminship. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Direct link: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 236#Clarifying adminship --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose After reading a few more diffs, I had to realise that the comment I alluded to earlier was not a slip, but that Liz seems to have a "thing" about content editors, some kind of resentment/agenda - the relevant diffs are [9] and [10]. Added to that, there has been no direct response to the criticism in two days, which reflects very poorly in an RfA. I'm extremely sorry that I'm having to change my opinion about her on this basis, but we can't have someone working as sysop who has a vendetta against content creators. She absolutely must re-think her stance on this matter to be a positive asset as sysop. Samsara 19:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Samsara, I don't have a thing against content editors but I stand by this comment in the diff you shared: Undoubtedly, they contribute a lot to the project but admins shouldn't have different sets of standards, one for content contributors and one for everyone else. I do think that the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia should apply equally to everyone, whether they are creating articles, fighting vandalism, participating in deletion discussions or answering questions at the Teahouse.
    As for the comment on Eric Corbett's talk page, that was unnecessary needling on my part which I should have refrained from. That was not a typical talk page edit for me. But what I was highlighting was not ill feelings towards content creators but rebutting the viewpoint that they are singled out and persecuted. Content creators are highly valued on Wikipedia as can be seen by those who oppose my candidacy on the grounds that I've not created articles but have edited in other ways in main space.
    As for not providing a direct response to people who oppose, I knew that there would be editors who would oppose this RfA based on the editor experience and qualifications they value in administrator candidates. If anyone has a specific question for me, they can ask it in the question section above. I am only replying to your comment because of your complaint that I haven't responded. All I can say is that I have nothing but admiration for content creators, I'm just against having a hierarchy of value among editors where some are more equal than others. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric Corbett (to whom that thread refers to) is not exactly the poster boy for the type of content creator we should be swaddling in love and kisses. I'd be more impressed if you had produced a diff where Liz had a "thing" (whatever that is) for someone who has been slightly less of a massive emotional drain on the project over the years. I find it disingenuous that this is all you could come up with. Also, we tell candidates not to engage oppose !votes whenever possible to avoid drama, and yet you want her to respond to the criticisms? As in "please tell us why don't you love Eric Corbett"? The only thing a candidate should be responding to are the questions above. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Samsara's first diff is the one I was reacting to in the talk page thread I linked to above, in which Liz shows, at least, willingness to consider other perspectives on the matter. On this idea of treating people "equally", it's a slippery concept - much too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that superficially symmetrical treatment is "equal" and thus "fair" (and conversely, that asymmetrical reactions or sanctions mean someone is being treated unfairly). I'd like to think that someone whose sympathies tend to gravitate toward the less-powerful would, if taking admin action in a real situation, be aware of these issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose while having FAs or GAs is not a requirement to be a good admin, user has questionable judgement in AFDs as noted by Mkativerata, making me pessimistic about how she grasps the nuances and requirements of notability criteria (especially if closing such discussions). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose mainly per Mkativerata in this section and Kraxler in the neutrals. There are some really, really questionable contributions at AfD that makes me question the wisdom of giving her the tools to delete articles. Frequent participation at the drama boards? Not a bonus. If she had stronger content I would support, but she's weak there too. AniMate 19:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. "Admins ideally should refrain from taking cheap shots." Indeed they should, and Liz seems unable or unwilling to do that. Eric Corbett 21:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per the situation Bishonen lays out in her question, and Liz's completely unsatisfactory answer to it. "I don't think talk page comments hold the same weight as edits that shape articles on sensitive subjects" is absolutely not the attitude I want in an admin; talk page comments, especially passive aggresiveness and tag-teaming, can be far worse than any behavior in articles. In her answer, I'm getting the sense that she would do the same thing to others of our extremely important anti-fringe editors who form WP's backbone, and this is not what I want in an admin. Sorry, but I believe that your viewpoint of WP:FRINGE needs to dramatically change before I would support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. While Liz has shown herself to be well versed in policy and tactful in arbitration matters, I cannot endorse giving the delete and block buttons to someone with so little experience in the content area. Yes, I know we need people to deal with the vandals and to carry out housekeeping tasks but those are adjuncts to the primary business of building an Encyclopedia, which involves content creation and improvement. I'm not talking about FAs and GAs, just run of the mill stuff, of which I see little evidence. I also found this WP:PROD while checking Liz's edit history. A quick Google book search gave me two reliable sources, which immediately invalidated the PROD. I'm uncomfortable giving someone a mop when they fail to carry out such basic due dilligence.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz's edit is this[11] and the relevant policy is WP:BLPPROD. It may not be a good prod, but it's not as bad as implied by the above comment. DexDor (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    coincidentally, your diff shows deficiencies of liz i had in mind: the article did have a reference. despite all high buzz about helpful to newbies, etc etc she decided to slap-tag rather to really help there out by formatting the embedded ext-link into a ref. and a troutslap to dextor: you do know how policies match tags, but in order to match tags to articles you have to have enough attention span (or patience) to actually read the article and not base the decision solely on the absence of "References" section. -M.Altenmann >t 07:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I really can't build any enthusiasm for this. I have watched Liz edit and it has all appeared to be geared for climbing the social ladder here. I even suggested to her once (or twice? I don't recall) to actually do some content creation and was either fobbed off or ignored...I don't recall. I'm reading your story about why you don't do content and I find it hard to believe that you don't edit anything ever from your field of expertise. I'm a doctor and I don't generally like to edit medical stuff too much (bit too much like work!) but I do from time to time. So rather than an encyclopedia you seem to be treating this as some sort of MMORPG or social experiment and I think that if that is the case, then there is a big problem. It boils down to "can this person be trusted with the tools" and I really have my doubts. I hope I am wrong and I would love to be proven wrong, I really would. So please do so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - It would be easy to jump on the support bandwagon, but I really can't. I find Liz generally likable, but some of her comments do indicate a disdain for content focused writers, and that simply makes no sense. Admin are here to here to create and support those that create, and nothing else. I think Liz simply lacks the experience and empathy and I would be afraid of seeing her with the delete and block buttons at this time. In the future? Very likely, but I think she has focused too much on meta and politics and too little on the actual reason we are all here, to create articles. That said, I think she means well, wants to do good things and give of herself, but if you are focused on the wrong things, then even good people can do very bad things and I just don't like the risk here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose No content work to speak of, seemingly little appreciation of what goes on in that area and, despite the claims above, it seemed like she made a lot of fiddly mistakes during recent ArbCom cases in which I was involved (I acknowledge that they are inherently fiddly things). In addition, her interventions are not always of the type described by Blade - she certainly got completely the wrong end of the stick in one recent episode involving me. A fair few of the interventions that I have seen seemed almost unnecessary and I did wonder whether they were being made simply to raise a profile for a run at RfA. Examples as per Drmies and others, plus the episode on my talk page to which several people have linked. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Been looking at this for several days and while I doubt Liz would abuse the tools, I really cannot grasp why she doesn't even participate in GAN as a reviewer or collaborate on a GA or FA effort. Should this change, I would gladly support in six months.--MONGO 16:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, regrettably. Like Dennis, I think Liz is generally likeable enough, but that's not a necessary quality for an admin, and it's certainly not the only one. But not everything is likeable; comments re: Eric are borderline baiting. If J3Mrs thought Liz was already an admin, perhaps it was because of the many ANI comments, and perusing ANI archives is what I did yesterday for an hour or two, trying to find out whether I should oppose or support. Liz had a few months where any one archived ANI page has up to 50 mentions of her name; for a while she did a lot of closes of ANI discussions--but they were the "easy" ones, like "indefblocked per admin X." I did not see assessments of consensus in the...let's see, ten pages of ANI archives I looked at. I did see a number of helpful comments, but many of the helpful comments are of the "can you please provide diffs" variety and other practical tips. That's helpful, but one doesn't need to be an admin for it, nor does it prove one is admin material.
    As for adminning at ANI, I didn't see much of it (in terms of good proposals to create solutions or cut through Gordian knots), but I saw a number of errors, or instances of lack of judgment. I do not wish to enumerate here with diffs and explanations (but I'll list ANI archive numbers), but I saw instances of AGF gone too far, such as the case of an editor who removed Jews and gays from articles, which Liz called nothing worse than "a strange POV" (890), or the suggestion to a plaintiff that they discuss something on the talk page of a troll who was subsequently indefblocked (888); an instance of serious misunderstanding of what promotional editing is (891); the misguided business of the "attention-getting block" (888); another case of pro bono advocacy of seriously disruptive editor, misguided, as consensus indicated, and possibly motivated by a certain...dislike...of a certain "content editor" (887); an overly picky reading of what ANI is, in the form of a "This isn't SPI", though frequently it is and it's not a law that socks can only be reported via SPI (887); another misreading of ANI and its purposes and what gets admin attention (886); a serious error in judgment when it comes to admins taking action for off-wiki harassment that spills over on-wiki, and a refusal to drop that stick after two admins countered, causing a third admin to counter (885); a misreading ("vandalism" for "misrepresentation of sources in article edits") in the case of an ArbCom-sanctioned editor (884); and a misinterpretation of NLT (884). For the record, let me add that it's not all negative: Liz made the best ANI comment ever, and it's found in 889.
    I wouldn't have compiled this long list if Liz weren't such a prolific editor; one may mistake my comment here for blackballing, but if I had no faith in Liz, and no respect for her, I would have let a one-liner suffice. I think that Liz can develop the right judgment, and can improve her understanding of policy (I do not believe, as some have said, that she knows it like the back of her hand). I can't judge the work she's done as a clerk--but again, that kind of work doesn't necessarily show us she's ready for adminning. And the content stuff remains. I'm trying hard not to think too much about the incidental apparent sneer toward content editors, or at least about the perceived carte blanche given to content editors, but that combined with a lack of actual editing experience gives me pause as well. Admins should at least know what it's like to write content, to work hard at improving articles, and to have it deleted, edited, messed with, etc. That creates one of the most important kinds of empathy I think admins need.
    Liz, I'm sorry for opposing, and I'm sorry if this looks like piling on--it's not meant to be. If this passes, good for you. If it doesn't, there will be a next time, if you will. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind me saying so Drmies I don't think you have accurately represented some of Liz's comments.
    • RE: the first link you say that she called nothing worse than a "strange POV". Actually, she said, "These edits definitely are imposing a strange POV where some people are just erased from the public record."
    • RE: the second link, you say that she suggested that the plaintif "discuss something on the talk page of a troll who was subsequently indefblocked". Of course we routinely ask plantiffs to discuss issues with the other disputants before taking them to ANI. Also, the editor was blocked for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, not trolling.
    • RE: the third link, you say that "serious misunderstanding of what promotional editing is". Her her response to Stemoc's unqualified accusation that Calibrador is using Wikipedia for personal financial gain shows a good understanding of policy and nuanced approach to calming disputes. The overall discussion shows that there was no consensus of promotional editing, or that sanctions for such should be levied.
    • RE: the fifth link you characterize her comments as "pro bono advocacy of seriously disruptive editor,". Many others in that discussion could also be accused of providing pro bono advocacy of a seriously disruptive editor, just not the same one.
    - MrX 15:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks MrX for your comments: a brief response. "Nothing worse" is my choice of words, obviously. Battleground behavior is trolling, as far as I'm concerned; in this case, I think the suggestion to talk it out was patronizing and unrealistic. In the case of promotional editing, Liz focused on the very narrow issue of financially beneficial edits--what an admin could have done, also in order to deescalate, was point out that promotional editing is much broader than "selling pictures"; the abuse of Wikipedia in order to promote one's own images is actually a serious and frequent issue. And in the RussianDewey case, I don't think there's any doubt as to who should have been, and was, blocked for being disruptive. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Liz, thank you for replying at some length to my question above (question 15), but no, I'm still not happy. I wanted to know how you now feel about your former partisan defense of fringe editors. And you do write about that defense with a certain criticism, but unfortunately it sounds like you're speaking of peccadilloes, even rather loveable ones. It's sort of admirable to be "zealous, idealistic and prone to want to right great wrongs", "a strong believer in assuming good faith" and believing in "giving the editor the benefit of the doubt", isn't it? And that's how you describe the 2013 Liz. I don't see any insight into the fact that defending one side amounted to attacking the other, i e the side of, as StringTheory puts it above (Oppose no 16), "our extremely important anti-fringe editors". They're actual people, too, and not clad in iron armour. From an admin, I look for some empathy for both sides. For instance, you seem quite oblivious to Manul's distress — in this thread on your page, you respond to him in a superficially civil way but a rather passive-aggressive tone —"out of the blue, you post on my RfA", etc — and point out with what sounds like satisfaction that you haven't responded to his email nor to his question at this RfA. Responding to his concerns here at the RFA, (which you obviously saw at some point though he removed them) wouldn't have killed you, surely. Nor would going more deeply into the problems on your page, instead of brushing them off. On your page, Manul ends up thanking you for at least acknowledging that your defense of Tumbleman at the SPI was misguided — right — yes, I'm glad you did, too — I just think "misguided" is a weak word, that's all. I called it "deplorable" in my question. I'm sorry, but your development into greater understanding of these issues still seems shallow to me. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  25. Oppose. Two diffs provided by Samsara, thorough analysis by Drmies and a number of other opposes confirm my earlier impressions about Liz as someone more interested in management than in encycolopedic content. While I do not dubt her good intentions, I think she needs to gather more experience and, in particular, more perspective. And, if possible, less hanging on drama boards. No such user (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Essentially the same reason as No such user. There are already plenty of admins keeping the drama boards entertaining. Townlake (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that, Townlake. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose -- Nothing against the candidate, whom I know very little about, but how on earth can someone assume an administrative role when they have little or no experience in creating content? Bit rewarding based on the fact that they do a lot of the donkey work at ANI should cease immediately. CassiantoTalk 09:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. I believe this is only the third time I have felt strongly enough to vote in an RfA but I have several concerns about this candidate. Sparse content experience, the problems highlighted by Drmies, the diffs supplied by Samsara, J3Mrs and others, the list of - albeit minor - errors given by Iridescent and the inappropriate PROD; couple all these with her "unnecessary needling" (that's using her own words from above) together with baiting and other instances of poor judgement in heated situations, do not give me any faith in her overall suitability. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Per lack of content contributions and per Samsara's diffs. It's one thing to not write lots and lots of FAs, but the diffs show that the user doesn't get why we're here. If there isn't content - there's no need for admins. Until you've dealt with having content you sweated to build up ripped apart by trolls, you won't get why regular users will get upset. The diff shows the user doesn't get it at all, and thus I can't approve of them getting admin tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose -- a difficult call, especially as there are a large number of editors, admin and not, whom i admire and whose judgement i trust in the support section. In the end, there are too many questions and difficulties in this candidature for me. While i admire the candidate's general assumption of good faith, her judgement seems, on some occasions, to have been compromised by it; i couldn't care less about FA or GA articles, and being a gnomic contributor is no bar to the requested status as far as i'm concerned; the length of service is perhaps a little on the low side; the attraction to the drama boards is a little worrying; some of the work done seems to be oriented towards this Request. All in all, my concerns are similar to many mentioned above, again by many editors whom i respect and who have laid it all out far better than i. Cheers, LindsayHello 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose -- Too little content creation, too much involvement in drama. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this intentional irony? This account's second edit was to revert an established editor on the Gamergate arbitration case evidence page, and nearly half of the small number of subsequent edits have been to the same arbitration case, enforcement noticeboards, ANI, and other drama pages. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose -- Per Drmies and Bishonen. Lack of content creation and partisanship are both worrying for any administrator. Aparslet (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Comment: This user has only ever made 10 other edits on this account. Brustopher (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I see you've been editing wikipedia for a few months, I note that you have made very few edits and that this your first to an RfA. May I ask what brought you to this discussion? WJBscribe (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Sigh. First, thanks for your contributions. I do not like being in this column. I second LinsayH and embrace the neutrals below. There are just too many things that are out of balance. I haven't been too demanding for content, but I'm leaning more in that direction. Content is not only good in itself, but it also shows skills that most admins need: research, clarity, argument. I don't need GA or FA content, but I want the basic skills. Content has not been a deal killer, but I usually want to see Mainspace+Talk above 50%; here it's 30%. That stat can be skewed; editors working in AfC will have skewed distributions; maybe that has happened here. The stats do not show extensive editing on single articles: top page has 29 edits and next page only has 15; see also Q5. Usually 3,000 mainspace edits and a six-month tenure is sufficient, but there's a caveat: there should be some strong examples of clue. I'm not getting that here. Instead there's a history of misfires. It's OK to make mistakes and acknowledging them is good, but where is the follow-on reformation? Where is conflict well handled? Where is the research for the application of policy to argument? (e.g., Mkativerata's Touchsuite (no apparent research for WP:CORP esp. § WP:INHERITORG) and "more thoughtful AfD contributions"; Philg88's WP:BEFORE.) The Qs are basically good, but there are some unsatisfying bends in them. In Q1, for example, one does not need the bit to discuss something. Q5's subtext announces an aversion for research or referencing (but kudos for Q12). Glrx (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Not just yet. I see a dedicated, well intentioned and principled candidate and god knows this site needs adminning. Several people have mentioned how she has progressed over the years but has a small distance to travel yet. I have concrens about a wide but shallow footprint, and a seeming unwillingness to engage in even basic research, though it seems that this is less pronounced in more recent contribs. I dont care about the lack of content in Liz's case; for her to go and do a few GAs in the next 6 months would be tokenistic, and any community is interdependant on the gathering of people of differing interests and skills. My overall impression is of a well respected editor who will soon be a fine admin but needs a little refining and seems willing to take advice on-board; ie along the normal path of progression. In other words I think if this nom fails and there is introspection, we will have a finer candidate. Once again I agree with Drmies, and look forward to an eventual support. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose :: I would prefer seeing more content creation and content that rises to FA or GA worthiness/quality. Further, I cannot support someone who seems to enjoy being a part of the ANI drama mess—being a junkie for that is specifically what makes ANI a cesspool and emboldens certain types of admins and admin-wannabes we can't get rid of when they abuse content creators. Sorry Liz. I just can't enable that. JackTheVicar (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose In addition to content creation, she appears to be unaware of why we are here. This isn't a Social Justice forum and content trumps ideology. I have little faith that use of tools will further project goals above ideological goals. --DHeyward (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. This is difficult for me because not only do I appreciate the energy and enthusuasm Liz displays, but the nominators are among the handful or so of admins for whom I have the greatest respect, know personally, and over many years have come to regard as very good friends. Their rationales and indeed those of many of the supporters are of course totally beyond reproach but there is a possibility that they may not be quite as familiar with the candidate as some of those in this oppose section who are also wrestling with their conscience for being down here. Although concern has been raised about the lack of solid content work, that's not why I am here. Because I am quite active in a fairly broad spectrum of Wikipedia's front line areas and deletions, before there was even a breath of rumour that Liz would be running for adminship, I mentally noted some issues that were giving me pause. Those same concerns have been accurately identified by Manul, Drmargi, Altenmann, and as Mkativerata points out, referring to a nominators totaly inadvertant asteism, Liz appears to dash from door to door in all the corridors of Wikipedia making comments that are often only a shallow analysis of the situation, and are wont to make make me call from my office door and say 'Hey, Liz, what's the hurry? Come in, pull up a chair and let's see how we can address all these issues you feel so strongly about, less often but in more depth and more accurately.' Dennis Brown, Casliber, and Sitush save me having to repeat my own observations, but Bishonen and Drmies say best what I have been sensing for a long time. And Liz, my bark is worse than my bite, and my 'office' is always open, in fact chances are that I have just put the kettle on... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - While Liz is a likable Wikipedian, I have to agree with GregJackP with lack of creation or improvement of articles to at least GA of FA. Adminship isn't about absolute power and control over Wikipedia, but to use extra tools to help with others contributing. Racer-Ωmegα 11:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose, exactly per Kudpung. It is very difficult to oppose a candidate who is so likable and well-intentioned, and who received such a glowing wave of nominations and early supporters. At the same time, exactly as Kudpung, I have and have had an uneasy feeling deep within of a lack of in-depth cracker-jack knowledge and analysis, and a general unfitness and definite current unreadiness for the responsibility of admin tools. I feel the ArbCom members are rightfully well-disposed towards Liz because of her excellent and alacritous clerking work therein; however clerking (even ArbCom clerking) is not, and does not resemble, admin work. I agree with all of Kudpung's points and would like to add my own: In terms of content work, I think it is a ridiculous absurdity to require, expect, or ask an admin candidate to have submitted, or to submit, FA or even GA article(s). I am also willing to view some of her comments about content work on Eric's talk page as her viewpoint of that particular situation through the lens of being an ArbCom clerk and understandably siding with a strict interpretation of ArbCom rulings. That said, the lack of content work issue still preys on me when I read this in the Q&A above (in #5): "after educating myself on the differences between academic writing and creating content on Wikipedia, I can ...", which shows such a self-imposed and self-selected ignorance and lack of understanding of Wikipedia content or content creation (which in fact is all that Wikipedia is in the end: content) that I cannot in good conscience support this nomination. I wish the candidate all the best, and appreciate her uplifting and caring presence here. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I am very sorry. My first reaction was = But of course. But I waited some days, because didn't had the time to check throug edits. The thing that worried me that so many editors I do trust; were opposing this nomination, like Dennis Brown. Now, if there is a person who has a good sound judgment - that's him. I trust Dennis Brown's judgments very much. Yet, he was still opposing it. Weird. Having now checked some diffs and the issues highlighted by Dennis Brown, Ceoil, Drmargi and several others, coupled with the reasoning of the other opposes and evidence supplied, I migh oppose this nomination, although I think Liz is a very pleasant and lovely person, but as it stands now - maybe not experienced enough yet... - Although - but she still might turn out to be a good one, so it's a week oppose, but still an oppose. One of the problems that I found was that while admins are supposed to work to calm the situations, unfortunately I have noticed examples that what she did was having the opposite effect. Also that joke on Eric's talk page that others have mentioned in the oppose votes also an example of doing the opposite of calming things down. I didn't wanted to say anything without any diffs though. Some of the things I was thinking about, that some of the decisions might be rushed. Many supports say she is approaching any situation with knowledge and caution. Not all that there yet, though. Here - she told someone of not notifying the person they are bringing to AN/I, when they had notified them; there is at least one more like this example. - An other diff here, this is not showing good fait, - after not really reading the report ( actually assuming bad faith on the part of the reporting editor, when it is not the case.) An other thing is - at the Administrators Noticeboard (not at the ANI-incidents), she was expressing the idea of desysopping admins who don't log enough administrative actions - on the discussion of admin inactivity, this is something that I think of as a too hard judgment on - good admins that lrt's say spend times working on calming down situations, resolving them, or doing other things that are not visible this way. Being an admin is not always a police job. About the next issue, - I am not happy about splitting parts on Wiki, identifying the sides with men/women. I would like this to be toned down not amplified or exagerated even more. I really don't want to split Wikipedia into women and men editors that fight with each other because of gender issues. This diff, here, including stating that she thought she was the only woman participating in a talk page argument: it is a kind of partisan argument. - Last diff, this is two years old and under the first or the old account/name, caled the New Jersey Liz :- she is here involved, somebody protests, and she is sarcastic. The problem many point out, not having edited enough articles, no GA or FA, it would be good if she tried to do at least one or two GA and FA. Just to experience how that works. No requirement to succed, just try one or two. One has to understand how that works. Unsuccessful GA and FA is fine too! Well, I think that is this I wanted to add... things to be more careful about, to think about. Whatever will happen, good luck to you, though. --Hafspajen (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose The candidate may not have a complete, 100% well-rounded understanding of all the inner workings and policies, but she is inquisitive when unsure which scores big points. My real concern is she appears to be focused on the more controversial and social aspects of the project, which for an aspiring administrator rubs me the wrong way. A stronger dedication to our core efforts would speak volumes. This doesn't have to be content creation, but that certainly would be the best example. Categorization is trivial work in my mind and either way I don't see how adminship would play an integral role in that regard, and this is what she claims as her best contributions. Despite her fidelity on such noticeboards, her allure to contentious areas and apparent eagerness to play a role in them seems too strong for me to offer my full support. — MusikAnimal talk 16:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well someone needs to deal with these controversial parts of Wikipedia, so what's the downside to adding someone who's actually willing to do it? As much as I agree with the OWB points in general, I'm not on board with the idea that the community should actively avoid giving adminship to people who express a desire to take on the role; or, for that matter, the idea that the best attitude of a candidate is "I don't really actually want to do administrative work, but since I'm being pressed I guess I'll reluctantly do this with the understanding that I'll stick to the most boring and mindless admin tasks (did I forget to mention that I don't really want to do this?)..." The latter seems to be the the tone of successful RfAs of late, the former—that is, people who openly demonstrate some enthusiasm—should be what the community is looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem arises when someone who does not have a clue about content creation or creators, and who said this: I'd make editing at places like the Help desk, the reference desks, DRN or the Teahouse just as important as writing an FA., here. I'm sorry, while those are important, they are nowhere near as important as our featured content, and to claim otherwise indicates that she just doesn't get it. GregJackP Boomer! 19:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How about instead of 'important' we talk about 'crucial.' Editing at administrative noticeboards, etc., is just as crucial? Because without those we have chaos, and no one can find or trust the featured content. valereee (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not crucial, it is currently where people go to hound content creators. The problem is that non-content creators have a mistaken idea that they are as valuable to the project as those who create content. The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators. That's why we need admins who have created content, not those who view this as a social media experiment. GregJackP Boomer! 20:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Fusing two comments together, there was some weirdness that went on with indenting and it made it look like I was talking to myself) No, it is not crucial, it is currently where people go to hound content creators.[citation needed] The problem is that non-content creators have a mistaken idea that they are as valuable to the project as those who create content. Perhaps you'd like to spend 4 days undoing 1500 page moves that screwed up all manner of incoming links and categories, as I recently did (see here), and then get back to me about that.
    I have a hard time swallowing the idea that having an obsessive knowledge of hurricanes or video games, which are what a disproportionate number of our featured articles seem to be about, makes or breaks being a decent administrator. I handle a lot of AE issues, a lot of unreferenced BLPs, and did my fair share of untangling nastiness in Indian caste disputes; I have no writing experience in any of those areas on Wikipedia, though I do in my personal life, and I have yet to have it raised as a serious issue in one of my administrative decisions. Besides, even if you think they're not the most important areas someone still has to do it; after all, business executives generally have secretaries without whom they would never be able to do the best at their jobs. Their secretaries may have no real grasp of business management, but they're still essential to the functioning of the company. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that non-content creators were worthless, I said that they were not as valuable as content creators. We appreciate that you cleaned that mess up, but admins should be capable of creating content and have demonstrated that prior to becoming admins. As for your ((cn)) above, you need a citation for my opinion? Really? Interesting. GregJackP Boomer! 21:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think that having "no real grasp of business management" should qualify someone to run the company? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When last I looked, the WMF ran the entity that is Wikimedia and by extension its sites. We're talking about a few additional software tools to help maintain a website here, which is much more in line with low-level "keeping the gears turning" work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the community runs en.wikipedia, for example when WMF tried to keep the article feedback tool, the community overwhelmingly rejected it ([12]). The problem is that admins run the community here. No non-admins have ever had any significant role in the governance here. Not at ArbCom, not at WMF, nowhere. So it is vitally important that admins understand the importance of content creation. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    GregJackP, Wouldn't you agree that good content creators shouldn't take their sources out of context by selectively quoting them? The point she was making was "It seems to me that being an effective admin relies more on people skills than content creation." It would be fair to dispute that point, or whether article talk pages are a better venue for developing people skills than the tea house, but please don't imply she said that teahouse contributions were more valuable than featured content contributions. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wbm1058, she said if she could change the RfA process, she would depreciate content creation and elevate non-content edits on boards that are marginally important to the Project, because she thinks that people skills are more important. I disagree with that philosophy, and I dispute that she has acceptable people skills, based on numerous comments by others on this RfA. Second, I didn't take her statement out of context, unless you are claiming that she did not want to make editing on the drama / help boards as important as creating content. Please don't imply that she said otherwise. It would be disingenuous to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now you've addressed her point about people skills, and given your opinion on that. We're good now. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose (Moved from Support) - First off I sincerely apologize for saying "Good luck although you probably won't need it as you'll sail through this" - At the time I didn't think there would be any issues but in hindsight I shouldn't of said that, Anyway the opposes raise some valid concerns and If I'm being totally honest it's been on my mind for quite a few days, Whilst I'm not too bothered with content creations I am concerned with the constant ANI drama, As others above have noted it seems you spend less time on articles and more time at ANI & other noticeboards which isn't the way to go, Anyway good luck with the RFA. –Davey2010Talk 16:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose (moved from neutral) my thinking is basically the same as described in the neutral section, but User_talk:Sitush/Archive_21#you_are_again_removing_content confirms my fears and I'm now firmly in the oppose camp. --Stfg (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - candidate is somewhat hostile to content creators and has been entrenched in a number of controversial areas. Minor4th 20:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose I have been sitting on the fence on this one for a long time since Liz is clearly an intelligent, articulate, and well-intentioned editor interested in the admining areas (which is a plus in my book). And I am not too concerned if an admin candidate is not primarily an article writer, as long as their editing indicates that they understand that that is the raison d'etre for wikipedia and their non-article space activities indirectly help in that endeavor. IMO, Liz unfortunately does not pass that bar yet. Drmies pointed out several instances that I found troublesome, and the example Stfg brought up from March 2015, pushed me over the edge.
    Let me spell out the problem I see in that specific instance: firstly, any experienced editor, and certainly admin candidate, should have instantly seen from Rohinisinghaliya edit-history that this was likely to be a case of POV pushing, edit-warring and socking (hint: if nothing else, look at the access dates for the references being added in the very first edit) especially given that Indian caste articles are a known haunt for such edits and editing behavior. Of course, I don't expect Liz to be able to evaluate the content in depth and figure out the problems herself (although the issues of WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS and WP:SYN should have been discernible even to an outsider), but when two experienced editors in the area, User:Sitush and User:NeilN, revert the edit and Sitush leaves the editor a polite note, she should have taken note too. Instead Liz chose to enter the debate only to focus on the most superficial aspect (incidental use of the word "fuck") ignoring all content, sourcing and obvious socking issues. If this were an isolated incident, it wouldn't be a big deal, but I'm afraid that other examples in this RFA evidence that it is not. And so I currently cannot support this nomination. Abecedare (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I said in my follow-up comment to my support, above, that I have very high respect for quite a few of the opposing editors, and Abecedare, I include you amongst those whom I respect so highly. Truly, I get what you have said about the established history of problem editing about Indian caste content, and how it applies to this particular case. At the same time, however, what I see in that episode is Liz taking note of the comment "Has it fuck.", directed at the problematic editor. She characterizes it as "Not an ideal response". (And she gets criticized for placing a question mark inside instead of outside quotation marks.) From my perspective (as an editor in the US, in case that has any relevance to how "Has it fuck" comes across in different cultural settings), it does not strike me as something superficial. At this point, I'm sincerely beginning to wonder whether there really are a lot of folks who are seeing genuine problems in this RfA that I'm failing to see. But nonetheless, I am feeling a lot of agreement with what WJBScribe and Xeno say a few entries down below, that there is not enough recognition of the need for editors to speak respectfully to one another here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: I agree with you on the latter point and with Liz in the view she has expressed that the 5 pillars apply to us all equally. Perhaps I should clarify why that incident seemed to me to be so significant. It's that Liz chose to intervene in a discussion between two other editors, and used that intervention to rebuke one of those editors for his use of a naughty word. I don't like that word either, but it's only naughty; it isn't racist or sexist or religionist or any-other-kind-of-put-down-ist; merely naughty, and in the actual context, thoroughly understandable. To my mind, unsolicited intervention in other people's discussions is already incivil, and it's more so when the intervener talks down to an adult as if he were a child. Certainly more incivil than the use of a mere cuss-word. It's officious, and definitely not the action of someone I'd like to see given the block button. --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still in the support column, but I also felt uncomfortable with Liz's approach to that conversation and with her follow-up comments on the RfA talk page. It's not very considerate to interrupt conversations you're not involved with and haven't investigated the context of in order to deliver an unsolicited opinion about something ill-advised but minor, even if the substance of that opinion is fairly mild. People are thinking a lot about empathy in this RfA; while it's not as if empathy is a zero-sum thing, this is an example of how indiscriminate 'empathy' offered to all comers can result in being insufficiently empathetic toward the people actually doing difficult work.
    But, the sense of being picked at and taken to task about seemingly trivial, superficial, isolated issues is probably one Liz is now quite familiar with, and is not really so different from how a "content creator" might feel about being picked at and taken to task about seemingly trivial issues... I continue to think this is a solvable problem, especially given the amount of feedback on the issue here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks for the reply. You raise the issue of the judgment that an administrator ought to have about when to interject oneself into a discussion between other editors, and when not to interject oneself. I think that's valid in principle. At the same time, I think it's more than "naughty" to call another editor a "fuck" (which I think is what was said, although I may have misunderstood), and that it's within reasonable discourse to object to that terminology. It doesn't strike me as officious or talking down. And it certainly does not strike me as incivil. In fact, it seems upside down to me to describe calling someone a "fuck" as "naughty", while describing calling that insult "not an ideal response" as "incivil". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Tryptofish. I think, though, that you're misreading it. In reply to "the articles had got enough sorces", the reply "Has it fuck" is simply an idiomatic way of saying "Oh no it bloody well hasn't", with about the same amount of force, and cannot reasonably be interpreted as calling the other editor a fuck (which I agree would be grossly offensive). I don't believe Sitush would do that. @Opabinia regalis: that's very reasonable, but I still retain concern about giving a block button just yet. I'd prefer to see these issues clearly taken on board, and then probably support next time round. --Stfg (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, then I misunderstood what that idiom really means, probably because it is never used that way in the US, to my knowledge. Thanks for educating me about it. But if I could misunderstand it that way in good faith, so perhaps could Liz. And if one understands what she said in that context, the "officious" etc. nature of it seems differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way it could be parsed the way you parsed it, Tryptofish. I've heard people from the US use the phrase. I could see exactly where this conversation was headed and was trying to stay out of it but I'm getting a bit fed up of what is going on here. - Sitush (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush, having looked into this, it is clear to me that you were very kind in dealing with that problematic editor, and now it is clear that you said what you said in the way that Stfg explained it. I'm not criticizing you, not by a long shot. But where you say "no way", I realize that there is no way that you intended it as an insult, but you need to realize that I've lived in the US for 59 years, and I'm reasonably intelligent and verbal – and today is the first time that I've heard the idiom. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Liz, I am from New Jersey, am very well-read, and never heard that usage until today. I can think of seven different ways to say "You don't have enough sources" without using "sources" and using 'fuck' but never ever heard that one. (Ask on my talk page if you really want a list of them.) When I read the usage under discussion I also thought it was highly insulting. Recommend not using profanity in the future to avoid charges of incivility. I believe Liz's conclusion that there was an insult and things should be dialed back was thus appropriate. Worth Overdoing (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really not the issue. The judgement is about stepping in, and if stepping in, knowing when to step out. There's a difference between weighing in on the noticeboards (and AfD), and weighing in on a dispute outside those areas. There are many admins that know how to do that and some that do not. Knowing whether a comment is adding more heat than light is more important for an admin because the playing field isn't level. If Liz was an admin, I would have interpreted her remarks as an uninvolved civility warning. Not so much when she is a non-admin editor. The same is true for the examples Bishonen illustrated. Now, if she had entered Sitush' dispute with strong/bold content changes, it's a different story and a different hat. I would hope she takes these views and comments, parses them down, and understands the concern. To an extent, drive by comments can be tolerated from an editor (I'm barely tolerated for that), but not so much as an admin especially when they emanate from the same uninformed space. Even without taking action, weighing in at AE with the exact same comments with the "uninvolved admin" bit is more problematic than an editor making the same comment. I think the fear is that the behavior will not stop (it would be hard for me to do it because it's built into my nature, which ironically I think is very similar to Liz's even if we approach things from different perspectives.) She probably can do it, but I would want to see it. -DHeyward (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose While nearly 46,000 edits in two year is a lot of editing less than 30% of them are to article space. Article upkeep and improvement is as important as article creation and there just has not been enough of it for my liking. As so many others (Kudpung sums it up well) who oppose have pointed out the main focus has been adding her opinion to various discussions - which she is certainly allowed to do - but too often it has not been well thought out or researched. One can still be a positive for the project without having the admin tools. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Where I've seen her comment, I've often disagreed. Therefore this opposition of mine is based strictly on my personal impressions. →StaniStani 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Having a second look. Going through a few thousand contributions. Moved to neutral.→StaniStani 00:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose largely per Dennis and Ealdgyth. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. I'm really sorry Liz is being put through this. RfA is generally a traumatic experience, but it's even more hurtful when there are so many unexpected opposes from so many well-respected editors. As those who come before me, I oppose reluctantly because Liz is a nice person. Certainly, in my own personal experience she has never been anything but pleasant. However, even in those pleasant experiences, I was often suprised by her lack of judgment. Essentially, she would defend the indefensible and "help" those editors who are undeserving of help. Also, as others have said, she spends too much time inserting herself into areas of drama. I realize that administrators must often address drama, but she doesn't do it well, and her time would be better spent dealing with other things. Plus, she displays a certain amount of cluelessness when it comes to policy. Naturally, we can't expect a would-be administrator to be familiar with the many policies that control this project, but either she doesn't educate herself or she does and misinterprets what she reads. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised as she strikes me as intelligent, but something isn't clicking for her, and I simply don't want an administrator who has this many problems.
    The last thing is to some extent a nit, but her answer to Q12 was incorrect. The article as created was not an A1. For someone who states that CSD criteria should be applied strictly, I don't see how she can come to that conclusion. The article has a single sentence that says it's (I assume "it" is the name of the article, too, but that wasn't given in the question) a house in Sussex. How is there any confusion about context? I frequently reject A1s because they don't apply. Her ultimate decision, though, to redirect was fine.
    If this candidacy is successful, I hope Liz will use the opposes as a learning tool. If it is not, I hope the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Extremely Regretful Oppose Moving from support. I gave a rather strong support above based on my experiences with Liz, but some of the opposes resonate with me in such a way that I can't support this RfA at this time. Mainly per Abecedare and MusikAnimal. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Moral support Reasonings per Starke Hathaway. Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 01:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose - Moved here from support, very regrettably. Toughest decision ever, and so hard for me to research. She has been involved in matters that span many talk pages over long periods where it is really hard to figure out if she is right or wrong in her position. Plus, she is so good in so many ways. So anyway, lack of content creation is somewhat of an issue. A bigger concern is that this seems to be such a hot RfA. I worry Liz could become an admin who draws heat, not only because of the issues raised here, but even because of the divide at this RfA. Any force that polarizes is a concern to me. I can imagine that when storms arise, Liz's involvement may end up increasing the gale force instead of bringing a calming breeze. I'm so sorry. I just don't know how to put it better. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - I intended to sit this one out, but some recent arguments have convinced me to oppose, regretfully. I don't care whether an admin candidate has any GA/FA under their belt. With the number of articles that we now have, maintenance is becoming more important and somebody has to do it. But while article creation is not a must for me, I do like to see some expanding of stubs, providing sources, etc. Hence, 30% mainspace edits is pretty low and the ANI penchant is also worrisome. Several well-respected editors have posted much more eloquent !votes than what I am capable of. While there is no one single issue that really jumps out, the accumulation slowly but inexorably pushed me here. What clinched this for me was the link that Sitush provided with the comment that some content they had removed looked well sourced, when at least one ref was to answers.com. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose The candidate's clerking at arbcom seemed weak. Expending effort on such bureaucracy while not yet being proficient at content creation seems to be the mark of an apparatchik. Also, there seems to be a general assumption above that this is the candidate's first/only account. Looking at their activity on their first day, edits such as this seem remarkably sophisticated, using category syntax which took me years to acquire. This indicates that there's a significant risk that this is a fresh-start user looking to get an admin account to influence controversial topics. Why has there been no question about alternate accounts or did I miss it? Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Had your in-depth research involved looking at Liz's userpage, you would have seen the very clear message at the top of that page explaining her previous accounts... Yunshui 雲水 12:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The first nomination says "Liz has been around on Wikipedia for a couple of years" while, as Yunshui points out, the user page indicates a much longer history and the Nwjerseyliz account goes back to 2007. Why did the candidate change their account and pattern of editing? This is still not clear to me and I expect such history to be presented more clearly in the RfA, so that the !voters don't all have to conduct in-depth research. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think much research is required to look at a person's userpage - one would pretty much expect it to be the first port of call when looking at a candidate. My "in-depth research" comment was intended as sarcasm - clearly it doesn't come over well in text, sorry about that. Yunshui 雲水 09:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does the first nominator lead by saying "a couple of years" rather than eight years? My impression is that few of the people commenting here have looked at the user page and understand this history. That's why we're getting a lot of "not yet" comments. I came to the RfA late and feel that such comments significantly misrepresent the nature of the candidate. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the error. I wrote the nomination from recollection and didn't double check my facts before this went live. It wasn't a big deal to me, once a person passes "long enough" - it just doesn't matter to me. I do, however, apologise for misleading you. WormTT(talk) 10:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew you do realize that bureaucracy is most of what we do? We go to places where other people have made decisions and push buttons. Skill in bureaucracy is far more important than skill in content creation. Even after becoming an admin one must remove their admin hat when engaging in editing, so the two jobs never really meet. The rest of your vote seems to be a huge assumption of bad faith. Chillum 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is explicit policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As for good faith, it seems that my suspicion that the candidate had made some kind of fresh start was correct. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Regretful Oppose but it is too soon, no content writing experience is a big concern for me. Also some examples of bad judgement above are concerning too, but again, writing some stuff is a pre-requisite for adminship for me. I am not talking about GAs or FAs, I cannot support a candidate who has not even created a stub-class article, nor has ever expanded an existing article with a couple paragraphs. Cavarrone 11:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like to respond to opposes, but "I cannot support a candidate who has not ... ever expanded an existing article with a couple paragraphs" is just factually incorrect. Look at this diff. If it wasn't so late at night, I'd dig up a few more examples, but unless your statement was intentionally hyperbolic, I think it's worth pointing out that it's untrue. Admittedly, it's hard to find content creation among her many thousands of gnoming contributions, but there are some bits and pieces there if you look hard enough. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Not too soon at all; there is plenty of time to see the patterns. I will always vote against anyone who wants it so badly, and lives on the dramah boards. A nice person, but a professional politician. Scr★pIronIV 13:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ScrapIronIV The tone of this comment is not constructive. Could you consider re-phrasing? –xenotalk 13:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have considered the request, and rejected the suggestion. I must be tone deaf. Scr★pIronIV 15:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, Xeno, while it's not the way I'd have put it, I can't see an issue with the tone here. You might not agree with the concern, but "I think (insert name of candidate) is more interested in being seen to act than in actually acting"—which is how I parse ScrapIron's comment—is IMO a perfectly legitimate reason for opposing if the person commenting believes it to be the case. You raised no concern to my (considerably less politely phrased) "I don't think I've ever seen Liz in any context other than hanging around contentious areas trying to pick fights", or the numerous comments from other editors along similar lines. – iridescent 15:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I'd appreciate it if all of those comments would also be re-factored into something more civil. This RfA has too much heat coming from both sides and some commentators seem to sadly overlook that those who involved in this discussion (most significantly the candidate, but also those who have expressed opinions) are human beings and volunteers who are giving their time to this project for free. Do we really think people would waste their time (something I have always considered enormously valuable for anyone to give) if they didn't think they were making Wikipedia better? As to your comment, did you think Liz was actually "trying to pick fights"? Or was that an unintended consequence of her actions? The latter would be no less valid a reason to oppose, but I worry when people to try comment on the intentions of others, rather than the effect of their edits. WJBscribe (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Xeno, how would you suggest rephrasing this comment to make it constructive? Townlake (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lives too much on the drama boards, and I prefer candidates that don't want it so badly." is what I would go for to articulate that concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps 'tone' was the wrong word; the composition of the comment simply strikes me as not particularly constructive or conducive to the process of contributing to a collaborative project: it doesn't provide any examples of behaviour the commenter finds troublesome and does not provide the candidate any constructive feedback as to how the concerns may be addressed (also per WJBscribe). (As to your remark iridescent, you'd already withdrawn it by the time I read it; I only started looking at this candidacy today you have at least provided an analysis of how you came to your conclusion). It is not that I disagree with the ScrapIronIV's concern, but the delivery leaves something to be desired. –xenotalk 16:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of examples had already been given by others, but one look at the edit count tool shows 226 edits to articles last month, compared to 6200 edits to Wikipedia pages. There are a few editors who seem to live on the Administrator boards, and Liz is one of them. It is plain to my eyes that the goal is to be seen and heard, and to get a "promotion" to Admin. So, you pick out my comment for special attention because of some nebulous "tone" issue. It was a straightforward comment on how I perceive the issue. That is exactly what collaboration is - sharing one's perspective on a topic. What I would find unconstructive is to have a legitimate concern be picked apart because someone "feels" something that isn't there. Scr★pIronIV 17:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose per Samsara, Drmies and Bbb23. Will support after evidence is presented of a more nuanced approach in general and a specific reappraisal of her attitude to those who actually write our articles. --John (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I think Dennis made some good points. I certainly don't live up to the standards mentioned throughout here, but then again I am not trying to become an administrator. I think one day Liz will make an excellent candidate for adminship. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to cast a !vote, please log in with an account. Unregistered accounts are permitted to comment, but not cast a !vote at RFA. Thanks, Nakon 21:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I do not feel Liz is unbiased enough for adminship. Liz is also taking advantage of the fact that those in favor of her position would all vote for her adminship while those against her position would not likely check RfA, so I advise not looking at the strict vote count in this case. I have nothing against Liz as a person, but some of her edits do seem detrimental to the goal of an unbiased wiki. ONR (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Those against her position seem to have been duly informed Brustopher (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That link provided by Brustopher needs to be emphasized. There is off-Wiki canvassing of editors to oppose. (I'm guessing it's GamerGate-related.) I see that first-time participants are already being indented, but the closing Crat needs to be clearly aware of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. That started (according to the link) about two hours ago. There has also been a thread on Wikipediocracy for days. Neither really show any canvassing - "support" or "oppose" - but it does seem to me that there are some peculiar edits going on here anyway. - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reddit thread is pushing towards oppose I think. SJW means "Social Justice Warrior" and is usually used as an insult, especially in anti-SJW subreddits like /r/wikiinaction/. As for the WO thread, I think that explains Aparslet's 10 edit oppose, as he's a forum member there. The fact that he thanked me for an edit I made to the Gamergate talk page a few months ago (one that listed sources more sympathetic to Gamergate than most), may also be useful context.Brustopher (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reddit group is part of the anti-SJW faction, such as KotakuInAction or TumblrInAction. KotakuInAction is the Gamergate central board on reddit. Most (not all) posters on WikiInAction are fighting the same culture war. In my (attempted and stricken) vote above, I noted that there is a proxy war on this RFA. Here is proof of it.Worth Overdoing (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Liz is also taking advantage of the fact that those in favor of her position would all vote for her adminship while those against her position would not likely check RfA" – Can we assume better faith than that, please? Liz is not taking advantage of anything and if there happens to be a selective bias in !voters, that is not her fault. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that Liz isn't taking advantage of anything but I suspect that "support" !votes are also seeing the same canvassing and showing up for the same reason. This is a very active RfA and selective bias is going to fall both ways. It's a very polarizing RfA. --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose ANI is the worst possible place for someone to learn the ropes. Liz is clearly a well-meaning and motivated person, but spending a few months at XfD (where content meets administration), or GA/FA/FP or even DYK would give her a better familiarity with the real work of writing an encyclopedia-like thing. I don't usually vote in these things, but I feel adding an oppose will help push this towards a 'crat chat, which is important in this case because of how the daily support:oppose ratio has shifted over the past 7 days. Consider this a "NOTYET" vote which in no way a comment on Liz's dedication, intent, or ability, but rather just concern about the sort of experience she lacks at the moment, and my concern about the trends evident in this RfA. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Seems a decent person, but opposing mainly due to lack of content and mainspace contributions. I don't expect FAs or GAs, adding sourced content to existing content would be enough, but there's none of that to suggest that this would be an admin who would have real empathy with content contributors, who are the lifeblood of this project. Valenciano (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Dennis, Casliber, Bishonen, Sitush, MusikAnimal, Drmies and several others. I thought I will support Liz on the first day but after reading the oppose comments I decided to oppose. I don't like to oppose but some concerns raised by the above users made me do it. It was really a tough call. Liz is undoubtedly a good editor. I would gladly support after a year. Most of Liz's votes in AFD are from this July. I would like to see more AFD participation. moved to support Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 23:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. I like seeing Liz around and I think she's a valuable editor. I hope she continues her work here even if this RfA concludes without her getting the bit. My oppose vote comes after checking out the various diffs that people have brought here, for instance the Tumbleman sockpuppet case, showing that Liz was not cynical and objective enough for the role of admin. On the question of content creation, I don't have a problem with admins who do admin-type work without creating content (there certainly is a lot of that office overhead stuff needing attention), but I would like to see more respect demonstrated for the building of the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. An intelligent and competent user and I always attend to her comments in a discussion because she frequently makes very good sense. But adminship comes with the social-control (block) button and page-control (protect, delete) buttons. Lack of content work seriously impairs her ability to assess behaviour in and around article-work. I'll have no trouble supporting her - and I hope I have the opportunity to do so - once she's demonstrated the ability to significantly improve articles in contentious topics, or at least has made sustained serious attempts over time. You really need this Liz, if you want to - and it seems you want to - manage writers and editors in disputes. It can be complex, hard and soul-destroying out there, and we need admins who have been there, done that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose – I do wish to thank the candidate for volunteering in some needed areas such as categorisation discussions, but I am in this section for reasons similar to Mkativerata, Drmies, and Bbb23. As for a relative absence of content contributions, I would be okay supporting if there was evidence of exceedingly good (not just good) knowledge of policy, mediation skills, and appropriate caution in jumping in to discussions at ANI and elsewhere. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose As per Dennis Brown. Additionally it is an attitude like this [[13]] that makes me question if this is too soon. Adminship is not a big deal, but it does require a well rounded editor. I must agree with the statements above, content creation is a HUGE piece of the wikipedia puzzle, if you don't participate in the fundamental activity here how can you take care of it? Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An attitude that people can periodically make mistakes without having others rake them through coals is exactly the attitude I want in an administrator. I've had my share of bad misfireswhile looking through CSD categories, it's going to happen every so often. Also, I don't think one needs to have committed a crime, been prosecuted, and done jail time for it to serve as a federal judge, so I'm having a hard time understanding the fixation on content creation some of the opposes seem to have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BREAKING: Nominator disagrees with oppose vote! Townlake (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sound analogies are tricky things - more difficult to construct/find than is commonly thought. They are often seductive (resemble common sense on the surface) while being seriously flawed (broken or illogical compare elements). For example this one. (The [content creator/citizen] is looking to the [admin/judge] for a fair assessment of their actions, and any extenuating circumstances, against [WP policy & guideline/the rule of law]. The best and possibly only way the [admin/judge] can do that, is to put themselves in the position of the [content creator/citizen] under their circumstances and ask "What would I have done?/What was reasonable, what was not?" *That* is the empathy gained from [creating content/living life] from which fair assessments can be made. *Not* whether the [admin/judge] has ever experienced a [ block or sanction/jail sentence or prosecution] themselves.) IHTS (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Not yet - I've been watching this for days, looked through a lot of edits (including early IP edits), had some small interaction with Liz, and in the end after thinking about it seriously, believe that Iri, Bish, Cas, Dennis, Ceoil, Anthonycole, Anna Frodesiak and others have summed up and articulated better than I can. Victoria (tk) 02:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose - I would have abstained, but as the RfA is so close, I feel inclined to weigh in. I very much appreciate the candidate answering my question (19. a follow-up to 6.). In my opinion question 6. was not very good, and my curiosity led me to ask a follow-up that was perhaps equally bad. That aside, I've had very limited interaction with Liz, so there is little there for me to take into consideration there. After reading all the Q&A's, all of the longer Support comments, and the vast majority of the Oppose comments, I can't support this request. To sum it up shortly sort of along the simple lines of Starke Hathaway: too little of certain types of work in the article namespace, too much involvement in drama (especially the boards). The only thing I can add is that after looking through some WP:XFDT's the candidate was involved in, I'd like to have seen some different types of rationales. I don't think the candidate is quite ready for the extra tools at this time.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose - Mostly per Cas Liber but also due to concerns about content versus talk/drama. User seems to have spent more time grooming for this than building an encyclopedia. UnbelievableError (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Reluctantly because of the second co-nom. But the diffs provided by Samsara, the response to that oppose, and the Sitush talk page comment leave me wondering if the candidate fully appreciates the importance of the small group of editors who produce the vast majority of our content (the 80-20 rule. --regentspark (comment) 04:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Almost exactly per Bishonen, particularly the concerns about one-sidedness and a hesitancy to reconsider problems in light of (polite) criticism. Auerbachkeller (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [Reasons for striking oppose have been blanked as a courtesy] WJBscribe (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is true and you have provided no evidence for your claims. Auerbachkeller (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose per Manul and Bishonen. Cardamon (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose: I've read through both sides (and neutral), and the talk page, and the Q&A. Two years does not seem like it's made much difference. It basically boils down to a general sense of participation for reasons other than working on an encyclopedia. WP does not need something akin to "pro admins" who are distinct from the content-creating editors. No one who focuses most of their time here on becoming involved in disputes can do well as an admin, because that requires at least having been a serious content creator and understanding the difference between productive and disruptive participation, not just by literal rule-following but by direct, continual experience. That kind of common sense is not common, but earned. I share concerns that the candidate has been long self-grooming as if this were a political office candidacy, instead of helping the project with its actual goals. WP is not some webforum that needs moderators. It needs editors (not just of talk and noticeboard pages). I don't share concerns about a lack of FAs. Many editors are convinced that it's more important to work total-crap stubs into reasonable articles than to spit-polish good articles into "perfect" ones (I have no FAs myself, after 9-ish years and 100K edits, with a 30-something percent mainspace ratio). But I don't see sustained work from the candidate in that direction, either, just a focus on the drama boards, a poisonous environment that leads to a warped impression that editors are largely half-crazy, childish ranters who need to be disciplined. All it takes is one "unreasonably reasonable" admin trying to force peace, in the favor of POV pushers, puppeteers, and other disruptives, all at the expense of properly encyclopedic editors writing within the core content policies, to drive away productive users and embolden "Civil POV" crypto-trolls. I've seen and felt it happen, and it always happens at the hands of admins who hardly ever wrote any content, and who are not here to write an encyclopedia, but to police a population who just damned well better learn to stop being so unruly. No, we need to be rid of non-editor admins entirely, not swell their ranks. Especially with a repeat defender of sockpuppets, who publicly sneers at content creators. There's really no way to let that slide. (I'm not "following" anyone in this assessment. If me, GregJackP and Cas Liber all actually agree on something, well, that's probably a first. Those of you haranguing GregJackP and others about their votes here are doing more harm than good to your cause, BTW, and making it feel like a campaign.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If me, GregJackP and Cas Liber all actually agree on something, well, that's probably a first., lol, very true, but I need to clarify something. I don't see an FA as a requirement if the editor has done a number of GAs. The whole point is that the editor needed to have some background in content creation and in working with others to bring articles up to a certain level. That review process, whether at FAC or GAN, gives the editor an experience that no amount of time on the drama boards can replace. And what SMcCandlish said is correct, you have to get the editing knowledge. I disagree with SMcC on just about everything, but would support him if ever made another run at admin, because he knows what content creator's go through and is fair in his outlook. He's got the experience that I'm looking for in FA/GA articles. That's the difference. GregJackP Boomer! 08:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. I have had no past interactions with Liz, but reading more about her she seems like a wonderful person who would make a great Admin in the future. However, I - as others have said - am concerned about the lack of content creation experience. I look forward to supporting her Adminship in the future. LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose per e.g. SMcCandlish, Bishonen, Drmies etc. I've been a wikignome myself (currently on wikibreak because of spreading myself too thin) and largely edit as a copy-editor and fixer. But I agree with the general opinion on the 'politician' image Liz has. This is no prejudice against her later on but I think it is a definite sticking point: the content must come first. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 08:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. While Liz's good faith is evident, I have found her participation at AN/I unfortunate too many times, and the examples brought by others of her also intervening injudiciously on user talk pages indicate this has not gotten better. Sadly, I have to disagree with the nominators and supporters: in my judgement she lacks the clue needed to be a good administrator here and the harm she might do outweighs the positives of her heart being in the right place and of her manifest desire to help the project. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral. I generally don't like going neutral on RfAs because I prefer to come to a judgment one way or the other no matter how weak it is, but I can't make up my mind on this one. On one hand, Liz seems to be a very conscientious editor and seems to know policy like the back of her hand. On the other hand, I get the sense of a "civility police" attitude from the candidate, which I feel is one of the biggest problems currently with Wikipedia. The diff by J3Mrs is also concerning to me. I can't support because of this, but I can't oppose either, so hence I find myself here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC) moved to oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Are you suggesting it should not be enforced? Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia were an equitable community, civility violations would've been few and far between. When people feel like they're being treated unfairly or in a domineering way on a systematic basis, they become agitated and act erratically. The civility police only serve to exacerbate the situation. It is usually to everybody's interest to examine what it is that made an editor behave in a certain way than punish them for it. There are - of course - exceptions, such as threats of violence, which we can simply not tolerate. My 2p. Alakzi (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - I've seen a bit of Liz's work at AfD lately, and I agree that there should be more participation in the discussions there, see Q 4. But AfD should not become an even bigger battlefield of users who WP:LIKE or WP:DONTLIKE certain subjects/subject areas. Liz says "...it helps the project if editors with a variety of different perspectives and experience participate in deletion discussions." Well, no, it would help the project if editors with a better knowledge of the notability and content guidelines would participate in deletion discussions. Although her overall record at AfD is ok, there are some weird !votes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touchsuite (note that IMDb is expressly mentioned in the guideline as unreliable); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byon Hee-jae (failure to observe WP:BEFORE); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa local government elections 2015 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Beira (2nd nomination) (failure to understand the context of the content). I suggest to get a firmer grasp on guidelines and policy, and when in doubt, just don't opine. Good luck. Kraxler (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning to oppose - I have deliberated over this and pondered the answers to my questions, but I don't have enough evidence to go either way on this. The supports worry me, many seem to be variants on I like her which aren't very helpful for people like me who are on the fence. The opposers, meanwhile, make fair and insightful comments. The complete vacuum of content creation is a major problem, I'm not fussed about GAs but a lack of any article work she's happy to have done is seriously worrying. She's made more edits to project space than article space, which leaves me uncomfortable. To avoid repeating myself I've cobbled together User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content, so read that. The CSD logs are reasonably okay, but I spotted some howlers eg: Genevieve Lyons ("She worked with the BBC drama company"), Matthew Lintz (has notable relatives, generally good for a redirect per WP:BIO1E and WP:INHERIT) and Danny Winchell (has a reliable source). I'm sure she approaches everything with good faith and diligence, but can picture her making mistakes that will get covered up by "playing nice". As for "I guess ArbCom can't be trusted either, huh? Afterall, they are not here to build the encyclopedia" - well, no they're not - one only needs to refer back to Rich Farmbrough's recent RfA to see how Arbcom may not be as consistently perfect as some believe. (moved to support) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I've always noticed Liz around as handing out level-headed advice and actions, and had thought she was already an admin. I note that some are opposing based on a lack of content work. I think she has more than some others who've been opposed on this basis; for instance, she's responded to a lot of comments on the Gamergate article (I know there was bad blood, but I wasn't involved, so don't shoot me ;) ). I think the borderline derisive comment on content creators was uncalled for and perhaps not fully reflected on at the time. Admins ideally should refrain from taking cheap shots. I'll sit on the fence for now. Samsara 16:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Samsara 19:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Liz and I got off to a rocky start when she edited as an IP, but we later worked our way to being on okay terms with each other and discussing problematic situations. Where we still significantly differ is that Liz has too much of a soft spot for problematic editors, including highly problematic editors, much like Manul stated above in the Oppose section. I understand wanting to give editors another chance, but there has to be a line drawn at some point. I deal with problematic editors a lot, including WP:Sockpuppets (as noted on my user page); and whereas I think that there is usually due process when it comes blocking people as WP:Socks and that behavioral evidence is commonly just as strong as WP:CheckUser evidence (or, in some cases, more accurate), Liz seems to think otherwise; for example, she stated that she "see[s] a lot of [these] blocks occur without any due process." That discussion can be seen at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Lengths of IP blocks. That stated, as can be seen at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#Disambiguation, where I was dealing with a particular WP:Sock that Liz offered a Welcome template to, I stated, "Liz and I have disagreed on WP:Sockpuppet issues, such as WP:Duck. She approaches WP:Sockpuppets softly and gives even the most obvious WP:Sockpuppets and other WP:Disruptive editors the benefit of the doubt, including when there is ample evidence that the person will never become a better Wikipedia editor. Her approach has made me think more deeply about WP:Sockpuppet issues and the issue of other WP:Disruptive editors. And I know that the benefit of the doubt should be given in certain cases..." The one case where Liz and I have agreed thus far (at least openly) on prohibiting a highly problematic editor from editing Wikipedia can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#The talk pages of User:RJR3333's sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that it's best that editors have more than two years experience editing Wikipedia before becoming a WP:Administrator. My reason for that is because Wikipedia editors with only two or three years of experience tend to have a lot of WP:Newbie qualities. Granted, Liz is out there on the front lines of Wikipedia learning all the time, though. Flyer22 (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reluctant neutral. Lack of content creation is an issue, as are the other stuff the opposers raise. On the other hand she has excellent experience in category work, though tending to argue from her views rather than the rules, and we need more categorizing admins. So for once I'm stuck. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is a tendency to argue from one's views rather than the rules really something that we want to see in an admin? - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning slightly to oppose for the reasons expressed very well by Lindsay in the oppose section (currently #29). I'd been wondering how to express just those thoughts. In answer to some of the other opposers: I don't think the MMPORG consideration is a valid one, and it's slightly ABF. People contribute to Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons: some people write FAs and GAs and put bronze stars and green plusses on their user pages. That's pride in their work, and they are well entitled to it. If other people do a good job of helping to clear out vandalism, COI, copyvio, personal nastiness, ..., then I say they are equally entitled to take pride in that. The issue is not why they want to do it, but whether they will do it well. Also, I think the "if you won't do what I want you to do, then it means you can't" on the talk page is a childish, manipulative argument and unacceptable. What remains is the tendency to get unsolicitedly involved in the drama places (not only the boards) and the resulting suspicion that she would like to supervise those who do what she doesn't do herself. That may be unfair, and I apologise in advance if it is, but it's just enough to keep me away from supporting. --Stfg (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)moved to oppose--Stfg (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral (moved from support) - While I still stand by my comments regarding Liz's amazing work as an ArbCom clerk, the concerns brought up by Drmies, Cassianto, Kudpung, and others is concerning. First off, my main concern is the shallow and unhelpful comments at the drama boards. Those pages are already crapshoots as they are and the last thing a drama-fest needs is a shallow and/or inaccurate analysis of the situation, which could wind up inadvertently making the situation worse, especially since admins are sometimes turned upon to cool the situation. Second of all, the lack of content creation is definitely concerning. You don't have to be churning out featured content every day or two, but you should know how to build an article to GA or DYK status. After all, the whole point of this site is to create a reliable encyclopedia, so at least some of your time should be spent building content. If this RfA doesn't pass and you build a GA and a DYK by the next one and you work on your drama board commentary, and I'll unquestionably support you then (unless you goof up badly elsewhere ). Best of luck and happy editing. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 12:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I've struggled with this RfA nomination, and I have vacillated from oppose, to not commenting at all, to neutral. While Liz is obviously a net positive to the project, I am left with significant reservations about her on-wiki background and experience, primarily because I sincerely and fiercely believe that ANI participation is the wrong training ground for future Wikipedia administrators. ANI often renders a distorted view of Wikipedia, our content-contributing editors, and the best methods for dispute resolution, and ANI is often misused and abused by some of our most contentious and problematic long-term users who have learned how to manipulate policy, the guidelines, and the ANI pitchforks-and-torches mentality to gain advantage in their often serial disputes. In my considered opinion, it takes actual writing and editing experience to comprehend and fully appreciate the challenges faced by some of our best writers in contentious subject areas. The best resolution of editing disputes that arrive at ANI is usually not the blocking of the parties; blocking of editors is something that should rarely happen in haste, usually in sorrow, and almost always after the problematic behavior has been explained and the concerned parties clearly warned. ANI often contributes to a shoot-first, question-later mentality, and too often does not reduce the heat or lower the level of rhetoric. Snarky, sarcastic, and otherwise unhelpful comments from non-parties -- including some long-time administrators -- contribute to this atmosphere; these are not behaviors to be emulated by newly minted administrators. To be clear, I could not give a rodent's hairy little backside whether an RfA candidate ever produces a Feature Article, but I would like to see a candidate whose primary qualifications do not rest most prominently on his or her participation in ANI and other drama boards. Given the knife's edge on which this RfA is currently balanced, I have consciously chosen not to register an "oppose" !vote, but I do hope that Liz, her nominators and her supporters will accept my comments as constructive criticism -- and those of other thoughtful editors -- and "take it on board" whether the present RfA is successful or not. Good luck. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral (moved from support): I just do not have the heart to oppose at this time; I am usually quite firm and cemented in my decisions and to so thoroughly reverse myself to "oppose" I cannot do. But it is clear from all the questions, investigations and evidence that have now been let out of the box, that this candidate does not need to be awarded adminship at this time. Too many troubles on too many fronts. What I have learned is that I will be very slow to grant a "support" !vote in the future; these things run for seven days for a reason... Fylbecatulous talk 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Add: and I was ignoring the lack of content creation but I am amazed that she is unfamiliar with the WP:DYK process: see this query:[14] this is truly sobering. (sigh...) Fylbecatulous talk 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of Wikipedia ignores DYK. Candidate's lack of knowledge of the DYK bauble-making process is actually a plus for me. Townlake (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. dunno how in the world I missed this one. My experience with the candidate has been mostly positive, but with only a few hours to go, I really don't think I have time to do my normal "due diligence", nor enough time for the candidate to respond to my questions. So I guess I'll merely sit here and wish the candidate well, and offer the standard reminder - no matter what goes on here, please remember there really is positive life (even positive wikipedia life) outside RfA : ) - jc37 23:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral moved here for the moment from Oppose. Having a second look at contribs.→StaniStani 00:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral oppose. My thinking follows that of Bish, Iri, Drmies, Cas, Dennis, Anna, et al. However, as I haven't been active at RfA in a long time, and not even "active" on the project as a whole lately - I didn't feel it would be fair to come out of the woodwork to oppose. I've never been a fan of "groomed professional politicians" on wiki, and that's always been my impression when seeing Liz pop in on various discussions. I don't find the "You have no FA contribs" argument compelling - but the steady influx of comments on other content creators pages I do find concerning. So while I am not opposing - I did want to voice my thoughts. There are a great many folks, on both sides of this discussion that I respect and admire, but in the end, I would have had to oppose. Best of luck to all, regardless of the outcome. — Ched :  ?  06:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category