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

Montanabw[edit]

Final (128/86/13); ended 08:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Dweller (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

Candidate's summary: I am writing a candidate's closing message a bit early because my real life work will be taking all my attention in the final hours of this RfA, and I most likely will not be able to get on-wiki until after it closes. I want to thank everyone for participating and for taking their valuable time to consider my candidacy. It has been an interesting experience and useful to me on many fronts, not the least of which is the increased respect I have for admins, knowing how difficult this process is and what a very high standard is expected. I will be glad to return to regular editing for now, and will be spending some time thinking over this past week. I have tried to spare all of you any wild west and horse-related metaphors during this process (until now) but I must conclude with a few: If this particular RfA has resembled a rodeo, I am glad to have stayed on the bronc and made it to the buzzer, no matter how the judges scored the ride! I also want to express appreciation for the many pickup riders at this RfA who helped organize the herd. Happy trails to all of you! Montanabw(talk) 07:36, 23 September 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: With over 75,000 edits, I have become familiar with most aspects of the encyclopedia. In the process, I've performed countless non-admin wikignoming tasks on the backside of the wiki. From this experience, I wish to help address issues and solve problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting. I think I could help the most with the perpetual need to deal with vandalism, for wikignoming tasks, and, most of all, to enforce BLP policies and quickly protect editors who are being subjected to outing or other inappropriate attacks, particularly with the following administrative tools:
  1. Using revision deletion to remove BLP violations about the subjects of our articles and/or our fellow editors.
  2. Article protection, especially as a tool to bring parties in dispute to the table to work out their differences.
  3. Wikignoming and assisting the mass of behind the scenes work that needs to be done every day, particularly putting articles into the DYK queue; I've filled prep sets from time to time and frequently been alarmed to see that there are no queues filled with a DYK update only a few hours away.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Content! I have created over 200 articles, have been a significant contributor to 20 featured articles, a couple dozen additional GA-class articles and recently reached the 50 DYK mark. As many people know, my primary focus has been articles within the scope of WikiProject Equine. I enjoy creating and improving articles in other areas as well, from the fellows who formed one of the first high-tech firms in Silicon Valley to eating Rainbow trout, to oddball topics such as horse roundworms or the Jackalope. In creating and editing content for nine years, I have had to spend time woking on non-content questions as well, particularly the behind-the-scenes work required for DYK, GAN and FAC.
  • To give RfA reviewers a sense of my content work, my most recent big effort, in conjunction with some excellent other editors, was American Pharoah, which was ITN when he won the Triple Crown and was just recently promoted to FA. In addition, we also upgraded a related BLP article about the horse's owner, Ahmed Zayat, to GA class. That article tuned out to have some unexpected drama due to the scrutiny Mr. Zayat was under during the Triple Crown season (read the article and its talk page to see the details); the issues had to be handled with a great deal of care and discretion.
  • Other examples of FACs where I worked with outstanding collaborators include Homer Davenport, where I had the honor of working with User:Wehwalt, and Yogo sapphire, which took a team of about six people, each with different areas of expertise, from geology to history.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been an editor for over nine years and most certainly have dealt with many editing conflicts and stresses. I firmly believe in using process; most conflicts can eventually be resolved if people will face frustrations and work through their differences. I've handled many things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best. At the end of the day, thought I have not avoided drama, I have never been blocked and I have never given into the temptation to put up a "retired" tag. My strengths and weaknesses stem from the same set of traits; I do not easily give up and I tend to stick to something until it's fixed.
  • One thing I know from the conflicts and stresses I have faced is that a crucial component to being a good administrator is to understand WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; when I am editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I cannot and will not use the tools. That said, there are thousands of administrative tasks and millions of articles on wiki that are completely unrelated to any issue where I might be involved with as an editor.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
4. What is your view of Process is important?
A: There is an adage about the concept of process that goes, "those who love law or sausage should not watch either being made." Process is messy, but necessary. I am fond of the law, I am fond of sausage, and I am fond of wikipedia, so I guess my view is that I am willing to deal with messiness and to stay with the process and see if through. While process can be tiring, frustrating and time-consuming, the work done often results in a better outcome. An explanation of the stages of effective group development is "forming, norming, storming and performing." Process is what takes users through those stages and gets to the goal: Good, encyclopedic content. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the most unsatisfactory outcomes I have seen on wikipedia occurred because process was ongoing but it was summarily cut off before resolution was reached, or the process was hijacked by a group who had no actual interest in a solution other than their own, so engaged in pseudo-process with an actual goal of subverting discussion, prevailing not because the process worked but because everyone else gave up out of sheer exhaustion. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there is also a need to be proactive in controlling the process, or even closing it, when it is clear that there is not going to be further progress. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: CSD is a policy. The policy page for CSD is a rather long and complex one, but in short, a policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Therefore, the rebuttable presumption is that it should be applied as closely to the "letter of the law" as is possible. CSD is for obvious cases of articles where deletion is not reasonably contested. It is tightly limited to the specific types of articles listed and it should not be expanded beyond its scope. So I would apply CSD pretty "literally" and not abuse the policy by applying it to articles where it does not fit. If the situation is not clear-cut and/or there is any legitimate question of interpretation, it is best to use other methods to delete articles than CSD. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?
A: A "credible claim of significance" is a lower standard than notability; it's simply enough to survive speedy deletion, the article may or may not actually meet WP:GNG. I liken this to a Motion to Dismiss in a court case (such as a 12(b)(6) motion for those of you familiar with American law): If one accepts everything stated as plausible and potentially verifiable, is there a credible claim of significance made? As an example of A7, I recently de-prodded the new article Wiking (horse), "the all-time leading sire of Arabian racehorses." This is a good example of a stub by a new user that makes a credible claim of significance, even though the article is pretty rough. On the other hand, if I created an article about one of my own horses, such as the models for these images: File:BosalHorse.jpg or File:Green rope halter 01.JPG by saying, "Ally and Bella are Montanabw's famous wikipedia horse models," there is no credible claim of significance made (and I'd also deserve a trout slap). For A9, similar standards apply. An article saying "Joey and Jimmy have a garage band in Harlowton, Montana, would be a pretty clear case: Neither have a WP article and there is no claim of significance made. If it were a closer call, I'd look to past precedent and probably do at least a brief Google check to be sure that we didn't just have a new editor who didn't know that they needed to include in an article. If I had any doubts whatsoever, I'd use PROD or RfD instead of Speedy. Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: IAR is a cousin to one of the "rules" of composition in George Orwell's famous essay on writing, Politics and the English Language: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." In other words, rules are excellent tools in most situations, but there are times when a rule does not actually fit the situation and blind adherence would result in something that is not useful, or unjust, or simply ridiculous. In such cases, there is a place to make an exception. IAR should be used when needed, but with caution and with a clear understanding of what the usual procedure is and why, in a particular case, the rule is going to be ignored. Montanabw(talk) 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A: It's something I'd like to do. I already enjoy directing traffic and suggesting solutions, as users such as SusunW can probably attest. I've done a little bit of work at DR/N, and found that even when keeping people at the table doesn't settle the dispute, at least no one gets blocked and it keeps the process going until tempers cool. With the mop in hand to calm disputes, one can step in with some authority and help potentially good, enthusiastic new users calm down so they don't get themselves blocked. One can also back off experienced users who should know better.
From my own experience, I think when there is a disagreement amongst editors who all are trying to edit content (as opposed to vandals NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia), it is important for an admin to first cool down a heated situation, not make a snap decision, and avoid a rush to judgement on any side. Then, even if the admin is forming a pretty clear picture of the situation, giving both sides a fair chance to express their views and then calmly explaining what the guidelines are will solve many problems. Often people start working together once their emotions cool. Even the most contentious editors usually come to the table once they realize that the other side isn't going away. There are always a few intractable situations, but those usually get that way due to user behavior rather than the content dispute at issue. If everyone can remember AGF and NPA, almost all other problems can be solved. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. As an admin, you are patrolling Category:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "In 1979-80 the <organization>, a feminist art center in <Major US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <Event name>." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, no context. What do you do?
A: CSD#A1 states, in pertinent part, "Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles...If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, there is enough context that A1 is not appropriate." So first off, I'd see how new the article was, and then do a web search to see if it really occurred. If it was real, and could be expanded, then A1 is not appropriate and Speedy would, appropriately be declined. If it wasn't new, I'd probably still decline CSD#A1 if there was, in fact, enough material to expand the article appropriately. (If I had time, perhaps I'd even do so myself) If the editor who tagged the article for CSD wished to PROD or otherwise suggest deletion, raising an appropriate justification, they could do so and that request would then be reviewed on its own merits. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from RO
10. At User:Montanabw/mopprep you offered "Blocking obvious vandals" as a primary reason for "Why do I want to be an admin?" In fact it's the second bullet point of your first reason for needing the tools. I agree that one of the more important things admins do around here is to protect articles from vandals. So will you please offer a policy-based explanation for why you labeled each of the following edits as vandalism?
  1. September 12, 2015: ([1])
  2. August 9, 2015: ([2])
  3. July 31, 2015: ([3])
  4. July 20, 2015: ([4])
  5. February 28, 2015: ([5])
A: No, I will not. The relevant question for an RfA is if I would block a vandal under a certain set of conditions. And none of these diffs, taken alone, are conclusive for a block, it would depend on the totality of the circumstances involving any particular vandalizing editor. I also see this question is being challenged and discussed below by other editors, so I shall refrain from further comment on this question. Montanabw(talk) 03:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Have you ever operated an account and an IP at the same time that edited the same pages? If so, did you ever claim the IP as your own? Did you ever make any edits with the IP that would qualify as vandalism? Have you disclosed it to ArbCom? If you used an IP and an account to edit the same pages, but never claimed the IP as your own, please explain here why it wasn't socking. If you haven't ever operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other, just state that fact clearly, and please accept my apologies for the tough question, but admins have to be tough. Don't you agree?
A: I have, occasionally, edited logged out by accident (as have most of us), and in most cases I have asked an admin to revdel the edit so as to hide my IP. Those cases, therefore, were all presumably examined for evidence of socking or vandalism. I choose not to reveal my RL name or hometown on-wiki, but any number wikipedians know my RL identity and can address any concerns privately with ArbCom or whomever. No, I have never "operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other." That is socking and I have absolutely, positively, never deliberately edited under an IP to evade scrutiny. If you believe you have a specific example involving me socking with an IP, please just go ahead and make the accusation with a specific diff so the CU folks can examine it. Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ever make edits with that IP that would qualify as vandalism? RO(talk) 02:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not vandalized wikipedia, (though there might be the occasional snarky edit summary from another user who thinks otherwise) and I most certainly have not with any anon IP. If you have any accusations otherwise, please provide the diff of the IP vandalism. Otherwise, I believe this question has been answered. Montanabw(talk) 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking/giving me permission to link you directly to the IP in question? RO(talk) 03:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion you are having with other users, below, I suggest that you raise your concerns via appropriate channels and they can email me with your diffs, the IP in question and so on. But for the record, I absolutely have not "concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time." Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever used a shared IP? RO(talk) 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But beyond that, other RfA reviewers do need to know that you and I have "history," and some of that history does involve me having reasonable cause to suspect that you were socking. Others who looked at the case determined that you were not, User:ItsLassieTime (ILT), though a different ILT sock was uncovered in that time period and my understanding is that you disclosed a previous account privately to ArbCom. As a result of that, I recognized the need to submit Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime and that LTA was approved. I learned a lot from the experiences I had with you in that situation and on your original, failed, Irataba FAC that Maunus was kind enough to fix and hope you take pride that the FAC eventually passed and that article has now been TFA. Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, if granted the mop, I most certainly will never use the tools in any situation where I know you to be involved because I would be WP:INVOLVED as to you. Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Dianna mentioned your "work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI", but your first article, Equine nutrition, was tagged as a copyright violation within the first week of its creation: (tagging; duplication detector report). Unless I missed it, it seems you never admitted it was inappropriate. If you did, I apologize and request the relevant diff/s. If you didn't, will you please explain here why it wasn't a copyright violation? Otherwise, how do you see yourself as an admin dealing with new users who you suspect have violated copyrights? What approach would you take?
A: That's an EXCELLENT question, RO! Yes, in February 2007, (eight years ago when I had been editing about a year) in creating a new article, I too closely paraphrased and inadequately footnoted from a source and was slapped with a copyvio tag on that article by Cyclopia. I was terrified!! (And, (ducks head) a little pissed, too) As soon as I realized what happened, I acted, rolled up my sleeves, went to work, and within about five hours had it fixed and it was restored. I DID apologize to Cyclopia at this diff for my mistake, and also told him/her in turn that I forgave him/her for acting so abruptly. I was particularly proud that about one month later, this article became my third GA. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That case is, in fact, one reason I became interested in CCI and related issues; I learned a lot from that experience. I have since had other experiences that have further informed my approach to CCI. One was the famous User:ItsLassieTime sockfarm and subsequent huge CCI involving something like 700 articles, many cut-and-pasted, and which is still not totally cleaned up. I learned what a mess a single editor can make if they don't understand COPYVIO issues. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12b. Above you said, "I forgave [Cyclopia] for acting so abruptly". Will you please explain why you think they were "acting so abruptly"? Here's the duplication report. There are nine hits of 30 words or more verbatim copy-pasted. Were they overreacting, if so why, and how would you react to a finding a similar duplication report in a new user's writing?
A: Be sure we are clear on the issue, your diff is not the version where the tag occurred. The actual comparison at issue are these two. Your diff is "17:12, February 9, 2007 (Creating article)." That was the very first edit. And yes, in 2007, I did create that article by first copy-pasting the Rutgers content and then copyediting it from there. At the time of that tag I still was working on the article; the diff shows I was down to 6 hits over 30 words, which was still too much material too closely paraphrased, but I was still constructing content. That is definitely not something I'd do today! I think this article was evidence that I learn from my mistakes and become a better editor for the experience. Montanabw(talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I would do for a current editor similarly situated today, and what I wished that editor would have done at the time, was to have warned me first and not just shut down the article with a huge "scare tag"—it was a new article, there was active work going on. A better approach would have been to notify me of the problem, perhaps with the dup detector results, letting me know that I had too much duplicate phrasing, and emphasize that I needed to fix it pronto, pointing to the appropriate WP policy of the time. I had the article recovered into a sandbox, I fixed the problems, and in less than a day it was reviewed and the new version restored. As I stated, I learned a great deal from that experience and have not made the same mistake since. Montanabw(talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Epicgenius
13. Do you plan on focusing in any one particular admin topic, or will all your admin activity be sporadic?
A: Because my focus is mostly on content, I suspect the answer is "sporadic." Most likely where someone alerts me to a problem where I can help, or when I come across an area where it looks like folks need a hand. I'll probably pop by DYK and RPP on a reasonably regular basis, as there always seems to be a need for extra hands in those two spots. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) To expand on this answer, I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop, so while I cannot use the tools where I am WP:INVOLVED, I feel that with the tools comes the responsibility to contribute to the community; just like my work on DYK in doing prep sets tends to correspond with my own DYK submissions, I have a strong ethic that where I ask for something, it is my duty to give back in return. Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments below, I probably should clarify. As noted above, the areas where I have the most interest are 1) doing queues for DYK (as I have done a lot of prep sets, QPQs and now about 50 DYK noms of my own); 2) Revdel and BLP protection, following policy; and 3) RPP, a place I've had to go quite often, given that I watchlist articles that include asinus, manure, cow tipping and jackalope. In other areas, I would probably help with backlogs and focus on areas where I can be fully neutral in attempting to resolve disputes. Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Additional question from LynnWysong
14. Do you plan to recuse yourself from administering equine articles and generally take a step back from your "stewardship" of them? Whereas I understand you have put a lot of work into this subject, your investment has led to what I and many others believe is a problematic attitude. As far back as 2007 other editors have been commenting on your ownership issues with these articles, and only seven months ago, you came right out and claimed to own one here. This page I think reveals a lot about the issue. The Advice section might as well be retitled: "My rules people must follow to be allowed to edit equine articles." I simply do not see how you could possibly objectively administer issues in this area, and I would think that other editors would be even more discouraged against trying to edit with a "helicopter administrator" weighing in on every edit they make.
A: Of course I would "step back" from using admin tools where I was WP:INVOLVED! As I stated above, I "get it" about WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; if I'm editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I just simply will not and cannot use the tools. WPEQ is one of them. It took some time for you and I to arrive at a place where we could work together in a collaborative fashion (that "forming, norming, storming and performing" thing) but we are working together in a collaborative fashion now and though we certainly don't see eye to eye on the issues, it's slowly making the articles better as we move step-by-step through the process. I look forward to the day when we can jointly nominate Mustang for GAN. If that happens, it will, in my view, be proof positive of the good that Wikipedia can accomplish when people can come together even though they have different views. Montanabw(talk) 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other half of my question, of backing off of the "stewardship?" Do you think that you have an issue here that you should address? Because, even though I have chosen to put aside a lot of the things that happened between us in the past, I don't think that you have ever really acknowledged the gravity of the issue, and until you do, it will continue to cause problems.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you and I both have strong views on the Mustang topics, and because we both have strong feelings on the issue - on opposite sides - we have not been at our best when dealing with one another. To be a steward of an article or project by its very nature forecloses use of the admin tools in that area per WP:INVOLVED. I think that's all that matters here. I don't use the tools on WPEQ articles. Simple as that. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the long run, when I edit content, I am dedicated to ultimately getting it "right" — whatever "right" is (if there is a "right", and sometimes there isn't one right answer). As I have stated elsewhere on a number of occasions, I do give good faith viewpoints respect and consider if you are right and I am wrong. For example, you have helped me see that the feral horse issue in Nevada is very different from the feral horse situation in Montana and Wyoming. But you and I need to continue to deal respectfully and carefully with one another because the best we will do is agree to disagree. The genius of the five pillars, particularly the intersection of verifiability, neutrality and civility, becomes clear where people with serious differences of style, personality and opinion have to work together. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question, what has to be made clear is that I weigh the evidence and over time do modify my views based on that evidence. I have changed my views on a number of horse topics over the years. One example was white (horse) where I originally didn't understand the genetics, but now I do, in part from working with another editor (who was at the time a graduate student in genetics) on Dominant white. Another example was Horses in warfare where the MilHist editors held me and others to a very high standard that I wasn't used to at the time, and challenged a number of my assumptions, but it became my second GA. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take that to be a "no" that you do not intend re-evaluate your attitude and back off? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to edit the Mustang-related articles that you also work on; I've been here for nine years and my content contributions speak for themselves. Where I think any editor is not editing in a neutral fashion, where I think an editor is engaging in OR or SYNTH, I'm going to continue to say so. That does, and will, make a few people unhappy; I can handle that. Others have the same right to do so to me. Again, this would be a situation where WP:INVOLVED clearly applies and where I cannot wear the admin hat. I absolutely respect that policy. Luckily, there are thousands of other areas and millions of other articles where admin tools are needed and I am neutral. Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if one doesn't wield the mop, isn't a disservice to the project to have an admin who doesn't acknowledge and temper ownership issues? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there IS an actual problem. But here you and I have a situation where each person vigorously advocates for what they sincerely believe to be correct information and periodically get pissed off at the other. We each point out the biases the other has, and that's uncomfortable, but good for both of us. Fundamentally, you and I disagree on some highly emotional issues, and I think we both have done a decent job of dialing back our strong emotions enough to avoid blocks. I've repeatedly stated that I won't use the tools on equine topics, and I have also already given you examples of times I have changed my viewpoint and ways you in particular have expanded my understanding.
In conclusion to this discussion, understand that I follow WP:STEWARDSHIP: "...not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership." So yes, sometimes I get a bit testy when people make repeated POV-pushing edits I do not think improve the encyclopedia, and I have gotten testy at you for what I have considered OR, SYNTH and so on; you in turn have pointed out errors in my own assessment of certain things, and where you have provided solid sources, I've moderated my position. That is not "ownership," that's process, and as noted above, process is messy, but also important. Montanabw(talk) 01:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SSTflyer
15. Your AfD statistics are not good, with a hit rate lower than 65%. Will you avoid closing deletion discussions (at least before gaining more experience) if you become an admin?
A: Yes. Frankly, I don't have much interest in AfD in an admin role, I'm only there if already WP:INVOLVED in some way, usually by AfD pings at a project where I'm a member. My primary involvement there has been to try and save articles from deletion where I think they are potentially salvageable, such as, for example, Hilda Plowright. I lean strongly inclusionist in general, so once I gained some more experience, I suspect that if I reviewed an AfD where I had no previous involvement and determined that consensus warranted deletion, that would be a pretty clear-cut case with clear consensus! (smile) I thought about doing some non-admin closures there before filing, as I know some people look at AfD stats a lot, but I decided that as the only allowable closures by non-admins are "keep" and I already have a reputation as an inclusionist anyway, that would not help me much here. Montanabw(talk) 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I do not see this as a concern to Montanabw being an admin. This question was meant to ask about her opinions on article deletion and notability guidelines. sstflyer 02:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Liz
16. Since this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, do you consider yourself flexible on accepting that other editors, even relatively inexperienced ones, can improve upon the articles you have created?
I ask this because as an administrator, you should not be rigid. You have to at least hold the possibility in the back of your mind that you could be mistaken and be wrong about, say, an account being a sockpuppet who might not be. You have to consider alternate explanations for other editors' behavior. Administrators can get into trouble when they believe that they have unerring judgment.
A: Oh, absolutely! With the caveat that the edits DO need to be an improvement. You note on my talk page that I am wide open to WP:TROUT-slapping and when I realize I'm wrong, I do work to make things right. As for people I don't know or who are new to me, I really enjoyed working with Vesuvius Dogg on the American Pharoah article and that user was a wonderful help! I also met Cliftonian for the first time on the Ahmed Zayat article, and he was very helpful in an area where I had little background. Recently, I've been helping White Arabian mare who is very new and inepxerienced but has a lot of enthusiasm and I hope she stays. She's already created three or four new articles and done some helpful wikignoming elsewhere. Just today I saw extensive edits to Campolina by a new user, but the images they added are of uncertain copyright status, and English is not their first language, so there were some hiccups in phrasing. I had to revert for that reason, but I dropped them a note saying that if they can clean up the copyright question, I'd be glad to see at least a few of them go back in. I also pinged another WPEQ member, Justlettersandnumbers to see if he can help this person out because I'm kind of busy with everything right now. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from RO
17. "I admit I'm more prone to engage in cowboy diplomacy and administer justice with a wiki-Smith & Wesson."([6]) While I assume this comment was tongue-in-cheek, I'm struck by how closely it mirrors concerns raised by others here, particularly Liz and Dennis Brown. Please explain what you meant by this.
A: RO, based on the discussions below, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to answer any more questions from you. We have "history" and it is clear you oppose my nomination. If granted the mop, I acknowledge up front that I will inevitably be WP:INVOLVED when it comes to you and thus I cannot and will not use the tools in any situation involving you. There are other editors who have blocked you in the past, I will not be one of them. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18. "I don't worry too much about 'hounding' where there is a clear problem and pattern that can be documented with diffs, though sometimes I save the diffs in case they try to drag me to ANI. But that's me."([7]) I assume you meant that you don't worry about accusations of hounding. Is that a fair statement? If not, what did you mean by this?
A: See above. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from jps
19. Is it possible for you to provide a full accounting of who you would consider that you couldn't act with in an administrative fashion? In other words, do you have an WP:INVOLVED list, and, if so, who is on it (besides RO, for example)?
A: Thank you for your question, jps. I don't keep that kind of a list and, honestly, I don't think it would be possible to create one. Over nine-plus years, I've probably dealt with thousands of wikipedia editors, most in a positive fashion, but too many to keep track in any event. Some editors I was wary of at first are now respected colleagues. Some people I've disagreed with have exercised RTV and returned with a new name, so I wouldn't know we had a "past." I'd probably have to check history on a case-by-case basis, and if I forgot that I'd worked with someone and they raised WP:INVOLVED, I'd probably have to investigate and most likely back out immediately and send it to another admin or, if there was something like a time-sensitive BLP issue or other serious problem, at least immediately notify and consult with other admins on my action, stay open to having my action reversed, and be sure there were other eyes out there. I would definitely not wheel-war. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be very, very clear: I understand the difference between advocacy and adminship. I am passionate about equine topics, and I know that in that topic area I must be first and foremost an editor — and therefore would never expect to be acting as an admin in those articles, no matter who was editing. I also know there are usually a few editors I'm dealing with who raise my blood pressure, and those are people where I must never interact with them in an administrative fashion. Finally, I also have made some pretty good friends here on Wiki, and have met some of them in real life (such as Ealdgyth, Rosiestep and Keilana ). So I also have to not use the tools in a situation where personal loyalty compromises my neutrality. Where I have a disagreement that falls under any these categories, then I need to use ANI, DR/N, 3O, RfC or other appropriate venues, just like everyone else. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:MelanieN
20. What are your feelings about WP:CIVILITY? When is it appropriate to block for civility?
A: Thank you for your question, MelanieN. If I become an administrator, here's my thinking on how an Admin needs to look at civility issues:
  1. An admin always should start with the policy: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." I think that's a good ideal. However, the devil is in the details because Wikipedia imitates life and everyone has less-than-ideal moments. Common sense and discretion is needed.
  2. Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility is very helpful here. Blocking is for "serious disruption". I wanted to quote that entire section, but let's just say that I fully agree with the principles laid out there; immediate blocks are for when "nothing else would do" and that it is very important to look at the whole picture.
  3. Policy also states, "Immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing. As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventative and not punitive." I agree.
  4. In situations with a gray area, I would definitely try to review the whole situation and look at the big picture. In particular, I would look for WP:BAITing: often the person who has the meltdown and resorts to profanity is not the one with the incivility problem; they are actually the person who was bullied to the breaking point.
  5. Policy is also clear that other than cases warranting immediate blocks, it's better to open a discussion via ANI and allow community discussion before reaching a conclusion.
Hope that was a complete answer to your question. Feel free to follow up if I wasn't clear. Montanabw(talk) 02:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Brustopher
21. Two editors FrenchToast and SwedishMeatballs get into an editing dispute. FrenchToast links to a reddit account named SwedishMeatballs as evidence that Meatballs is plotting against him offsite. The account has made multiple posts about Toast encouraging people to troll him. What do you do? Does this qualify as outing?
A: If the usernames were actually real names, then yes. WP:OUTING is clear: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address..." etc. So if we were talking real names as opposed to usernames, that's a serious problem; any personal information disclosed on wiki would require an immediate revdel and a referral for oversighting. If these were usernames in both cases and personal information was not involved, it still might be harassment, depending on the big picture. Once any identity protection occurred, we'd then turn to the users' behavior and look at the overall situation. I'd certainly seek additional help and not fly solo other than to deal with the immediate identity protection. SwedishMeatballs most likely is going to be looked at to determine if s/he was trolling or harassing FrenchToast off-wiki to gain leverage in an editing dispute. (I'm thinking of the example of the editor who was harassing Cwmhiraeth via an off-wiki blog a year or two ago, that was a nasty situation). However, FrenchToast may need to have his/her behavior examined as well, as the policy states, "dredging up their offline opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment." We would want to determine if someone on Reddit was trying to fake that they were the WP editor of the same name to get SwedishMeatballs in trouble. This is a complicated situation and one for a team of people to work on. Other than the immediate revdel for identity protection, the rest would require a thorough investigation and review. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22. Jane Doe is a notable clockmaker with her own BLP on Wikipedia. Someone adds information about her being transgender to the article sourced to two separate investigative pieces from Gawker and Breitbart what do you do?
A: Well, our policies are WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, for starters, and anything potentially negative or libelous has to be removed if not properly sourced. BLP is specific: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Gawker and Breitbart are tabloid-type sources, so inadvisable as a RS on a potentially inflammatory topic. For that reason, I'd toss the info until the story was picked up by more reliable media outlets. The exception MIGHT be if it was an interview she gave to the source and it was a direct quote. But even then, I'd be careful and, frankly, dubious—it could be a satirical or fake interview and the potential of an The Onion-like misstep is out there. So I'd toss the material and ask the editor to see if it gets picked up by a more reliable source. If it's real, and matters, the mainstream press will have it in 24 hours or so, most likely. Montanabw(talk) 04:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
23. There seems to be a few people in the oppose section accusing you of horse related controversy. What's so controversial about horses?
A: Excellent question! I guess that people who are fond of them tend to have strong opinions about the details of their care, which ones are best, and so on. I see similarities with sports fans, dog owners, the dogs versus cats question, Macs versus PCs, Fords versus Chevys, and so on. There is something quite amazing about 1000 pound animals who will let us lead them around and ride them. It warps our brains, I guess. Or maybe it's the falling off part that does that... I don't know, but there is a lot of drama in horse-aficionado land! (smile) Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from RO
24. "But for the record, I absolutely have not 'concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time.' Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) ([8])
Discussion moved to the talk page. (137 comments) Esquivalience t 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Gerda Arendt
25. I see that you have to answer many questions, so try to be short: please look at a diff and tell me if your gut feeling would be to ignore, block, talk to the user or what? Only if you have more time, look at the history and what other admins did, and comment if you feel like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thank you, Gerda, I have a two-part answer:
In reality, I probably wouldn't use the admin tools on THIS particular case other than act as an ordinary user, and alert another admin. The reason is that I might fall under WP:INVOLVED because one of the underlying issues is the use of infoboxes and I'm a known participant in the infobox "issue" that has gone to ArbCom and back. I'd ping an experienced but neutral admin to handle this one. In a total crisis, might have to act to protect a user, but then I'd ping another admin and remain open to having my actions reviewed. Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, in theory, if I had no involvement with the underlying issues, I'd start with WP:BEFOREBLOCK. I'd investigate the background quite a bit before considering a block. I'd not act solely on this single diff and I would not block without a warning, investigation, and talking to both parties. I'd take a look at the relevant edits and both editors' talk pages and contribs. I'd check to see if I had either a total newbie or an obvious newly-created vandal account on either side. I'd look at the block logs of both editors. I'd see if anyone else had warned either party.
If that all checked out, I'd warn the user who posted the remark that they'd crossed the line on WP:NPA and that further behavior could result in a block. I'd also suggest that they should strike their comment and apologize for their remarks. I'd try to calm the user who was the recipient of the attack. A block would only be needed if, after all of the above, one editor continued to attack and harass the other and there was no other way to prevent further disruption.
The actual action taken was a tough call, it looks like the blocked editor had been warned and made no further edits between the time he was warned and the time he was blocked a half-hour later, but maybe wires got crossed between the two edits. The user had a previously clean block record (or mostly), promptly apologized, and the blocking admin actually unblocked within less than 24 hours [9] so at the end of the day, while I would have warned and then blocked only if the behavior continued, I don't want to second-guess an admin who may have been following the entire case and knew more of the background than I have from a brief review. I might also have tried to calm the upset recipient to prevent the subsequent ragequit, though the situation may have already escalated to the point where my stepping in would merely be rearranging deck chairs. Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a thoughtful answer. Do I read right that you had the gut feeling that it deserved a block, but would not do it without investigating and getting counsel from an experienced admin, and that you came to the conclusion something had to be done about the "recipient"? I will try to go for that.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I was in the totally neutral role, I would not have acted without looking at the whole picture as best as I could, and I think that consulting with a more experienced admin before issuing a block would definitely be something I'd do as a new admin, probably for quite a few months. My "gut" said we had one editor baiting and the other in a meltdown. So my "gut" would be to make a solid attempt to dial back the emotions on both sides enough to stop the disruption without using the hammer. In the conflicts I've had myself, I've often felt a huge wave of relief when an admin arrived and said, "now everyone, please settle down." Kind of like when a cop shows up at a minor fender-bender. Even if someone is going to get a ticket, you know that when the flashing lights show up, the worst is probably over. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from DeCausa
26 Several of those voting Oppose, myself included, have cited the interaction here, being behaviour which is (a) inconsistent with being a suitable admin candidate, and (b) not an isolated or one off incident. You've said that you wished that those that have voted oppose had raised more questions.[10]. Here's mine: (1) Do you understand the concern that the linked to interaction raises for those who voted oppose and could you playback what you think that concern is? (I think it would be useful to test your understanding if you precis what you think the concern is.) (2) What is your response to that concern? DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thank you for presenting me the opportunity, DeCausa. I just spotted your question now, and I want to think this through and provide a thorough answer, so please be patient. Working...Montanabw(talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK to answer (1), here's a short list. I'm trying to be concise and probably have not restated everyone's concerns, but I think these are the main points:
  1. People are concerned that I would use the tools to protect my "friends" and punish my "enemies."
  2. People are concerned that I'd use the tools where I was WP:INVOLVED, particularly on articles or projects where I have been a major contributor.
  3. People are concerned that I have a short fuse and would overreact like this in the future.
Put simply, I would not use the administrator toolkit to do any of these things. I also realize my future activity will be watched and commented on, so I will remember these issues to show the good-faith people who !voted here that their concerns have been addressed.
In answer to (2) I definitely made a mistake in judgement in the situation posted. I should not have gone charging into that discussion; I failed to take a deep breath and watch the situation to see how it unfolded. Regardless of circumstances, I realize I overreacted and allowed past interactions to color my actions. I am responsible for the drama I created on that page and it was a mistake of boneheaded proportions (lacking a better metaphor). I learned from this mistake and have no wish to do something that Mastodon-ish again. I also learned that I must remember to react on evidence, not fears, and I intend to do so from here forward.
It may help !voters to look at how I've handled recent FACs where I've been lead editor to see how I respond under pressure with articles where I do have a lot of emotional involvement: (American Pharoah, California Chrome, Bazy Tankersley Homer Davenport (this one with Wehwalt), Mucho Macho Man Oxbow (horse), W.R. Brown)
I don't want to write a tl;dr here, so I'll close for now. If you have additional questions or feel I didn't answer this question to your satisfaction, please feel free to follow up. Montanabw(talk) 02:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That is, for me at least, a good/comforting answer. I'll take a second look at the other diffs already cited and think again about my vote. DeCausa (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from IHTS
27. You just assured an editor, that I have never edited California Chrome before yesterday. [11] Shouldn't you do research before saying that? And did my edits slip your memory? [12] Am genuinely perplexed, please explain. IHTS (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
c'mon IHTS. This belongs on the talk page Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, for several reasons. (And I made twice as many edits to Chrome than she suggests below, if the edit counter tool is correct.) IHTS (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A:Your edits did slip my memory. (I have 77,000+ of my own and, as has been pointed out above, it's clear I don't even remember all of mine), I see you had edited the article (±30 60 times) about a year ago between July 4, 2014 and August 10, 2014? This appears to coincide with the PR prior to FAC. I was, no doubt , focused on content, and if I only reverted you once, wow! Worth noting! My apologies I forgot about that. I shall note it at the article talk Montanabw(talk) 01:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC) And done Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Voceditenore
28. In DeCausa's question 26. re concerns about your interaction here, you described it as "a mistake of boneheaded proportions". (a) Did you realise that it had been a big mistake when the interaction started surfacing in the "Oppose" !votes or did you consider it a mistake at the time? (b) If the latter, why did you not acknowledge it as such with something like a simple "Sorry. I was out of line there."? Your final words in that discussion were these, and you didn't mention it at all as a "teaching moment" in your response to question 3.. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: (have seen question, working on answer, may not have anything until tomorrow, please be patient...) Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, answering:
a) I considered it a mistake almost at the time; probably within 24 hours or so of that edit, once I'd cooled down and the adrenalin cleared.
b) I realized that I overreacted, I understood that I didn't help the situation.  Given the old history involved, I did well to simply step away and drop the stick. Thinking this over, and the lesson here, I think the record is clear that I do sometimes overreact where I am previously WP:INVOLVED but I intend to continue to work on that tendency and shall consider apologizing more often in the future when appropriate.
I will say, candidly, that one of the most difficult things to hear in the oppose !votes below is the belief that I'd misuse the block button on someone I had an issue against. That is, absolutely, something I'd never do. I have stated several times that I understand WP:INVOLVED very, very well. I don't know how I can state that any more unequivocally.
For my answer to question #3, I tried to sum up nine years and 77,000+ edits in a succinct manner. Like Q 19, where I was asked, "Is it possible for you to provide a full accounting...?" And I pointed out that it would be quite difficult, same for Q3; over the time I've edited wikipedia, there have been many teachable moments. (often noted in the !votes below). I have tried to learn from my mistakes and move forward. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Jaguar
29. Please can you explain this diff? It seems like a good contribution, even if it was from a fairly new editor.
A: ::One of the things I am recognizing as we go through this process is that I do need to use edit summaries that explain more carefully what I am doing and to be sure that I look a bit more thoroughly at the substance of the edit. I sometimes do hit revert too hastily. One thing I can do is cut down the caseload; I had almost 6000 articles on my watchlist, and though I've been trying to thin it down (like dumping all the stuff where I fixed dabs when an article was moved), it's still at 5,810 as of today. Some of the comments here about how quick I am to act do occur because I just get on a roll. I also have sometimes unintentionally done a "revert vandal" that actually was not. I can certainly improve on that area from here forward.
But on the particular edit you linked, I did have solid reasoning at the time; upon reflection, I still would have rewritten but not left the edit as created. The better approach would have been to take time to do a rewrite rather than just revert. This was an overview article, so the weight was a little undue, but the bigger problem was that the edit needed more citations and had tone issues. (I was going to explain why in detail, but it was tl;dr for here, I'd be glad to discuss at talk if you are interested)
But please note that though I reverted, I also immediately welcomed the editor, and ultimately the editor in question A) successfully created Fur trade in Montana, and B) this is the individual who I mentioned (somewhere here or at talk) that with whom I just co-facilitated an editathon with two weeks ago. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30. In this diff, you call Nikkimaria and Smeat75 "pretentious, small-minded little jackasses", and go on to say: "your threats are just the most snot-nosed, tendentious, obnoxious, prissy tattle-tale example of bullying I have ever seen. Get a freaking life!" Please explain how this outburst relates to your answer to Q 20, where you said: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect"? Is this indicative of how you'd deal with disputes as an admin?
A: Boy, that probably goes to #1 on the chart of me blowing my top! Of course I would not deal with a dispute that way as an admin (If I acted that way routinely, I would not have the100% block-free record I have)! I did learn from that one, too, note that I immortalized Drmies admonition to me here: User_talk:Montanabw#Sandbox_invite. That invective was, simply, an explosion and total meltdown on my part; I'd have to go back and review the context, but this occurred two years ago and looks like fallout over the infobox dispute. Some good people were being treated abysmally, and looks like I let the Mastodon came out. My answer to Q 26 above applies here as well to note what I am learning is that not everything needs me personally to come in and "take point." Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this diff appeared on my talk page, now archived. It was in response to me being warned of WP:AE (for adding an infobox to a Bach cantata, compare BWV 35). The comment was struck shortly afterwards, and we were cited to ANI by a user who was not "attacked" (a thread closed with no consequences). - Once you are in my archive, check it for battleground. (Can't help a grain of sarcasm.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support Yes, please! Great content work, level headed. --NeilN talk to me 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as per nomination statement. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, well qualified candidate. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. As a content creator, Montana has done exceedingly well. She is level headed, calm, and understands WP policies. She would be a huge asset to the admin group. GregJackP Boomer! 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to reiterate my support for Montanabw. For those who claim that she is confrontational, she is the one who (repeatedly) talks me out of launching on one idiot or another who is screwing up an article, or the citation style, or whatever. I have no doubt that she'll maintain that same calmness as an admin. What we have here is a bunch of people who have been in content disagreements with her in the past who appear to still be butthurt over it and who hold a grudge. GregJackP Boomer! 19:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that what that is? I thought it was hemorrhoids. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See, that's what happens when you let it get to you. But thank you for your input, I'll give it all the attention it is due. GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I have seen this editor around over the years, and trust her with the extra buttons. I was unaware of much of the content work, which is a plus. Proud to be in the first five supports. Jusdafax 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Honest, straightforward, intelligent, articulate, excellent content work.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  7. Support per Diannaa NE Ent 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and respect the opposes concerned with Montanabw's sub-optimal interactions in the past. It's a hard thing: we want folks who care enough to expend hours researching, editing, and maintain quality articles while never losing their cool with those with a different point of view. Personally, I'm not concerned because:
    She spins up but doesn't dig in; on multiple occasions I've found if approached respectfully and calmly she'll seriously consider other's point of view.
    The "admin for lifetime" concept is a myth. The admin community itself aggressively polices classic WP:INVOLVED violations, so any admin action other than obvious vandalism per the "any reasonable admin" criteria in horse or Montana related articles is going to scrutinized. Regarding overly aggressive behavior: in any given year, the community / arb-com separates the bit from editors through either resignation-under-a-cloud or desysopping, respectively. While the numbers may be low, it really does act a deterrent from the worst excesses of admin misjudgement. NE Ent 12:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. @Montanabw is: 1) a content editor, 2) a trusted user, 3) very useful in defusing fragile situations. Epic Genius (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still support even though Montana doesn't intend to do admin tasks regularly (Q 13). Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Need an admin like that. I do believe that she has the credentials of an admin --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A user with over 70,000 is strong enough to become an administrator whom have good understanding in the Wikipedia's community and I believe she would use the admin tools to improve the community. Per as Diannaa nomination i support her candidacy. AYYYEEE! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 00:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I think this may be my first time commenting on a RFA! Anyway, I've been coming across Montanabw's fabulous content contributions for years (one of my particular favorites is her work on Horse Protection Act of 1970). I too find her level-headed, and am pleased to see that she plans to help promote sets at DYK, as there tends to be a dearth of admins in that area. Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Great content contributor, worked with them on Homer Davenport. Don't see anything "bar"ring them from being a great admin!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Stephen 02:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Montanabw is clearly an exemplary editor who has made large-scale content contributions and I have no reason to oppose. In regards to question 10, revert 1 removed a clearly satirical source, revert 2 was done to remove clear-cut vandalism, revert 3 was an instance where a constructive edit was made after someone had vandalized and Montanabw decided to revert to get rid of the vandalism but added the constructive content back in in a subsequent edit and revert 5 removed false information, inserted to deceive, from the article (Piebald, the article subject, refers to black and white, not blue as the reverted edit stated). The only error I saw in the entire list was revert 4, where Montanabw reverted vandalism, but apparently forgot to re-add a constructive grammatical edit. This was an incredibly minor mistake, and if this is the worst that can be dug up on Montanabw then I am even more confident in voting support. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support because I see no good reason not to. Both voters currently in the oppose section seem to have a personal beef with the candidate, and I find their arguments unpersuasive. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support lots of content creation under his belt and experienced as well! -Euphoria42 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The entertainment value of this adminship should be off the charts. Townlake (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Oppose diffs are convincing. Townlake (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support Very happy to see this RfA finally! Montanabw has been at the top of my list for a long time both as an editor I greatly respect and as a prime candidate for adminship. She should have been promoted long ago! Swarm ♠ 04:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Having seen this candidate's high-quality contributions and being encouraged by her proposed focus on DYK, I am happy to provide my endorsement. –Grondemar 04:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Candidate is a solid writer and editor who has the potential to be an excellent administrator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerns about accuracy at AfD are serious. Concerns about attraction to drama are serious. But still support, due to a feeling of trust that she will never used administrative tools or privileges in support of personal preference in matters of deletion or drama. Administrators are not required to be boring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Montanabw is a great person who has been dedicated to Wikipedia for nine years and has a fun and upbeat personality. She has all kinds of content experience and experience keeping the trolls from the door. My only reservations to this adminship are that (1) I hope she does not spend too much time adminning, because we need her to keep doing the stuff she has been doing so well for the past umpteen years. (2) Part of the "large and colorful personality" effect is that she can be dramatic or snippy, and partisan, at times. Therefore, I hope that when performing admin or admin-related tasks, she puts on her most civil and neutral hat and leaves the "colorful" at the door. And I hope she recognizes where she is less experienced and lacks expertise, and accepts the need to learn or take feedback before proceeding. Heaven knows we all can't be, and all admins can't be, as neutral, composed, thoughtful, circumspect, and policy-knowledgeable as, say, NeilN, but I think that level of composure and neutrality and carefulness and policy knowledge is something all admins should aspire to. Anyway, best of luck to Montanabw. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. One of those candidates that makes me a bit miffed anyone would oppose. Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I may not always agree with her positions on any given article, but she actually discusses issues, and her record at AfD is reasonable. I note further that having had a copyright problem in the distant past would make her a stronger admin on that topic in my opinion. Collect (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Candidate meets my RfA standards. Mkdwtalk 06:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Moved to Neutral. Mkdwtalk 20:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support thanks for the nice diff from RO showing why we should support the candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support The candidate seems quite feisty and so we can expect the tools to be wielded with some vigour. For example, see the duck box incident. But the consensus in that case was ok and someone has to do the dirty work of mucking out the stable. Her content work is excellent and indicates that she's here for the right reasons. And the fact that this is her first RfA, after nearly 10 years of work here, shows commendable patience and restraint. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Based on content contributions and overall "clue".  Philg88 ♦talk 07:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Moving to Neutral.[reply]
  26. Jianhui67 T★C 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Damn right! Montanabw is fair, impartial, productive, approachable, and knows a thing or two about creating content. She also does not suffer fools gladly. I fully support this candidacy. This, in my mind, is the only stone-bonker RfA since Ritchie333's candidacy a few months back. CassiantoTalk 08:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - no doubt about it. A scholar, a content developer, and knows her way around. You can say feisty or you can say knows how to stand up for herself, which admins do need, after all. The Equine Nutrition thing was a clear copyvio, but it was 8 years ago and she dealt with it by becoming a copyvio checker and remover herself, so I agree with Collect about that. And everything that Diannaa said in her co-nom. --Stfg (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Indented. There's too much background here and I don't have time to study it, so I'm not qualified to !vote on this one. Please note: not moving to oppose nor even to neutral; just bowing out as unable to investigate enough. --Stfg (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Hmm, after all I've seen enough. Moving to oppose now. --Stfg (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support without qualification; an eminently suitable candidate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support but may need to take more care with picture uploading, eg File:ShowHack.jpg. Otherwise answered questions well, and has a good range of experience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I've come across Montanabw multiple times in the past and I've always had a pleasant experience. She shows good judgement and I think she'll do wonders if given the Mop. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Have been impressed by the way that Montanabw has stood up to some of our more difficult editors. Number 57 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. After quite a bit of thought, coming down on this side. While loyalty is a commendable quality, Montanabw has in the past acted as enabler to some of Wikipedia's more obnoxious characters, which has led to decisions which should have been fairly clear-cut being stretched out into long timesinks before reaching their inevitable conclusions. (No, I'm not going to provide diffs; there's no benefit in reheating old disputes. Whichever crat closes this will no doubt be well aware of the incidents to which I'm referring.) Despite that, I think she's a fundamentally decent person who just happens to have some dubious friends, rather than a dubious character in her own right, and I don't consider her likely to join in the "unblock your friends and block your enemies" brigade (and even if she did, would have a long way to go before being the worst offender among the current admins). ‑ iridescent 11:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Philg88, who hit the nail on the head here. Graham87 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support On balance, yes. Deb (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Long term user trustworthy see no concerns clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    —Kusma (t·c) 12:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)no longer convinced I am in the right section here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Great all-around editor, will definitely be an asset. I understand the concerns that the tools may not be needed, however if one good administrative action is taken it's a positive. Oh, and judging by the current expectations to write a five page essay in support !votes, let me just say that I endorse the nominations. Kharkiv07 (T) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC) I don't have time to evaluate the opposes, so it's only fair to the community that I withdraw my !vote. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support has clue. shoy (reactions) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: Firstly, I admire Montanabw's answer (both paragraphs) to Question 8. This reflects a careful, considerate, thoughtful and intelligent approach that I already observe in her work as an editor. There will be no hasty wielding of the sword in a "rush to judgment". Secondly: I echo entirely Andrew Davidson's rationale given at: 07:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC) in support number 28 (amended to position change in last hours) number 25. I am thankful and excited that this RfA is finally taking place and it will be a pleasure to see Montanabw bestowed with the tools of adminship. Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Continuing to support even if the tide has sadly turned. I really like what Drmies says at #106 early this morning: they're a good content editor, their heart is in the right place, they know their Wikipedia policy, etc.. In spite of all the chaos, these are still facts for me about this candidate and I too have faith in her judgment. Fylbecatulous talk 15:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. (edit conflict)Support. Overdue DYK updates are almost a regular occurrence nowadays, and DYK needs more volunteers. AfD statistics are not very good, but it is fine since the candidate is avoiding that area. Should be a net positive. sstflyer 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Heck yeah - I'm familiar with her administratoresque work and concur with the nominating statements.- MrX 13:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Genuine content contributor and appears trustworthy. -RoseL2P (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support well qualified. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support No concerns here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- an active, obviously passionate and well-qualified participant in the creation and discussion of Wikipedia content. I am in complete agreement with Dennis Brown's insights (No. 3 in the neutral section) -- but I support in the belief that Montanabw will take Dennis' advice and moderate any personal passions when they take on the somewhat mundane, by-the-book tasks of an administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Excellent contributor and thoughtful participant. --Laser brain (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support based on review and agree with co-nom, Diannaa. Does need to be more objective on AfD work but a net positive overall. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Happy to do so. Sarah (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Great content creator. Level headed and displays excellent knowledge and application of policy. Minor4th 17:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - If this Rfa is any indication, content creators will never get wide community support for adminship. Sure, significant content creators probably all have instances where they have been sharp or grumpy or uncivil when dealing with editors messing with featured content who really have no idea what goes into creating a featured article. There's no way for such a content creator to avoid disputes over drive-by edits and edits that denigrate their featured and good article content. Given that, there's really no way a good content creator will ever get through this process without a bunch of non-content creators showing up to air their grievances. Those who are still evaluating how to vote, please look carefully at the entire context of some of the diffs provided in the oppose section. For example, RationalObserver provided a slew of diffs questioning MBW's reversion of vandalism. I looked at every one of those diffs, and yes every one of them I would consider vandalism, especially when looking at the underlying context. Minor4th 03:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We have several excellent admins who are high quality content creators, so your premise is demonstrably false. There is nothing about content creation that requires the development of a combative attitude. I see no value in reducing this to an us vs them situation, there are no content vs admin teams. The opposition has voiced some extremely valid concerns, not one of them is opposing because Montanabw creates content. Chillum 03:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, now you're going to harass supporters too? How would you know about what content creators have to put up with? You're not a content creator, nor do you have any experience in what creators have to put up with. GregJackP Boomer! 03:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "harass" so much it has lost all meaning. I don't think you have looked at my full contribution history, if you want to discuss it you can do so on my talk page. Chillum 04:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No thanks, I'll address your comments here. I've looked at your history, you have created no new articles at all, and looking at your contributions to article space ([13]), it shows a pattern of jumping from article to article, primarily deleting small amounts of text. That is not content creation. I have found no article where you spent a lot of time and note that your last 500 edits to article space take you back to December 2009. On the other hand, my last 500 article edits go to July 2015, and Montanabw's go to August 2015. So again, exactly what do you know about content creation or what creators have to put up with? GregJackP Boomer! 04:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    GregJackP, This ongoing war against WikiGnomes you are fighting is becoming disruptive. It is one thing expressing the opinion that admin candidates must be heavy content creators (something that many here think has very little to do with the jobs admins are asked to do), but now you are implying that a person who isn't a heavy content creator has no right to comment on an RfA. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no ongoing war against WikiGnomes, I think WikiGnomes are great and you'll not be able to point to a single place where I have said that they were not. Nor have I said that anyone did not have a right to comment on an RfA, to the contrary, with Rationalobserver was inappropriately blocked due to this RfA, I immediately protest her block even though she was opposed to Montanabw's candidacy and I support it. Here, Chillum is continuing a pattern of jumping into someone's explanation of their position and disparaging the candidate at the same time. I happen to agree with what Minor4th said here. Guy, you should know what she's talking about, you and I had to deal with the BS on two of the articles that we worked on together. Non-content creators don't have to deal with that, and don't understand it. So sometimes they get testy, and the rest of Wikipedia then makes sure that they will never become an admin. Here, you have a fine editor, a great content creator, and a fine person being disparaged—and all for the sake of what? So no, I'm not going to stop. If you misinterpret my support for content creation over a social media network approach, I can't do anything about that, but I'm not going to be quiet about content creation. GregJackP Boomer! 15:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not disparaged the candidate, in fact I said "this user is a great asset to the project". If you must misrepresent what I have said to make your point, then you may want to reconsider your point. If you want to talk about me my talk page is available to you, this page is for discussing the candidate. HighInBC (was Chillum) 15:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure you have disparaged her, both at your oppose (well, at Chillum's oppose, whatever is the user name now/then), and where you made the comment about "never" using the tools in a content matter. And if you think she's a great asset to the project, I assume that you'll be changing your position to support? No? I didn't think so. GregJackP Boomer! 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reject your false dichotomy. HighInBC (was Chillum) 16:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I reject your argumentum ad temperantiam. GregJackP Boomer! 16:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys chosen your seconds yet? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Guy Macon. While I wouldnt presume to speak for Greg, I do think I understand his mindset. While he may come across as gruff or abrasive towards "non content creators", I do not think he is at war against WikiGnomes (but I understand why it looks that way.). I have watched Greg's edits closely, and as a result I have come to understand why content creators get so frustrated and why they deserve a bit more empathy than they typically receive. See my comments above. I think Greg's harsh-sounding replies are his way of expressing his frustration when he feels undervalued or misunderstood as a content creator. I, myself, am of the WikiGnome persuasion (having created little content), but I have developed empathy for content creators and the unique obstacles they deal with. And GregJackP, if I've misrepresented you, please feel free to correct me ...and you might also consider how others perceive your comments and whether or not you are successfully communicating what you really intend to convey. Cheers to all! Minor4th 14:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Chillum, did you actually read my whole comment? I'm not suggesting that anyone would oppose because she is a content creator. I am suggesting that content creators put up with a whole lot of crap, and it's perfectly understandable that they will get into disputes when content is disrupted. I do not know of any currently active admins who are strong content creators. Even so, it is harder now to get the bit than it used to be. Years ago, Montana would have been promoted easily - the Rfa atmosphere is much more of a cesspool these days. I am also not trying to create an us vs. them situation, not at all. I'm just observing that the nature of disputes that content creators are necessarily going to be involved in makes this process a virtual impossibility for them. Minor4th 03:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise if I misinterpreted you. I am sure if you looked around you would find several admins who are fine content contributors. Chillum 04:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment and observation - In my original support vote, I noted Montana's level-headedness. Since then many have alleged temperament issues, including battleground mentality. I have taken the time to look at the oppose diffs and even examine their underlying context. From my investigation, Montana is not an editor who flies off the handle quickly or without significant provocation. IMO her sharp tongue, in nearly every instance, has been a sincere and well-placed determination to improve and protect this project. The fact that she has remained so calm in this RfA, and more importantly her willingness to hear criticism, acknowledge her mistakes, and commit to correct imperfections -- that is a great testament to her level-headedness and integrity. she is more than worthy of promotion to admin. Note: I am not a "friend" of MBW's or part of her alleged loyalty circle. my conclusions are the result of due diligence - look at the grievances being leveled against her, and consider the opposers' role as well. Minor4th 11:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Seems OK. Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - basically, per Iridescent. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - A mature, level headed editor with a lot of content and collaborative experience. She should be a welcome addition to the Admin pool.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - fantastic. Level-headed responses to overt baiting by someone obviously trolling the nomination show great promise for someone with access to the tools, and a prolific content contributor to boot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per Ivanvector, nom statements, and her potential to help out in areas like DYK. Keilana (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support The good far outweighs the bad Aparslet (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support likelihood of being net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Had some initial concerns over the AfD stuff, but Softlavender's comment in the neutral section has convinced me that this shouldn't be a problem. Barring other issues receiving clearer evidence, support. — Earwig talk 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Anyone who has been around this long, created this much content, and been as active as Montanabw is bound to have stepped on a few toes, and developed a few animosities. I've also had a few spirited disagreements with them, but in the end I see a mature, intelligent adult; willing to explain their position without soft-soaping their way through a discussion. I believe Montana will continue to have the project's best interests at heart, and will be a net positive in her actions and words. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Montanabw is passionate about improving this encyclopedia. That's not enough in and of itself, so also per noms, Softlavender's response to Richie333, candidate's answers to questions, and the candidate's understanding of WP:INVOLVED. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Montanabw is not perfect, but is a very good editor and can contribute a lot to the encyclopedia.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare[reply]
  59. Weak Support per Iridescent and Ched, my support tempered by some opposes that seem to be rather troubling. Not that troubling though. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, has competence and character to be a good admin. Cavarrone 21:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Pokerkiller (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pokerkiller - You need to provide a better reason as to why you think they should be given the mop..... –Davey2010Talk 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No they don't. By tradition, voting yes means that you agree with the nom's statement. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in 2006, It's now 2015 so people really need to provide a much better reason, If I were to oppose and not provide a reason I would expect to be questioned so I believe the same should happen with those who don't provide a Support reason. –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero:, Davey2010 has a valid question. I support Montanabw and explained why, but getting the bit for life is a big deal, and editors are entitled to inquire as to the reason for support. I will note that Davey's question was polite and non-confrontational, especially when compared to the harassment that most of the opposing editors have to go through. If you wish to address such questioning, you would be of more service to WP to start on the other side of the dividing line. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to change the way requests for adminship are run or to create a de-adminning process that doesn't involve arbcom, get a consensus but please do not interrupt a part of the project to prove a point. Requests for adminship have been called "fraternity hazing ritual" and "chinese water torture" because each oppose vote is worth three support votes and the mood of the process changes at the drop of a hat. It is a vicious process that pushes good editors out. (Also, to call responses to opposes harassment de-legitimises the actual harassment that happens on this project.) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Exactly what was interrupted? Besides, after watching the CF that the bureaucrats danced around in a recent crat-chat, trying to determine how to weigh supports which had no explanation for the reason, it makes sense to ask those that haven't outlined their reasons why they support the candidate. There is no prohibition on it, and as a number of people have noted, this is not a vote, but a discussion. Or would you rather just allow discussion on one side? Either way, editors are entitled to ask for the reasoning behind a position, and you are not entitled to shut down the discussion just because you are an administrator and an ArbCom member. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Montanabw#support_reason NE Ent 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Why not? (iridescent is speaking some truth up above) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: People who hate drama don't want to be admins; drama comes with the job. If we find an editor with a passion for the encyclopedia, a strong history of content creation, and generally good judgement, we shouldn't exclude them because they have had some drama. Montanabw doesn't seem to be seeking out drama, but she hasn't shied away from it either. She should have the tools.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Green tickYSupport I havent worked with you in quite a long time, but what I remember is entirely positive. Im not convinced by the opposes or the very difficult questions that youve suddenly become a whole different person. —Soap— 04:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These are some of the most emotional oppose votes I've seen (seriously??? A whole sentence in bold? Do you think people are just ignoring the other 157 votes?), and I've been reading RFAs for a long time. I respect all the opposes, and I realize this RFA will not pass, but I am standing by my vote and that is not just me being stubborn. I really think we would be better off if this RFA were to succeed and that the opposers are wrong. —Soap— 21:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support As per many above supporters. Some Opposers below saying that Montanabw is not sensible enough. We can ignore some issues related to general Human nature, but we can't ignore her contribution to many articles. She is content creator so she can be a better admin. Some people are having issues related to AFD, I have not gone deep into that but I think AFD closure should not be on the basis of number of !votes in AFD. It should be on the basis of policy. Because some users have some so called "enemies" on Wikipedia and these people comment "delete" without any delay when "enemy's" article gets nominated for AFD, so take that thing in account while closing AFD. Thank you. --Human3015TALK  05:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support This editor criticized one of my very early contributions to the encyclopedia and she was right. I took her comments to heart and am a better editor as a result. She held no grudge whatsoever against me. Yes, she can be brash and sometimes a tiny bit combative but always keeping the goal of improving the encyclopedia foremost in her mind. The sad fact is that socks and trolls and vandals exist and must be opposed, which isn't always pretty but is absolutely necessary. If she is "overly inclusionist" in combatting systemic bias, then that is why we have consensus based deletion policies, and her general attitude about women's topics is commendable and worthy. As for equine topics, she is indispensible. I have watched her interactions with other editors many times over the years and am completely confident that she will use the toolkit responsibly. I support her candidacy proudly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Montanabw is first and foremost a fine content producer. She is level-headed, understands policies, and uses sound, balanced judgement. She is loyal, honest, fair, and responsible. She speaks with an authentic voice. She has my very strongest support. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - What we have here is a long-time Wikipedia editor who has a clean block log (despite whatever "controversy" they've supposedly been involved in previously) and who has been an excellent content contributor so far. After looking at their AfD stats more thoroughly and adjusting for some eventual outcomes (no consensus = default keep), I see around a 69% "green" ("success") rate with a few minor issues, mostly in the AfD nominating area. While this statistic is a tad low IMHO, this editor here has apparently only participated in around 140 AfDs (and voted in only around 126 AfDs). In my personal observation of this editor's conduct on Wikipedia, I have found them to be very helpful and trustworthy. I also think it's important to consider that we are all human beings and that our current Wikipedia administrator corps is far from perfect. This user would make a good addition to that administrator corps. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support One of our best content producers, and someone who puts the encyclopedia first. My experiences with her have been uniformly good. We need a diversity of views on behavior and inclusion/deletion among admins. Acroterion (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, mostly per Cullen328 (3-4 !votes above). I also reviewed the candidate's history at ANI, pointed out by Wbm1058 below, and found either several WP:BOOMERANGs against socks or POV-pushers, or some run-of-the-mill passionate head-butting. As User:Dennis Brown said in the Neutral section, Montanabw tends to be too passionate on occasion, which is not a plus for an administrator, but I still trust her experience and ability to restrain herself enough to believe she will not abuse the tools. No such user (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - I have been urging Montanabw to stand for adminship for years. When I saw the standing for admin banner on her talk page, I had to come out of slumber and support. Superb content provider, can be trusted to stand aside at the slightest whiff of involvement, or effectively cut through BS when needed. Is she passionate? Heck yes. We need passion in the service of the project. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Great contributor to the project. Montanabw has been very helpful and civil whenever I've interacted with her. Clear net benefit by becoming an admin. Gizza (t)(c) 12:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I would add to Cullen328's statement, which I agree with wholeheartedly, that Montanabw is a steady and tireless mentor for new editors. It is difficult to learn WikiPolicies and procedures and she is supportive and proactive in teaching and guiding, with a huge measure of patience. At the same time, she is clearly passionate about the encyclopedia. Passion is not a bad thing, it is what keeps one involved and encourages others. However, I also know from personal experience that she can and does weigh situations and change course if evidence calls for it. SusunW (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom statement. Rubbish computer 13:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - There is a tendency towards article ownership and battleground behavior over same, for sure, as a couple of the opposes have noted. Nevertheless, I have fundamental confidence in this long-term content person. I believe there is currently a need for something like 50 new administrators and I feel that Montanabw has every prospect of being a good one. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - While Montanabw has been involved in some drama, it's never been much (to my mind). And it's clearly and importantly counterbalanced by the immense amount of help she is willing to give to newbies and others just starting out at Wikipedia and those needing a boost in knowledge or just some emotional support. That's a huge issue for Wikipedia, and she embraces it and enjoys it. Her clear-eyed understanding of when to stay out of things (as an admin), and her commitment to using common sense and guidelines rather than personal views, weigh heavily in her favor for me. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Would be a net positive for the project; seems trustworthy. SpencerT♦C 16:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Long-term experienced user; seems trustworthy and does not supplicate to troublesome users seeking to harm our project. jni (delete)...just not interested 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Agreed that she would make a good admin. Zugman (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Zugman, what is it about seeing this WP:RfA for Montanabw that made you step away from your two-year Wikibreak? Had you seen her around before and are familiar with her work because of that? Were you simply checking in to Wikipedia, saw this WP:RfA and briefly looked over the case? I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what motivated you to support, given that you edit Wikipedia very sparingly, unless you edit more so as an IP, and since your support vote doesn't give any insight into your point of view on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. I never thought that this RfA was a good idea, and the nonsense in oppose #3 about the "cult of Corbett" goes some way to explaining why. It's rather puzzling why I need to be insulted in someone else's RfA, but for the record I've probably disagreed with Montanabw about as often as I've agreed with her. I have no doubt though that if she were granted the tools she'd perform the admin role with honesty and integrity, which is more than can be said for some of the present incumbents. Eric Corbett 22:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support There's more to admin that AfD: if there have been problems there, I'm sure Motanabw will have the wisdom to direct their energies elsewhere. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  82. Support - I agree with all the supportive things said so far.VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - There are some important and valid points made in the "opposes" below, but on balance I think that Montanabw would use the admin tools with restraint and for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, so I am supporting. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Myself and Montana fought long and hard over the Pumkin Sky issue, so this was a difficult one to decide on. I think that basicaly I trust her now; there is no doubt that she is well intentioned and sincere, the olny question for me is that her judgement might be clouded by loyalty (not that i'm any better). I have been impressed several times and dissapointed once or twice since that spat (infoboxes), but willing to allow that the weight of adminship will act as a cooling agent. My main reason for supporting is that she cares about the project, I basically like her, and she is a workhorse. She will do the job, and we need admins with such energy. Great; good luck. Plus, the RO thing was a major thing, lets not understate the difficulty faced there. Ceoil (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Precious #27 - COI: the low number tells you that we have been friends for a long time. Normally I stop at this point. Looking at some opposes, a bit more:
    1. I am pleased with the thoughtful answer to my question!
    2. I look forward to another female admin.
    3. I look forward to another admin who knows Wikipedia inside out.
    4. I look forward to another admin with a sense of humour.
    5. I look forward to another admin who has been teaching.
    6. I look forward to an admin awarding prizes for merits.
    7. I look forward to another admin who is outspoken about her feelings.
    8. I look forward to another admin who comes to the rescue of someone she sees in need (one instance described by Folantin below) - even if I - for example - at times feel I am not in need.
    9. I look forward to another admin who shares some of the same ideas and values, as a friend put it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support although I don't know why she wants to...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Honestly, WP:Net positive and the RfA candidate has been able to answer user questions or concerns thoroughly and accurately. I feel as though the opposes of this RfA are generally over-critical and not substantive enough for an adequate oppose. The user seems to have a handful of editing experience under their belt, particularly content-wise, and appears to have specific uses for the tool. --JustBerry (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Moving to oppose. --JustBerry (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I have never really interacted with her, but I have read numerous contributions by her and have obviously read the material above. Although I am not sure why she would want to be an admin, I have no doubt that she would be a far better admin than many who currently are, and, that being the case, I am happy to support here. In fact, she should have been made an admin a long time ago, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I can support her. She stepped up to deal with the WP:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime at a time when it was needed and no-one else was willing to help, and she gained a lot of respect from me for doing that work. She understands the problems caused to the project from serial sockmasters such as ItsLassietime (seriously, do we AGF for users who post stuff like this (warning: not nice reading!), [14]?. A lot of the ANI threads posted originated from a single serial sockmaster. Furthermore, she fully understands the process of writing content according to the best sources (I've watched her and been impressed on this point). As for battleground behavior, often it goes both ways - the RO issue is case in point. I have stood across from Montanabw on some issues (infoboxes) yet, have no compunction supporting. She's honest and loyal, passionate about the project, she's a hard worker, and she doesn't get disillusioned. That, in my book, is important. Victoria (tk) 13:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  89. I didn't get here without effort, but ultimately I hope this turns around and passes. I do think there's a lot of partisanship in how MBW interacts with people who she perceives as enemies of her friends. I'm thinking in particular of the incident Bish describes in the oppose section, or the way she shows up kind of out of the blue in talk page discussions a friend starts about infoboxes. But I also think there's a similar amount of partisanship in about 1/2 the admins and 1/2 the politically active editors we have ("politically active" defined as the type of people who vote in RFA and comment at noticeboards). I fully trust her to avoid involving her admin tools in content disputes. The question in my mind is whether I trust her to never involve her admin tools, directly or indirectly, when a friend is in conflict with someone else. I'm not positive she will, but I'm reasonably confident she will. I wouldn't be willing to take the risk for everyone, but in this case the benefits of having a smart, active, serious content contributor who has a ton of experience and cluefulness leads me to want to take that risk. We need more clueful admins, and while I'd love a few dozen perfect people with no faults, I don't see many of those around. I think this would be a net positive, and I encourage people in the oppose section to consider if the benefits might outweigh the concerns they legitimately have. If this RFA squeaks thru (or even if it doesn't), MBW, please take the concerns expressed in the oppose setion into account; they are not baseless. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, albeit somewhat conflictedly. My first instinct was positive - I'm in favor of tools for content people, and while I don't think we've interacted I've seen her around on women's issues and liked her work - but there was clearly a lot of history that I didn't know enough about for an early support. And a lot of the oppose comments really are troubling - especially Folantin's (where I agree with Montana on the merits) and Bishonen's (where I disagree, and where the problem resonates with concerns I had based on Montana's occasional comments on the current GMO dispute). But, all that said, she's intelligent and thoughtful and confident, she seems to be hearing the feedback she's getting, and we could surely use more admins with good judgment on women's issues. So I guess that's a whole lot of stream-of-consciousness in order to say basically "per Floquenbeam". Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum to note that Montanabw has been very calm and poised during this RfA despite some really lousy behavior by other participants, which speaks well to her ability to do the same as an admin. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another addendum to endorse the principle underlying NE Ent's post in the comments section, if not the exact phrasing. Opposing on the basis of who Montanabw has a friendly relationship with feels a lot like exactly the kind of personality politics she's been accused of here. Surely having collegial interactions with someone others find difficult should be a positive sign in a potential admin. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. I've read through the opposes and see a lot of old grudges and sour grapes. The AfD "hit rate" opposers should be discounted. Montanabw has a long history of sound decision making, many times as a leader of community consensus.[15]. Further, the hit rate metric is skewed and does not take into account that AfD consensus is often ephemeral and changes over time. Her numbers indicate someone who thinks critically about an issue and isn't easily swayed by groupthink, an important and desired trait in an admin. Regarding "rogue thinkers" like Montanabw, it has been said that "human advancement often results from individuals and groups of people who refuse to accept the status quo, see a problem and its solution differently than their peers, and are driven deeply by a sense that true progress occurs through constant questioning of assumptions and doing in untraditional ways. These are the Rogue Thinkers who have shaped civilization since the dawn of mankind and continue at a break neck pace in today’s world. They were yesterday’s explorers and wanderers and today’s thinkers and entrepreneurs."[16] So opposing her based on her AfD hit rate is wrong, and I ask that the closer take this into account during the final analysis. Finally, I want to speak about my personal experience interacting with the candidate. I believe we first edited in the Silicon Valley topic area, where our interests randomly intersected on the Varian pages. I came away from that experience knowing that this candidate represented the true face and values of Wikipedia at its best, warts and all, and I continued to enjoy interacting with her in the animal topic area (where she was under attack for many years with little help), as well as DYK and other places. Looking back at the last decade, it would be difficult for me to find a more suitable candidate. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - On reputation as an excellent editor I have had the pleasure of working with, and trust implicitly. Go Phightins! 00:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per Go Phightins! --John (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Strong support - Excellent editor. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Having read through the opposes, I know what team I'm on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - Many years of experience and loads of high quality content, with a genuine passion for improving the encyclopedia. There's no doubt that MontanaBW has more than enough qualifications to be trusted with admin tools. The opposes merely demonstrate that any content contributor who's been around for any length of time will have accumulated sufficient detractors to make this broken process very difficult for them. --RexxS (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support: it's great to have many sysops here. 333-blue 14:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - I have seen Montanabw respond in a measured way when issues were raised during her RfA, a fact which shows that she can respond well under pressure. I am also impressed by her openness to the criticism of the community during her RfA. I believe that for intelligent and clueful people the RfA process can be transformative by making them take to heart the criticism of the community. Gaining access to the tools is not a one-way street to power. It also puts any new admin under community pressure to show that s/he is worthy of their trust. That too is a transformative process. I believe that, apart from being an excellent content editor, Montanabw is clueful and intelligent and will show herself to be worthy of my trust and that of the community. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per Viritidas. AfD rate argument is unpersuasive, seems like an amply qualified candidate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Changing to oppose per [17]. Vindictive comment, indicative of temperament inappropriate for an administrator. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support For others, especially Cullen328, Guy1890, Viriditas, and Dr.K. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support The oppose section is so messed up that the only thing a rational observer can do is to toss it all out and go back to first principles in evaluating this candidate. What I see is a passionate content focused editor ready and willing to gird for battle when they think it necessary. That, in my opinion, is not such a bad thing. On the contrary, we need more admins willing to fight what they think is the good fight and we have processes in place on the off-chance (frankly, a very tiny probability after this RfA) that the candidate ends up attacking the wrong windmills. Never having interacted with montanabw (or many of the various strong opposers below), I'm a mere observer and I urge other observers, rational or irrational, to focus on the big picture, what the addition of a strong content focused admin will do to strengthen our admin corps. The rest, and I suspect I'm quoting someone without attribution here, is noise. --regentspark (comment) 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support By this point everything has been said. All that I can really add is I would trust Montanabw with the mop and really, that is all it comes down to. JbhTalk 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing all of the oppose votes here I want to expand a bit on my support. I have only encountered her a couple of times and each time we were on opposite 'sides'. While she has very strong views I never felt that she discounted my position or was not listening. Once we were talking past each other and once we figured that out we hammered out a compromise that addressed my concerns and was still 'proper' for how the horse world did things. The other time we could amicably agree to disagree after 'fully exploring each others positions'. In any case Montana was the first editor I ever worked with here and every edit I have made here since is directly attributable to how much I enjoyed and learned from working with her. JbhTalk 04:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support wholeheartedly. Smart, level-headed, kind, good sense of humor, critical thinking skills, trustworthy, knowledgeable, intuitive, uses common sense, acts continually in good faith, decent editor. I can't speak highly enough of her. Few are more qualified at the time of nomination. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Guess I was asleep at the wheel while all this was going on. Yes, I support Montanabw for admin. They're a good content editor, their heart is in the right place, they know their Wikipedia policy, etc. I am not worried about suggestions of ownership; I have faith in their judgment, having known them for quite some time. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. I'm concerned with the score-keeping mentality mentioned by Liz in the neutral section, and what I perceive as a tendency to become passive-agressive when cornered and not knowing what to do. But we can't expect admins to be without fault. If that were the standard, we'd have 0 possible admin candidates on Wikipedia. What I do trust is that Montanabw has sufficient judgement to know when not to use the admin tools because she's too involved and defer to others. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Good content creator and knowledge of policy, worthy of trust and clear awareness of when they should use or not use the administrators tools. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Should we trust her? Below I said I'd trust her to recognise the quality of the consensus and close an AfD according to that consensus. But I don't yet trust her not to use or threaten to use admin privileges to gain advantage in an editorial dispute on an article she owns; nor do I trust her not to use or threaten to use those privileges to support a mate in a content or other dispute regardless of the merits. I can't trust her on those two points yet because I haven't yet seen her acknowledge she has an ownership or a partisanship problem. I'm not following her so If I've missed that elsewhere, please point me to it. 11:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC) The last I heard, she was calling those who point out these traits assholes, idiots or enemies. 11:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Struck that. She also said some opposers are "people who have done research and raise legitimate questions about my past edits, but are uninvolved or peripherally for the most part, and though I wish they'd ask me a question I could respond to, I will take their comments seriously and think them over".[18] Good to hear. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support: A look through their contributions shows good content work. To several in the oppose section: anybody who works on content has a "bias" towards something: anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. The issue is how they handle it, and the editor works fine for me. WP needs more content creators as admins to understand the trials and tribulations to apply judgement, not people who blindly apply WP:BURO rules. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support: I would like to call attention to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 118#Talk:Institutional racism.23Disputed edits. A calm, policy-based handling of a dispute as shown in that DRN case tells us a lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support I have seen this editor deal in a level headed manner with multiple topcs that shouldn't be controversial, yet somehow are. I have been impressed with their ability to focus on policy and not personality, and to contribute good sourced content. Scr★pIronIV 13:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. An enormously constructive editor. bd2412 T 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. I have no personal experience of the issues reported here as concerns, so I can't comment. But in my own occasional dealings I've just thought "good editor, safe pair of hands, polite and civilized, has sense of humour AND common sense." That'll do for me. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Long time content creator with a good, seemingly no-nonsense head on her shoulders. Capeo (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. In my experience Montanabw has sometimes been needlessly sharp and snarky at times. That said, it is clear that she is clear-headed and able see to the heart of a problem and not be afraid to speak out. I have looked to her wisdom and experience many times to help me form my own opinions. She'd make a great admin. Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. I've had nothing but positive experiences working with Montanabw over the years. We recently improved Jackalope, which shortly thereafter advanced to GA. In 2013, we both peer-reviewed Rainbow trout, successfully nominated for FA by Mike Cline. Shortly before that Montanabw reviewed Ashland, Oregon, which I had nominated for GA. Our list of encounters goes on. I don't know which was first, but it might have my peer review in 2008 of Thoroughbred, which proceeded to FA. In these dealings, all went well. I've read many (not all) of the comments at this Rfa, including the opposes. Despite those, my direct dealings with Montanabw make me believe that as an administrator she'd be just fine. Finetooth (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Well qualified. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Able of reasoned input in difficult and complex discussions. prokaryotes (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support No concerns. Rzuwig► 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support A net positive to the encyclopedia. Not worried at all about the AfD stats, indeed, I commend Montanabw for being willing to go to bat and trying to rescue articles sitting at AfD, rather than the typical admin-wannabe stuff of looking through poorly-referenced stubs on obscure topics and trying to see which ones can be easily "picked off" for deletion, or casting eleventh-hour votes in deletion debates that have already been decided. Kudos for being bold, and for actually trying to build & enhance the encyclopedia. Regardless of how this RfA ends up shaking out, your work here is very much appreciated. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support: I haven't interacted much with Montana, and when I have it hasn't always been harmonious – we undoubtedly disagree on some significant issues, and I have found her combative attitude occasionally irksome. But so what? I have no reason to doubt her integrity, and her commitment to the project is beyond question. These are more important qualities for an admin than agreeing with me, considering how often I find I disagree with myself. Brianboulton (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Net positive. No reason to think tools will be abused. Massive, positive contributor. Community would benefit from her having admin tools. Unconvinced by opposers. Begoon talk 09:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support: I agree, net positive; plus what Gerda said, above. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Best candidate I can recall. Oppose rationales seem weak. zzz (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support per "Just popping by to concur with ColonelHenry and Blofeld in that just what I have read today in this thread alone and items linked herein is enough to blow my ears off. Cwmhiraeth is a solid editor... Cwmhiraeth is clearly being harassed. Unbelievable -Montanabw." I strongly believe Wikipedia needs more people like this in publicly-acknowledged positions of leadership.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked to the wrong section; you meant [19]. Also, a warning to the lazy and gullible: this is one of those clever "hasten the day" votes, so don't say "Support per Dan Murphy" if you don't want to look foolish and be made fun of on you know where. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support per nom. A trusted and experienced user that understands WP policies and use common sense. (And because cowgirls don't cry...;) Erlbaeko (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support I have confidence that MBW will take all useful advice on board. Intothatdarkness 19:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Moral support because sheesh! --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose At 19:40 UTC on September 20, 2015, Montanabw agreed with another user that many of her opposes came from "assholes":([20]). Looking at that diff, it's concerning to see her actively dividing the opposers into three groups that she plans to analyze and label, which speaks to her severe issues with partisanship. Also per User:Folantin's oppose (#21): ([21]), which perfectly illustrates a very recent episode where her problematic behavioral patterns manifested into aggressive and disruptive editing, and User:Justlettersandnumbers' oppose (#81): ([22]), in which they describe being "relentlessly harassed by [Montanabw] for about a year". In fact, if you read the opposes with care, you will notice a long-term and alarmingly consistent pattern of harassment and stalking from Montanabw, starting as early as 2007 and continuing into just a few months ago (see comments by User:LynnWysong). I oppose for various other reasons, but mainly because multiple editors expressed concern that Montanabw targeted and stalked me for several months. She made my life a living hell, and nearly drove me away. Here's a few examples of others pleading with her to stop her vicious campaign against me: Sitush: "OK, I've done some digging around and it looks like all of this stuff from Montanabw may be an extension of her ongoing stalking and feud with Rationalobserver and Dr Blofeld."([23]) Dr. Blofeld: "Stop stalking RO and acting like a 7 year old school girl bully around her waiting to pounce on her edits and inviting others to criticize her work".([24]) Sitting arbitrator Yunshui also thought Montanabw had targeted me: "I'm not disagreeing that you have been targeted by other editors (or editor; I think we all know who we're talking about here), and that's to their shame".([25]) Most alarming, though, is her tendency to willfully disregard WP:AGF, predictably take sides, and regularly display a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. She hasn't demonstrated here why she needs the tools, and she can't be trusted with them either. RO(talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Extensive discussion moved to talk page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Rationalobserver's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion that continued after the one above was moved. Epic Genius (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongest possible oppose The candidate has a terrible AfD record, and insufficient grasp of the deletion policies and guidelines. Also, she casts indiscriminately "keep" !votes at women's topics, and when in fear of not to get it her way, assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dating Violence Awareness Week. Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Kraxler's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I amended my !vote, see comment at Folantin's !vote below. Kraxler (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Too in the thrall of the cult of Corbett for me. No credibility. --Drmargi (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt Montanabw has ever even heard of him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:Montanabw/Archive 7. (Not that I agree with the postulate.). NE Ent 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regretful oppose, primarily due to temperament issues—specifically, long-term ownership behavior at WP:EQUINE (which drove me elsewhere when I first began editing actively here) and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (again, long-term) which is incompatible with adminship. Miniapolis 13:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing crat: I don't have diffs because I've made it a point to avoid interacting with the candidate for some time. Not every prolific editor is cut out for adminship, and given the candidate's track record (keeping, on-wiki, what amounts to an enemies' list} I don't think she should be given access to the block button. Miniapolis 14:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I'm sorry, I don't like doing this, but I'm going to have to oppose for three main reasons. For one, as some people have mentioned already, I've seen irregular tactics at AfD and battleground mentality are a cause for concern. Secondly, I've witnessed various personal feuds with other editors in the past, and finally, the attempt of ousting out RO's physical location in what was considered "stalking". This is a grave concern. I hope that by having the tools she won't attempt to oust out other people's locations in believing that they were socks. I was involved in this briefly, so for those who don't know, I'll lay out some diffs:
  6. Oppose. (Moved from neutral.) Jaguar's "oppose" statement pushed me over the edge. I cannot support a candidate with so many recently-proven instances of failing to assume good faith. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I'm sorry, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting this candidate. As pointed out by another !voter above me, I looked through Montanabw's AfD record and, despite the inevitable objections which will arise, she does seem to invariably !vote keep on any topic relating to women/feminism/third-world nations, and multiple times the final result was delete. For this reason, I fear that she would have an unhealthy bias whenever taking administrative action related to these topics. She also seems to have a difficult time just letting go of previous disputes or grudges, as shown by the years-long compilation of diffs at User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. I also seem to personally recall an encounter between her and SMcCandlish last year (it was something about an RM for a goat breed, which I unknowingly got involved in by closing the discussion), and I was less than impressed with her handling of the situation. As shown by Jaguar, I'm also disturbed by her treatment of RO, and in particular her attempt to make it well-known that RO edited while logged out and that it geolocated to a particular place. This very much calls into question her conduct when involved in disputes. --Biblioworm 17:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose- Because of the campaign against RO, and the weird erroneous keep votes pointed out by Kraxler. Reyk YO! 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per the skirmishing noted above and below. Good content portfolio, but I can't support. Esquivalience t 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose One of the primary functions of admins is to reduce drama. Montanabw orbits it like a moth to a flame. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I've seen her take some bone-headed positions, most usually rushing to somehow back up one of her wiki-friends she perceives needs support, jumping in with passionate argument but basically consisting of nothing more than thoughtless conceit and insult. Do we really need/want an admin of that nature?? She called me a "Randy" [26] when I questioned one of her wiki-friends who was indirectly calling me a "narcissist". (My editing skill and knowledge of WP has not been perfect, like most editors it has evolved and improved over my editing history, but I don't believe I've qualified for "Randy" label re any WP article. Please explain the basis for calling me a "Randy", Montana.) I think I remember her musing to become admin based on idea to balance out the Wikicop/civility-obsessed admins who like to block Eric Corbett. (That seems more like war mentality, than simple battleground.) IHTS (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we want an admin who raises void argumentation to an artform? (Such as in this RfA, repeating the fact she has "never been blocked", as though that is a meaningful gold standard. When all it takes to be blocked is an admin who doesn't like you who is slightly irritated. Editors who point to their "clean block log" and to other editors' non-empty block logs, without regard to who the blocking administrators were, even if they have been de-sysopped, show their use of hollow argument. [I imagine they do because many times is effective to quicky prejudice others against their target.] Other bogus argument: reverting an improvement containing a reasoned argument in editsum with simply: "It passed FAC." [27] As though FAC is somehow omniscient. These levels of argument are the kind of candidate supporters want to hand admin status to?!) IHTS (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per everyone above - I can't support giving the mop to someone who has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, Constantly !votes Keep on every single women-related AFD, and cannot let let go of disputes, In all I think handing the mop to this editor who quite honestly be a disaster!. –Davey2010Talk 19:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Man am I disappointed. Earlier today I was looking at your user page, thinking you might be a fun dinner date, feeling warm and fuzzy at the prospect that soon two of the four most recent promotions would be women (a 50% ratio!), but then a few things I saw started pricking some holes in my bubble. So I reluctantly concluded that I would need to do some due diligence. I'm truly sorry, my search of the Administrator's Noticeboard turned up 96 hits. I don't need to go into details, as the section headers speak for themselves. I didn't have the stomach to glance through more than a few of them. For comparison, searching on myself, I only found 15 hits. And mine are just mostly routine stuff: some testing that I mentioned in my RfA, a report about one of my bots' predecessors being down, adding a permalink for reference, etc. One substantive discussion I noticed was about conduct relating to my RfA, which I wasn't even aware of until I just looked at it. I can grant a few passes, but sorry, this is way more drama than I can handle. I hope the community doesn't hate me for this. SO SO sorry. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Wbm1058's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for moving the extended discussion. Subsequently I've seen that she was added to the 2014 notification log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience § Enforcement log. While I do see at least a couple of administrators on that list, there are far more subsequently blocked editors there. Not a good place to find a prospective admin's name. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose quite disturbed that any admin candidate already has a long standing feud going on before they even started and the afd failures are just not what is required for someone with the delete button. Unsurprisingly, I find Kraxler's oppose compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 23:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose: I hardly ever participate in RFA's but I remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale for the keep !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa. Otherstuff is an argument frequently seen from the creators of articles up for deletion and new users. I would expect an experienced user to dig deeper when they are "surprised" by the amount of content on an obscure subject, not use it as a rationale for keeping said content, regardless of the article subject's gender or geographical location. Vrac (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I rarely ever oppose an RfA candidate, but in this case I can't ignore what Kraxler has said. Aside from the obvious bias present in the keep rationale, far too many of the articles ended up being deleted anyway. The answer to question 15 failed to swing me to support or even neutral simply because this behavior gives me a clear indication you are not the kind of editor I would want with the tools, irrespective of whether you would actually take part in AFD in an administrative capacity. —Frosty ☃ 03:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose As others have said and I have personally seen, the candidate habitually !votes keep on AfD's related to women. While countering systemic bias is an admirable goal, you can't use that as a blanket reason to keep non-notable articles. Conifer (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to say anything here, but having viewed a few of the articles which she voted "keep" on which got deleted in all honesty I don't think it's her fault, I think it's actually often the fault of the others at the AFD that they got deleted. I've checked a few of the ones she supposedly blundered on and in my book they meet content guidelines and should not have been deleted. The AFD process is deeply flawed, without good content contributors trying to save them we'd lose even more decent articles. I've lost count how many times people have blindly voted "delete, non notable" and then myself or Aymatth2 or MichaelQSchmidt have expanded something and them changed their vote to "keep". I'd be interested to see a list of the ones she voted keep on which got deleted and how many in fact should not have been deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats why I said in my comment above that AFD should not be closed by counting !votes. Wikipedia is not democracy, I think only RFA is done by counting votes otherwise no need to count the votes in AFD, closer should judge rational in "keep" comments even if they are 2 in number it should be closed as "keep" even if "delete" votes are 6.--Human3015TALK  08:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Regretful oppose. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Montanabw's contribution to the encyclopedia, especially her content work and her passion for the project as a whole. But, there are too many red flags for me, and I don't think bestowing the admin toolset is the right thing to do at this time - sorry. Please, Montanabw, continue your outstanding work here! — sparklism hey! 08:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I'm here after much hesitation, as I used to like Montanabw a lot — as somebody said, you get a warm feeling reading her userpage — and in many ways I still do. Several of my socks are fond of her.[28][29] But I had a contretemps with her in 2014 where I thought she behaved terribly — not towards me by any means — but IMO loyalty with a friend caused her to treat an opponent of that friend like dirt. I believe her actions were part of the reason the user in question left Wikipedia in frustration for a time, requesting a self-requested block from me (he has no other blocks, although Montana was under the impression he had, wouldn't check when he protested, and made much play with these imaginary blocks). An admin really shouldn't have friends in the sense of protecting certain people at the expense of running roughshod over others, and that's the reason I'm dubious about giving this candidate the tools: she's too loyal a friend. I don't like to oppose. She's a great content contributor and a very pleasant person to those she likes — but this is about adminship. I think Montana knows what I'm talking about, even though it was quite long ago. Montana, if you want to take issue with my description, I will of course give diffs so others can decide for themselves. It would be nice if anybody else who's curious took it to e-mail and I'll respond fully, but that's obviously not up to me. If there has to be detailed and inevitably painful discussion of the episode, we should probably take it to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: Would you mind posting link(s) to the discussion that you referred to? Also, do you believe it is an isolated incident or part of a pattern of behavior? I ask only because I respect your opinion, and would like to make sure I haven't missed anything important.- MrX 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. You're right, MrX. I've provided the diffs with some commentary by me on the talkpage, as I probably should have done immediately (it's painful, that's all, and also pretty old). I ask anybody who wants to comment on my oppose to please take it there, too. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Oppose. I really didn't want to be here. She's an intelligent, productive content creator and we need a lot more of those but the more I think about the partisanship I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, the less comfortable I am with her having the block button. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose because of her extreme WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, as others have noted. Montanabw is a frequently belligerent editor who divides Wikipedians into friends and enemies. I had a run-in with Montanabw about two years ago and I've been trying to avoid her ever since. Then this July I happened to have a [30] disagreement with one of her friends on an article Montanabw had never touched before. Montanabw turned up out of the blue, guns blazing, accusing me of being "one of the most mean-spirited people I've encountered in nine years of editing wikipedia" among other things [31]. She managed to turn what had been a minor (and resolved) disagreement into a full-out flame war. Uninvolved editors were also less than impressed by her behaviour there. I make no comment on the quality of her content work, but she is not admin material. This incident happened only a couple of months ago. Update: additional information regarding timing As far as I can see, Montanabw sparked off the conflict on Talk:Joseph (opera) on 6 July 2015 [32], the very same day she began her preparations for this Request for Adminship [33]. There's quite a contradiction in her behaviour and opinions on those two pages. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Quoting Montana blundering in to tag-team, blindly standing up for her mate and bullying and insulting the article's main author and boasting about her clean block log and untouchablity (from the first link above): "Folantin, as I say, this article is not worth the waste of bandwidth and you can own it for all I care. But let's not be a hypocrite, if you want to own this article, then respect the "ownership" of others. I watch Gerda's edits to help protect her from people who unjustly attack and try to play "gotcha!" with her. (I also keep an eye on Eric Corbett for similar reasons). So, all I am going to say on this topic is that I now hope we understand each other. And, incidentally, I have never been subjected to arbitration sanctions of any sort (other than those applied generally to all users/participants), I have never been blocked or restricted in any way on wikipedia, so if you want to go after me, I wouldn't make book on your chances of doing anything more than wasting your time. Montanabw"

    She's accusing him of ownership because he expressed a preference not to have an infobox on the article. Ironic, because the consistent pattern I've seen in my limited contact with her is one of fierce ownership of her articles and defence of her mates' ownership of theirs.

    This is starting to look like a very serious behaviour problem here. Very. I urge others to follow that link --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked, and no, that's not even close to a serious behavior problem. It seems like a reasonable response to Folantin's demand "I created this article. I do not want an infobox on it...". I really hope we are not trying to build the admin corps with shallow, emotionless automatons.- MrX 14:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are supposed to resolve conflict, not create it - especially not because of personal grudges. Note the context: "I created this article. I do not want an infobox on it..." was addressed to Gerda Arendt. Gerda and I have a personal understanding that we don't try to impose our stylistic preferences on articles either of us create. Hence Gerda's note here [34]. In other words, we had resolved the situation before Montana came barging in with her WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, threats and personal attacks.--Folantin (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On May 30, 2015, this motion was approved by ArbCom. It put Gerda Arendt under probation and stated clear rules of how to proceed. Both Folantin and Gerda proceeded according to the rules. User:Montanabw's butting in could not possibly have helped Gerda's cause, since under the circumstances (accusations and attacks) no "clear consensus" (as required under the probation rules) could be established. I see here again that Montanabw has an insufficient grasp of the meaning of simple rules, and suffers from severe WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Tag-teaming, making threats and calling somebody "one of the most mean-spirited people" makes Montanabw totally unsuitable for adminship. I amend my !vote accordingly. Kraxler (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: I had no "cause" that needed help, nor would I ask for help. - Joseph (opera), as Rigoletto and Don Carlos, was one of the articles where an infobox had been reverted in 2013, - we have these articles on our watchlists, - there's no magic "out of the blue" or tag-teaming. - I only wanted to check how things were in 2015, with all operas by Verdi now having an infobox, and I can take no for an answer. - I regret that I didn't check the article history, the name Folantin would have told me an answer. - It would have saved us a lot of heat in this RfA. So again: Blame me. - Peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, I'm absolutely certain that you acted according to the rules of your probation, and I sincerely hope that you'll pass the six month without getting into trouble, and that the sanction will be lifted in the end. (Passing unscathed the probation time is what I would call "your cause".) What I object to is that Montanabw appropriated a cordial exchange of messages between you and Folantin to make threats and personal attacks. I congratulate you to keeping your calm, not letting yourself being sucked into the maelstrom caused by Montanabw. The tag-teaming was solely her intention, not yours, Gerda. I can't blame you, Gerda, for something that was done by somebody else. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I don't understand "tag-team" then, I thought it takes at least two acting together. More precisely then: I blame myself to not having checked the article history before I suggested to restore the infobox. I don't argue with Folantin, then the whole situation would not have occured. It's no pleasant feeling to watch the result of my negligence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. While pleased by all that content work, her record on AfDs is poor, showing lack of judgment that is necessary for adminw. Sorry, until administrator positions are no longer effectively lifetime super-user posts, these kinds of issues will be dealbreakers. Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Like numerous other editors who have commented, I have great respect for the candidate's editing, and I very much wish that I did not end up in this section. I think that Dennis Brown's analysis in the neutral section hits the nail on the head. In some recent ANI comments, [35], I see some things that trouble me: hastiness in saving the comments, but more importantly hastiness in coming to (incorrect) conclusions about editors coupled with a lack of hesitation to impose a cool-down block on the wrong editor. I appreciate what Montanabw has said here about INVOLVED, but I worry that over time there will be problems nonetheless. In her answers to questions, she indicates that she mostly wants to use administrative tools for gnomish work, but I have to ask why an editor with such extensive experience in substantive matters would suddenly become interested in only doing some routine and backstage tasks, and I doubt that she would refrain from becoming involved in more heated areas. I very much look forward to the candidate continuing her excellent editing work, but I just feel that administrative work would be a bad fit. Again, I'm very sorry to be saying these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Never, ever vote against someone and say you want them to continue excellent editing work. We had three editors quit last year after unsuccessful RfAs. If you want someone off the project, say so. You vote oppose, you take that responsibility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a shame that anyone would leave Wikipedia as a result of an unsuccessful RfA. And I emphatically do not want this candidate to leave, and I made that very clear. You seem to believe the opposite, in spite of what I actually said. And you seem to say that, if she were to leave, that would be my fault personally. It would be a sad day indeed if RfA were to have only two possible outcomes: promotion a successful RfA, or retirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you emphatically do not want a candidate to leave, then do not vote oppose. By voting oppose you are explicitly saying that is a risk you are willing to take. If you do, and she were to leave, then that would indeed be your fault personally. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I should probably know better than to reply, but I want to make sure that my opinion ends up being registered by the closing crat according to what my opinion actually is, as opposed to some outlandish recasting of what I said. I consider the candidate to be an admirable editor, and I do admire her. And I most certainly do not want her to leave the project! I feel, however, that she is not well-matched for the permissions that she is requesting here, for the reasons that I already explained. In no way do I intend that to mean that I want or that I anticipate that she will leave Wikipedia. I have felt quite saddened at deciding to oppose, and this frankly bizarre response to my comment only saddens me further. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't like your mischaracterisation of adminship as "promotion". Adminship gives content creators the tools they need to help build the encyclopedia. I have to ask why an editor without such extensive experience in substantive matters should benefit from having them at all. I hope that the bureaucrats will extend her a lot more consideration that they gave Liz. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why Tryptofish feels misrepresented. One can appreciate the excellent work a person does in content creation while still opposing them being an administrator. These are very different things. Being an admin is not a big deal and while some people may leave Wikipedia because they don't pass RfA I have confidence that Montanabw will continue their good work even if this RfA does not pass. I think the objections over the word "promotion" is reading a bit much into an innocent use of the word, I very much doubt that Tryptofish was trying to imply that becoming an admin raises one above anyone else. Chillum 23:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do not understand how one can "can appreciate the excellent work a person does in content creation while still opposing them" in doing it. Being an administrator is part and parcel of content creation. The two cannot be distinguished. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually someone can be fantastic at creating content and be a poor admin, one can be a fine admin and lack writing skills. One is about being a good writer, the other is about being good at administration of a project. They are very much two different things. One must never use admin tools in a content matter, that is the sort of thing that makes arbcom take the mop away. Chillum 01:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a good admin involves more than just being a good writer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be true, if it weren't for the block button which comes with the package, and for the additional effect the mere access to that block button can have when administrators throw in their weight as administrators, particularly in disputes involving long-term serious content contributors. If the package came without the block button, I wouldn't be opposing. If it came with a button that allows blocking vandals but not serious content contributors, I wouldn't be opposing. I was unhappy to oppose, as stated, and I ask you to stop trying to guilt those who oppose adminship while sincerely appreciating Montanabw's great content work here and who really don't want her to stop editing here. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be unhappy, but in the end you've decided that departure would be preferable to granting the toolset. And Montanabw is a serious contributor, so what's the difference between that and what you're doing? Not much. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye, I don't know why you chose to bludgeon Tryptofish by accusing them of wanting the candidate to leave Wikipedia, and saying it would be "your fault personally" if she does. Why single out Tryptofish? There are 60+ other people here who have also expressed admiration for Montana's editing while saying she should not have the mop. Furthermore, I completely disagree with your apparent claim that the only possible outcomes from an RfA are, either pass or quit Wikipedia. Not only is that a kind of blackmail - !vote support or else! - but it's not true. We have lots of fine editors here who have made unsuccessful RfAs, some of them multiple times, and who stayed here and continued improving the encyclopedia. In fact, when I see someone quit Wikipedia after a failed RfA, I think "If that's how they react, it's a lucky thing they didn't get the tools." --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the second dig you've had at my expense in this RfA, Hawkeye7. Insulting me does not help Montanabw and just distracts from the focus of the consideration of whether or not this candidacy succeeds. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not singling out Tryptofish. There was just no reason to repeat the same argument a dozen times. I presumed that all of those people could read the one. I was not saying that there was only two possible outcomes, nor that it was their preferred one. I was saying that is true. That there is a risk. It works out to be about one in ten. I was saying that a backhanded pat on the back in no way minimises personal responsibility for the worst outcome. I was saying that people should take responsibility for their own actions.
    I know that some of the people who quit were dummy-spitters. But I also know from experience how constantly niggling, annoying and discouraging it is to not have the toolset, which affects you nearly every time you log on. I know how it feels to be talked down to by people who regard you as being a second-class Wikipedian, and how that can wear you down over time. I know that some quit because of disillusionment arising from this endorsement of the concept that continued improvement of the encyclopaedia must be subordinated to other concerns. I accept your personal belief that the encyclopaedia is be better off without all the people who have left, but I do not share it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: I accept your personal belief that the encyclopaedia is be better off without all the people who have left: I did not say the encyclopedia is better off because they left. I said the encyclopedia is better off because they did not become administrators. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Chillum, what do you mean by "[b]eing an admin is not a big deal"? It's clearly a big deal judging by the level of respect editors give administrators vs. other editors, even when the administrators are wrong, and judging by WP:RfAs. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure you admins get no automatic respect. It is not a big deal, it is just cleaning up around the wiki. It is not a position of power, we are only here to serve the consensus of the community. HighInBC (was Chillum) 14:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flyer22: See WP:NOBIGDEAL. The idea was that all experienced editors would become admins in due course. Thanks to RfA, becoming an admin has become a big deal. And I can also vouch that admins, like content creators, get no respect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Chillum, you can assure me, but my years of experience editing this site (since 2007) has me disagreeing with you on that view. Well, except for the "automatic respect" part; I was not speaking of automatic respect. I am well aware that some administrators have less respect among our peers than others. That stated, Wikipedia editors, especially newbie Wikipedians or otherwise inexperienced Wikipedians, look to administrators as authority figures. I'm sure you know that. There are various examples of this. For example, editors (including experienced editors) are more likely to want an administrator to close a discussion instead of a non-administrator to do so, especially if the discussion is contentious. And that's because they see an administrator's word as likelier to be sound and adhered to. This and similar matters all speak to the level of respect given to Wikipedia administrators. It's common to see our editors stating that they hold administrators in a higher regard and expect them to act that way; this WP:RfA is a prime example of such sentiment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While people may think of me as an authority figure it is a crucial fact that I am not. When we close a discussion we are not deciding the outcome, we are gauging the consensus or lack there of. While some people may think it is a big deal, that does not make it a big deal. I don't even get a pay cheque. HighInBC (was Chillum) 22:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you are aware of how various editors see you because you are an administrator, I see nothing left for me to state on the matter. Well, except for the fact that I know how closing a discussion is supposed to be done. My point about why editors want administrators to close discussions still stands. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some types of discussions that do require an admin to close. While you can close an AfD without being an admin, and I have done so many times, but is is pointless if the verdict is "delete", because you cannot delete the page. I have never had anyone challenge a closure I have made on the grounds of not being an admin. It is a pity that people rely on the admins doing all this work, because we have discussions that have been awaiting closure since 2011. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, regretfully. I have respect for your long-term tenure and contributions to Wikipedia, but I'm concerned by a few things. First and foremost, the details expressed by others definitely reveal a history of consistent inappropriate conduct and the assumption of bad faith beyond what can be considered simple mistakes (which are completely normal and expected; nobody is perfect). This conduct is not compatible with the behaviors required in order to be a successful administrator who is trusted to use the tools in a neutral sense, perform blocks only in a preventative measure, and have the respect of the community. I fear that the tools may be used in a controversial manner if the "right situation" occurs, and when reasonable evidence is brought forward that calls this into question, it should put a "pause button" on anyone's vote (even if it's slight). Your AfD history isn't great, and does need improvement (as pointed out by the others). I'm almost taken back by your answer to Q9 as well, as I don't believe that a web search is necessary to assert whether or not the example article meets A1. Sorry to pile on, but I must oppose for these reasons. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Sorry, I too have battleground concerns. I do not think I have ever opposed, based even in small part on personal interaction but you arrived at Talk:Lincoln Park Zoo to accuse and insult, having shown no prior interest in the article, nor knowledge of its history, but just to denigrate me over a small thing of which template to use, and in the process did not even initially try to understand the concern raised. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unhappy to oppose, as I actually came here with the intention of supporting, but the exchange at Talk:Joseph_(opera) is just too much, too recent, also too nonsingular. If you really want to use that kind of energy in a dispute, at least don't waste it on something as irrelevant as the infobox-debate. Obviously a very valuable content contributor, always a plus in my book, but I don't want our admins to handle conflicts like that. :-( ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I am very sorry to oppose, because I respect Montanabw as a valuable editor here, and I have never had an unpleasant interaction with her. But I just don't think she has the temperament to be an administrator. The many examples given here of BATTLEGROUND behavior, OWNERSHIP issues, and lack of CIVILITY make me fear that she is not cut out to be an administrator. Admins need to be able to see all sides of an argument, remain neutral (and be perceived as neutral) in battleground situations, and remain calm and polite under criticism. I just don't see those abilities in this editor. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. New text added Sept 21: The number of supporters is a testament to Montanabw's work on the project; at least I can only conclude that given the rather astonishing number of them, in light of the nominee's often combative approach in wiki space and talk space. I would much rather have a dispassionate new admin with little content work than a very productive but regularly heated new admin. A good admin gives new editors the benefit of the doubt and dispassionately closes discussions and whatnot; based on the information on this page I feel that the candidate is going to be pretty much the opposite of that. It's not about failing to look beyond the frustrated outbursts that most of us have—but in diff after diff in talk spaces I see this relentless and usually personalized back and forth that appears to transcend one topic or "weak spot"; I have to assume some amount of this approach will be carried into admin work. No thank you. Finally, kudos to anyone strong enough to go through this awful process—but the breakdown of opposers posted by Montanabw during the RFA and linked by Jakob below ... well, it reminds me of my single biggest takeaway from this RFA: we need admins who are less into dividing editors into classes. I welcome the notion that I've misread the candidate, but here I am, not wanting to be a "me-too-er", ya know? // Original text: Per Anthonyhcole (consistently "partisan" is the word I was looking for, thanks); Bishonen; Folantin; others. (For anyone who associates my username with the "infobox debate", I can tell you that I would never oppose a candidate over such ultimately minor preferences unless the related behaviors themselves were a concern. This is the first RFA I've contributed to in years(?) and I do not oppose comfortably or easily.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose – I have no doubt that Montanabw is an excellent contributor to this site with an extended tenure. One could definitely argue she's a net positive, as evidenced by the support in this RfA. However, the battleground mentality and civility issues brought up by multiple users are cause for considerable concern. Taking sides is not the job of an administrator and doing so can undermine the integrity of one who yields the mop (yes it's not a big deal to have the mop in general...but when there are concerns over a candidate's ability to remain level-headed and neutral, that argument is rendered null in my opinion). Dennis Brown aptly analyzed what I believe many of us here see in the candidate in his statements in the neutral section. Again, the candidate is a wonderful content creator and her work is greatly appreciated but I don't feel that the administrator role is the right place for her. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With the colossal mess (in some regards) this is turning into, I feel it necessary to state that I have had no interactions with Montanabw before this RfA and my comments are based on a review of various edits throughout the candidate's history alongside her responses to the numerous questions posed in this RfA. I do wish to extend admiration to the candidate for not lashing out at some of the comments presented here. I still stand by my oppose, however, as character is best judged when not under the spotlight. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. I want first to make two things perfectly clear: 1) MontanaBW is a content provider and reviewer par excellence and I personally have the very best of collaborative relations with her. 2) I was aware that this RfA would be coming sometime soon and I had already drafted an 'oppose' rational, hence my vote is in no way influenced by those of other participants. However, it is not a coincidence that so many in this section (and neutral) are echoing the reasons I had listed in my original draft.
    I have seen Montana around as long as I can remember, and I have been around for getting on for 10 years and I have always been impressed by her content and the assistance she has provided to others whom I have referred to her for help. On the other hand, I have always been saddened by her frequent brash and snarky outbursts which, together with a staggering almost 400 edits to this talk page, the least of which are about collaborating on WP articles and policies, are the elephant in the room; I think that she doesn't always realise that snark is far from always the result of a bear being being poked - some bears are actually quite happy to do the poking and provoking and to defend them might be misplaced. There is just too much drama feeding, and many of her comments lead me to believe that she might not be able to be 100% objective and impartial when judging issues in the capacity of sysop at ANI or closing AfDs. I am really sorry to oppose, but I firmly believe that Montana does not have the right temperament for adminship and would be happier just continuing her superb work in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose regretfully. I came to this RfA very hopeful, as my few interactions with the candidate had been very positive. I have tremendous respect for their content work, something which I hope some day to emulate. However, the doubts (and diffs) about their temperament have been concerning enough that I have to vote here. Passion is a great thing, in some places; areas where admin work are required are not among them. Rather than any specific thing, I am seeing a general tendency to be pushy, a la BATTLEGROUND. Even on this RfA, I found myself wondering at the frequent second or third replies to questions, which suggests an unwillingness to let things go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - just from links in the above comments, I've seen more than enough evidence of battleground mentality, maintenance of grudges, and general prickliness, for this to be a clear-cut oppose. --Stfg (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose As far as I can remember, I've never had any interaction with her - but I have seen her around the drama boards. I had a vague impression from that was she was usually a protagonist rather than a resolver, which prompted my curiousity to look at the various diffs cited here. As a result, I feel the same way as Stfg. The issue and diff highlighted by Sluzzelin seems to me to present a theme which is a common thread of many of the concerning diffs and is at the core of why it would be worrying for her to be an admin. DeCausa (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MontanaBW's reply to my question (no.26) on theTalk:Joseph_(opera) incident was helpful. But, having thought about it I don't think, regretfully, it's enough on balance for me to change my vote. The thread was an example of a theme. Voceditenore asked a follow up question (no. 28), to which she replied "I considered it a mistake almost at the time; probably within 24 hours or so of that edit, once I'd cooled down and the adrenalin cleared...I realized that I overreacted,... I think the record is clear that I do sometimes overreact where I am previously WP:INVOLVED but I intend to continue to work on that tendency and shall consider apologizing more often in the future when appropriate." I don't doubt the sincerity of the reply both to me and to Voceditenore, but how easy is it for someone to change like that in one leap (or, sometimes, at all despite good intentions)? Not very, I think. It would be better and easier to have time to adopt that new approach as a non-admin and come back to this when all can see the change. DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As Sluzzelin has deleted their oppose, I should clarify my reference to the issue they highlighted:it's the thread in Talk:Joseph (opera) which highlighted (very recently) common themes present in other diffs: WP:BATTLE, blindly intervening on behalf of wikifriends without understanding/looking into the context and unnecessarily escalating the situation, and also holding grudges. DeCausa (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose The worst thing an admin could be is to have an brash and unweilding attitude. There's passion in this person but not the calmness towards other other editors that should come aside it. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oh dear; this is very much the most difficult decision i shall make today, after what to eat for lunch. For so many reasons i want to support this candidacy: I admire the nominator as one of the admins most dedicated to the project, with its best interests at heart, so i'd like to trust his judgement; the candidate fully understands why we are here, and has made huge contributions towards that end, albeit in areas i wouldn't (to me, a horse is a horse, of course); we need more admins to help progress the project, admins who understand it and its labyrinthine ways. Unfortunately, it is clear that there are issues which speak to one particular point in my criteria for admins: The candidate, while understanding the purpose of the project, doesn't seem to understand the means ~ we are a community of people, working together to achieve the goal, and anyone who does not respect the community, the humans behind the accounts, who divides those people into friends and foes, is not a good fit for the admin toolset. Particularly worrying were the set of diffs given by Bishonen and the outburst on the Joseph talkpage. I greatly regret finding myself here. Cheers, LindsayHello 13:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. (Moved from Support.) The candidate has a long history of pointlessly escalating conflicts involving her wiki-friends. Volunteers' time is precious, and drama such as candidate's wastes it. Townlake (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose! This is someone who should NEVER have power over others. Her behavior is already completely overbearing and combative. She edit wars everything. My experience of trying to negotiate with her in the John Walsh (U.S. politician) article was truly unpleasant. I think she consistently edited with a political agenda to sanitize, bury or minimize what we reported about the subject's plagiarism scandal. I think she liked Senator Walsh and I don't think she was able to separate that. But what really made it unpleasant was the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I simply can't imagine Montanabw being able to step into a conflict and help deescalate or resolve it. She simply doesn't present those skills. I don't think she shows much ability to hear or respect others' opinions. Personally, I avoid her and would think twice about contributing anything anywhere I think I might run into her simply because life's too short to waste it in conflict with difficult people. Msnicki (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. You are free to vote as you please but I suspect that anyone who examines Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician) will see that Montanabw was on the right side of BLP and was calling it as he saw it, in my view mostly if not fully correctly. Yes, there was a scandal, but a senator is no less a living person than any other and it's important not to jump ahead of the curve, or even to crowd right behind the curve, because what was thought to be reliable information can change and people can get hurt. The force of the internet directed at an article is powerful indeed, leading many, including yourself in that case, to skate close to breaching WP:CRYSTAL. I'm sorry you still feel miffed about it. I think the talk page discussions, in which Montanabw played a part, speak well to why he should be an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite anyone to review that discussion. Walsh was not just "any" living person. He was the essence of a public figure, a sitting US Senator, and the plagiarism scandal was widely reported in depth in the NY Times and elsewhere. It led to his degree being revoked by the US Army War College, it drove him from office and it resulted in the Democrats losing that seat. Amazingly, this still remains buried in the article, without even a section heading. When it becomes impossible to report important, reliably-sourced negative information about the government and those in positions of power in the government because it might "hurt" them, we have a problem. That's not BLP, it's censorship and it's wrong. Msnicki (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To stress that it wasn't the difference of opinion, it was WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, please consider here, where Montanabw admits WP:CANVASSING, including canvassing Wehwalt, the very person who has taken me to task here as "miffed". He and Montanabw tag-teamed me at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive204#Allegations of plagiarism by John Walsh (U.S._politician). I don't mind difference of opinion or debate. I enjoy debate when it's collegial and I often change my !votes, e.g., at AfDs, when better evidence or arguments are presented. What made this episode unpleasant was the win no matter what tactics, the edit warring and especially the canvassing. She doesn't play fair. It's anything to win and that makes it not fun to play with her. Msnicki (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I read your links, and they simply do not support your allegations. this was indeed a nuanced BLP issue and Montana's handling of the situation was not only correct, it was even-tempered (as seen on the BLPN discussion). your own comments and behavior were more battleground than any other involved editor in the discussions - referring to your initial determination to give undue weight to negative BLP material before the issue had even fully developed. Minor4th 15:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So WP:CANVASSING was okay because I deserved it? Msnicki (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Too many drama llamas. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose, per Townlake (both votes), iridescent, Floquenbeam, Kraxler, Miniapolis, Jaguar, Biblioworm, Esquivalience, Conifer, Bishonen, Anthonyhcole, Folantin, Coretheapple, MelanieN, Cyclonebiskit, Kudpung, Msnicki, Ritchie333, and Dennis Brown. When there are this many 'alarm bells' going off, it behooves us to listen to them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose, Strange, though I agree with much of what iridescent write; my conclusions are the opposite. Pr Bishonen, Anthonyhcole, regretfully oppose, Huldra (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strongly oppose I had several strange and very unpleasant run-ins with MontanaBW. She is highly proprietary about Montana historical articles, with a very heavy hand on the delete button, especially if it disturbs her political sensibilities. The idea that a political conservative like me could add details on cattlemen was unacceptable. That was bad enough, but it escalated out of control twice. Here on Wikipedia she made slashing personal attacks on me in Sept. 2013 at Talk:Labor unions in the United States. I complained to ANI when she called me a liar, alleging I falsified my connection to Montana State University (she did not notice I was listed on the MSU website. (For the record then and now I am an official Research Professor of History at Montana State U--Billings). She for no reason erased the first efforts by a leading expert from the Montana historical society who was adding material on the fur trade an area of his specialty. Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Discussion on Rjensen's oppose. (0 comments) Esquivalience t 00:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose blackballed since forever. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose per evidence above, ownership and battleground issues rule this request out. TheOverflow (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Another one who came here with an open mind per MontanaBW's excellent contributions, but this? Really? Sorry, no. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Sadly, for all her talent, has a tendency to WP:OWN articles and would likely not be able to be neutral enough in many situations.→StaniStani 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Will not tolerate the tactics. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain please.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)) I'm not sure what tactics you mean thus the question. But no worries.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Moved from neutral. edit: See oppose #40 for PART of the issue. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are including Verditas' cmt as part of a reason to vote against.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    yup. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Words fail me.Truly.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Well, I imagine you wore yourself out responding to Bishonen on the talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Reading what others have said, and various things this person has said in various places others have linked to, I don't think they'd be a good administrator. Dream Focus 01:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Per the outburst on Talk:Joseph_(opera), the diffs posted by Bishonen, and battleground concerns previously mentioned. kcowolf (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Moved to oppose from support. WP:Battleground, WP:Own, 96 AN reports, this recent edit reflecting WP:Own. The user definitely needs a long-term change in their interaction and dealings with other users to make a successful RfA in the future. However, now does not seem like a fit time to hand over the mop, although the user appears to have strong contributions to the wiki. --JustBerry (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Manichean. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose - I don't think it would be wise to give the mop to someone with this much baggage presented in this RfA. GamerPro64 02:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose - per all of the above. Hlevy2 (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - After reading numerous discussions linked above and some digging around myself, I have to admit lack of confidence in her having sufficient calmness and caution to be given the blocking button. As secondary less important issues, the AfD record raises some doubts, and it is a questionable decision to post a message [36] that could be interpreted as thanking RfA supporter with very highly watched talk page while RfA is still active.--Staberinde (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content moved to the talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. STRONG OPPOSE While I have enjoyed reading several of her articles and value Montanabw's considerable contributions—many of which are high-quality and have achieved FA and GA status—her past and present temperament is of the sort that should never have the administrative bits. I consider the excessive record of ownership and battleground mentality to be a predictive (and negative) indicator of her potential behavior as an administrator. While her frequent appearance at WP:AN, agenda-driven content actions (especially at AfD) and talk page antics are cause for concern—even though certainly long-time users get into an occasional spat with other users (it's natural)—I am deeply troubled by her Nixonian "hit list" mentioned above at User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox and her seemingly bitter grudgefest interactions with Dr Blofeld, Rationalobserver, and Rjensen are quite beyond the pale. I would advise her to withdraw and not consider a future RfA for at least another ten years (should her behavior change for the better). On a side note, if Q3 is going to be answered with a banal statement that says nothing about the conduct awareness and teachable moments derived from specific interpersonal disputes (as we have seen there are several here), the question is rendered essentially meaningless and moot. If we have disputes, it is incumbent upon us to grow from them and improve, especially in terms of behavior adjustments, that's the revealing purpose behind Q3. Montanabw's vague non-answer to Q3, from my viewpoint, is a waste of time in that it dodges the question. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: It seems Montanabw is of the opinion "If I fail, I'll just try again in six months"--but there's no indication that she really accepts or is willing to accept the reasons of our opposition to her RfA now--I sense a resistance to seeing the need to learn from them. I think that's a bit more than a little arrogant or presumptuous on her part to expect things will just change on their own in 6 months. I'm a tad offended by such a glib nonchalant attitude. Know I'll be watching, Montanabw. I don't think you should consider another RfA anytime soon unless drastic changes are made in how you treat others. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Regretful oppose While this user is a great asset to the project I fear that an occasionally combative attitude is problematic. Admins need to constantly be de-escalating situations and the only stick they should carry is the olive branch. Chillum 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose per the many, many reasons stated above me. Someone with that big of a battleground attitude shouldn't be handed the mop IMO. Azealia911 talk 16:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. While her contributions in mainspace are much appreciated, I have to agree with MelanieN. --Rschen7754 21:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose per MelanieN and too many others to name. Calidum 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose acknowledge significant content contribution, but that has resulted in displays of ownership, battlefield tactics and incivility (see the various links above), that lead me to conclude that this user is unsuited to adminship. HolidayInGibraltar (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose - The AFD stats are a bit of an issue, as others above have pointed out, but the larger reason for my oppose is the concern over civility, ownership, and a battleground mentality pointed out by many in the oppose and neutral sections (and even support section, for that matter). Inks.LWC (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strongly oppose. ((subst:Discussion on Moonsell's oppose -Full vote))There are unheard voices here, though I suspect they may be cowed. I appreciate there are editors in whose experience they have been able to collaborate constructively with Montanabw and I'm happy for them. But at least one person here is prepared to say, that is not the whole story.

    My experience of being in a situation where I needed editorial collaboration with Montanabw has been different — not just in the heat of some moment but consistently over more than two months. It was one of relentless edit warring based on cronyism. She showed herself addicted to gaming the system without scruples. I've now moved the detail of this to the Talk page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Montanabw#Discussion_on_Moonsell.27s_oppose.

    Moonsell (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to chime in here, this was very much my experience also. Once she's identifies you as a "problem editor" and you're on her radar, she doesn't pull ANY punches. And, I have a hard time believing that, once she has the mop, she won't use it also. See my response to Voceditenore's vote, below. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose My primary reason is that there are too many instances of partisanship and personalised aggression towards other editors when the candidate or one of her friends is engaged in what should be a courteous discussion but rapidly turns into a slanging match. I've only participated in one other RfA. In that one I had supported the candidate writing, he is also very good at communicating with editors who have (intentionally or unwittingly) violated the copyright policy on Wikipedia. [...] His restraint and patience are admirable — administrators working this area sometimes have to take a fair amount verbal attack and/or "I didn't hear that". [37]. In my view, those are the key attributes needed by an administrator, and they are simply not here on a consistent basis. One of the admins whom this candidate stated that she particularly respected for their "no-nonsense candor" and who were the type of admins that were particularly needed here had been desyopped two months earlier for using the tools while involved and sending an insulting email to the person they blocked. I'm not saying this candidate would do something quite that serious, but I find that approach very concerning. The AfD record has been cited by some here as another reason to oppose. I don't find the actual results (65% congruence) concerning, they are quite normal for editors who take a fairly inclusionist approach (or deletionist for that matter). However, I looked through the AfD results in the last year where her !vote didn't match the conclusion and what I do find concerning in an admin candidate are the kinds of arguments used for "Keep", e.g. "Google hits" (where the hits were to self-published websites, blogs, and Yahoo groups), DONTDEMOLISH, and OTHERSTUFF. Personalising an AfD discussion with comments like "Looks to me like you are just on your own little one-person crusade here" are not helpful either. If the candidate takes on board the many thoughtful criticisms and comments here from supporters (e.g. Floquenbeam), opposers (e.g. Bishonen), and neutrals (e.g. Dennis Brown) alike, and can go a whole year without the problems cited in this discussion. I'd be be inclined to support a future RfA. Voceditenore (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin you speak of as having been desyopped, actually blocked me as a sock shortly before he was desyopped. No SPI, just an out-of-the-blue block. Even blocked my talk page to prevent me from asking from a reevaluation. Montanabw was VERY MUCH aware of this block and I have also seen posts where she laments that he was desyopped. She simply cannot see problems with the behavior of people to whom she is loyal. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose From the edits that I have seen, they seem far too inclined towards escalation of conflicts. TigerShark (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose This isn't about her great contributions that she has for sure, it is about what evidence has been presented. My advice for Montana granted admin-ship or not is to take these oppose opinions to heart and work on what she needs improving on. I also want to say I have seen admin here that are both good contributions as well as good admin. If this doesn't end up being successful and I see a change in Montana I will with a whole heart support her in the next RfA as she can be very helpful and kind towards others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I will agree with others and say this edit right here: [38] bothers me. I am sure there are people here who are after you because they have some kind of grudge, but even if that were true pointing it out on your talk-page and calling a group out is never a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to Montana's WP:INVOLVED comment for Q28, actions speak louder than words saying you "understand". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Changing from support to Oppose. Had initially supported her, but then became aware of this appalling comment, which I find deeply objectionable and disqualifying her from the tools. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What's appalling about it? CassiantoTalk 06:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No big deal the candidate indirectly refers to specifically me as example of "asshole" in that diff (she's called me worse: "RANDY", "DIVA", "bully"). (If I were an admin or candidate, however, I'd not be caught dead doing that kind of thing. Keeping professional in a position of responsibility based on others' invested trust is a matter of self-respect, me thinks.) IHTS (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cassianto: Administrators should be distancing themselves from incivility and the battleground mentality, not embracing it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No shit, although your diff shows no such thing and certainly isn't "appalling". CassiantoTalk 19:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. This is a tough one; I've been on the fence and figuring I would just sit this one out. I don't like the way that RfA's turn into referendums on a person's character or worth. I don't really feel qualified to sit in judgement of someone like Montanabw; I don't think I occupy any sort of moral high ground, I'm far from perfect, and I'm not sure I'd pass an RfA in today's climate either. I don't think people should have to be perfect to pass RfA, and I think it's far too hard for anyone who's done anything remotely related to controversial content to run the gauntlet here. It's too hard to find any sort of nuance that acknowledges someone's good qualities while still expressing reservations about the wisdom of giving them access to the "block" button. There's a disappointing surfeit of dumbassery in both the "Support" and "Oppose" sections (along with a lot of serious, thoughtful commentary, on a more positive note). That said...

    Here are a couple of positives. I think Montanabw does great content work. The AfD issue doesn't bother me at all; as others have noted, the general cluefulness level at AfD has declined to the point that many of them are wrongly decided anyway, so the fact that Montanabw has argued at variance with AfD "consensus" may be a mark in her favor, rather than a negative. At best, I don't view it as problematic. I think she's been pretty restrained and polite during this process, which would test anyone's patience. Frankly, the passive-aggressive "gotcha!" questioning and attacks from RationalObserver are pretty appalling, and I don't think anyone should be subjected to them. I feel a lot of sympathy for Montanabw in having to put up with this vindictive, petty nonsense, and I've been tempted to put myself down in the "Support" column solely as moral support for Montanabw for having to put up with RationalObserver's attacks. In an ideal world, we wouldn't permit this kind of unfair, vindictive misuse of RfA.

    My concerns here are pretty much the same as those articulated by Iridescent and Floq (in the "Support" column) and Bishonen and Anthonyhcole (in the "Oppose" column). The fact that intelligent, clueful people can see the same issues and reach different conclusions speaks to the challenge here. The issue in question is the tendency toward reflex partisanship based on personality politics.

    Regarding the dispute between IRWolfie and Littleolive oil described by Bishonen, I disagree with Montanabw about the identities of the "victim" and "bully", but that's not a big deal; reasonable people can differ, etc. My concern is that Montanabw jumped to adverse conclusions about one of the participants without bothering to check the underlying facts, about which she turned out to be incorrect. I'm more troubled by the more recent interaction at Talk:Joseph (opera). In that instance, Montanabw joined in and escalated a dispute, making explicit in the process that she had no interest in the content per se but was rather operating solely as a "defender" of one of the participants. This is the definition of inappropriate tag-teaming. Worse, after Gerda herself tried to defuse and de-escalate the conflict, Montanabw refused to back down and actually escalated it further, attacking Folantin in pretty unfair terms—again, not because she cared about the content dispute, but rather on the basis of personality politics, supporting a "friend", etc. This interaction bothers me more each time I look at it, which is why I'm in this column at present. The bottom line is that I worry about how both of these disputes would have progressed if Montanabw had had access to the BLOCK button.

    Again, I don't like participating in these sorts of RfA's and I don't view Montanabw as a "bad" editor or person—in fact, I think she's a very good editor. I just think that a tendency to jump into disputes in favor of one's friends, or without looking closely at the underlying facts, does not combine well with access to the BLOCK button. I wish Montanabw the best of luck however this RfA turns out. If it's successful, I hope some of this resonates as constructive feedback. If it's not successful, I hope that she doesn't take it personally (although I understand it's almost impossible not to) and continues to do excellent work here. MastCell Talk 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  66. Oppose Obviously a fabulous and tireless contributor to Wikipedia. However the many disputes linked to above show that the subtle touch required of an administrator is perhaps not there. The stats on AfD nominations are also very poor. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose I can not support and am not neutral. This dramatic editor unnecessarily AfD an article with obvious source support [39] and then unapologetically subjected me to a baseless SPI to quash me to a univolved but known villain [40]. User:Doncram requested the editor to apologize and warned of battleground acts; the result was further dirty accusations toward me. I felt wiki S&M whipped and abused. Would not wish this editor to disrupt with admin capabilities. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose too many concerns over civility and battleground behavior, like at Talk:Joseph (opera) (and did you just call some of the opposers assholes on your talk page?). Perhaps try again after 1-2 years of changed attitude. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Jakob, no, she didn't. The diff you gave shows her not correcting a previous comment ~ by someone else ~ who did call some of us assholes; a minor difference, perhaps, but one which might make a small difference. Mine apologies if this has already been pointed out. Cheers, LindsayHello 14:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strongly oppose WP:Battleground mentality. Planned attack and AfD prior to any editing involvement with an article. See: [41] for details. I believe she lacks the skills required of an admin, and does not understand (or chooses to ignore) the principles on which Wikipedia is founded. She was unable to reason calmly and dispassionately, demonstrated a personal agenda based on religious prejudice, and condoned the reduction of a high quality, well-referenced article to a stub in a series of mass edits. eg: "are you up for the Sh--storm if I were to AfD the article? Montanabw(talk) 19:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)" Her Talk page arguments were incoherent and inflammatory, and she appeared unable to understand the difference between fabrication and fact.Lily W (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. I am not an experienced or long term editor and have had no direct contact with the subject. I base my opposition on having read through the Q&A, discussion, and most importantly the diff/links. The subject's combativeness seems not to have mellowed over the years of her editing. This aint a good thing when even I have learned to avoid conflict in a little over a year. Juan Riley (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose. From my experience, editors that take a confrontational attitude toward editing tend to make the most problematic administrators. In this case, I would strongly recommend that Montanabw focus her Wikipedia efforts into the area where she is most accomplished and most appreciated, creating content, rather than into becoming an administrator. Deli nk (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. It dismays me but after going back through her edits I have to vote oppose. Montanabw is clearly a skilled editor who has contributed much to the project, as many people in this RfA have observed (both fors and againsts). I am particularly swayed by MastCell’s objective oppose rationale above. Montanabw is not a bad person but I feel she can’t see what it is that many others see about her behaviour. If she comes back here in a few months time I hope that in the meantime she has introspectively examined her attitude, and identified where desirable changes can be made. If she doesn’t improve her attitude she will never pass RfA, so her future is in her own hands. Moriori (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Too many examples of being too combative. I'm not happy with some of the answers or AfD responses (eg. in Q9, A1 is no context, not insufficient content; no context means one cannot tell what the article is about, and if the organization and place is specified, it is possible to tell, and the criterion is totally inapplicable. ) but this is a quite minor issue considering the extremely intemperate nature of comments over many years. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. I came here as a support, especially seeing the contributions; however, after about 90 minutes of reading diffs I don't see the temperament that is needed in an Admin. From biting newcomers, to casting aspersions including of sockpuppetry this year to those seen as the opposition, I don't trust this user to step back and be objective when things heat up. Rmosler | ● 05:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. There is a lot of evidence of an unduly combative approach above, which is not what we want to see in an admin. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong oppose. Editor is a good content provider, but not the right temperament for adminship. I have found the editor to be exceptionally combative, and on a personal level has caused me to take a couple of wikibreaks for their extreme accusations of bad faith and similar. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's certainly no smoke without fire CassiantoTalk 08:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the evidence in all the other "oppose" !votes speaks for itself. I don't seem to be the only one who has had bad experiences with this editor. I note quite a few references to her "wiki-friends" by other "oppose" editors too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I too have had a bad experience with Montanabw, but I'm able to look past the end of my nose. CassiantoTalk 19:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Per concerns and evidence of her battleground mentality and incivility. A worryingly combative attitude for someone applying for adminship. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide "evidence" (a dif) about your alleged concerns in regards to incivility of that user. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to several diffs provided by other editors. To me, enough evidence that cannot I trust her with the tools. I'm sure she means well, but I would want to see a better attitude from an admin candidate, one less likely to cause trouble in the future. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Don't normally take part in RfA's because I usually don't know the individual concerned. I've come here from AN/I. Any editor who doesn't know not to edit the article about themselves has no business even applying for a mop. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC) withdrawn -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: When did Montanabw edit an article about herself? You're not confusing her with someone else, are you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Roxy, you've got the wrong end of the stick here. The candidate has not edited an article about herself. That ANI report was about one of the opposers to her candidacy who had edited an article about himself. It was not about her. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    e/c I'll check again, and of course apologise and withdraw if I've cocked it up again. Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I suppose at this point it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, except if it hadn't been pointed out, someone would have come along and and opposed "per Roxy the dog", and then I would have had to weep about the state of RFA for a few days. I don't have time for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a reason I don't normally participate in these sorts of thing. This is an example of that. I apologise to Montanabw, and have struck my vote above. sorry. ADDENDUM. don't know how to do it and remove the tally. please could a competent editor fix? Thx. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)-Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Based on the answers to several questions that I would like an answer to, I can't support this candidate. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish computer, out of curiosity, do you actually have a diff for calling people who vote Oppose "assholes", yesterday? The claim sounded so unlike her (I've seen her get angry with people before, but that's not the kind of language she uses), that I've just gone through every contribution of hers for 21 Sep to see if it was genuine, and I certainly can't see it anywhere. ‑ iridescent 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Several people need their eyes tested, [42] The "assholes" comment wasn't made by Montana.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it's tenuous. She impliedly appears to agree ("the individuals you describe above") with someone else's use of the word. Hardly a reason to "oppose"; I think some are trying to make hay with it. But it probably wasn't the wisest thing to have said if she wanted to continue to contend for this. Maybe she didn't by then. DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: @Dr. Blofeld: Oh God, sorry! I trusted what others were saying above. Dr. Blofeld, please put your point in a prominent place. --Rubbish computer 18:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Please disregard my earlier point, which was wrong. I am voting for this per her earlier displays of temperament, apparent WP:OWNERSHIP of articles and past harrassment of an editor, as is mentioned above. --Rubbish computer 19:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose, per Voceditenore, MastCell, Bishonen. I don't want to be here, but here I am. There is much I admire in Montanabw: she is energetic, meticulous and tenacious, and these are all good qualities. Her behaviour during this difficult process has been exemplary, too. She and I share several interests and frequently interact, usually fairly cordially. But we also have a long and acrimonious past history (for which I take my full share and more of the blame). Some of it is at my talk and in this ANI thread; it's all water under the bridge now. However, I can confirm from extensive and fairly bitter personal experience the various criticisms of behaviour that I see further up this page: battleground, tag-teaming, ownership, incivility and the like. I was, in my perception, relentlessly harassed by this editor for about a year. I left the project (my edit history, my edits). I am extremely concerned to read here reports of recent similar behaviour towards other editors such as LynnWysong. Wikipedia simply cannot afford to risk driving off good-faith editors. Regretfully, I have to oppose this nomination. More diffs on request, if those in the ANI thread aren't enough. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. MastCell said everything that I would have said above; like him, I've also been on the fence since the start of this RfA. Montanabw is an editor who I've always wanted to see run for adminship, and I thought it would be an easy support when she finally did. However, the incidents cited by other participants are enough cause for concern that I would not feel comfortable supporting her at this time. Administrators who are interested in dispute resolution need to demonstrate the ability to keep things under control, but Montanabw has often shown a tendency to exacerbate situations where it was unnecessary. In no way should my opposition here reflect on her value as an editor and a member of our community. She is a tremendous asset and I hope to see her around for years to come. Kurtis (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose No feuding allowed in my book. Record not good enough. Rcsprinter123 (utter) 22:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose I've had one encounter with nominee during a talk page discussion. Please see discussion from Talk:Richard Nixon/Archive 8 during 16–17 December 2012. The nominee also posted my user id on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations as a sockpuppet of User:Spellage a few days after the talk page discussion on 21 December 2012. I have been a member of en.wikipedia since December 2005. Her statements and action towards me, during that discussion, are not experiences I would want other editors to endure. Mitchumch (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Weak oppose, reluctantly. The sheer number of supports is a testament to the candidate's content work, and I congratulate Montanabw on their place on WP:RFX100. However, the CIV/battleground mentality concerns brought up by at least a dozen opposers (being too passionate about content work, etc.) unfortunately outweigh that. NETPOS does not urge us to always support a candidate because they are likely to be a net positive; it urges us to support only if, overall, the candidate is a net positive (taking into consideration potentials, chances, and magnitudes of positive and negative consequences of being sysopped). Thanks. Very respectfully, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this is a "weak" oppose because I did not have adequate time to investigate the facts, not because the analysis of the facts, if true as presumed, warrants a "weak" oppose. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose, reluctantly, as per Mike Cline, as this is a powerhouse editor with in-depth knowledge of both horses and Montana, and a really fun person if you ever get to meet her! The questions raised about this candidate regarding WP:OWN highlight the problems of not having a editorial board structure to help sort out the drive-by editors from people with real expertise. Very few experts at Montanabw's level would have the patience or perseverance to persist with Wikipedia as she has done, or the argumentation skills needed to maintain articles at the level of an expert's point of view without getting blocked. However, there is a second factor, besides lack of an editorial board structure, that keeps experts away from this encyclopedia, and it is a rude, disrespectful and unprofessional atmosphere, as seen in the attempt to be supportive of her at this diff. This sort of exchange, repeated endlessly, with many variations, in Wikipedia's talk and administrative spaces, prevents me and many other professionals from making significant contributions here. If she ever changes her mind on where to draw the line, and decides that a polite, professional atmosphere is important here, then I'd certainly be happy to support! --Djembayz (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose One of the things that makes Wikipedia uglier than it has to be, is partisanship. I see little of that behavior among the admin corps and we should keep it that way. If Montanabw wants the bit, she should walk more true and neutral when conflicts arise and show that she will not be part of the partisan problem. I speak as someone who received the nasty end of a partisan response from her within the last month (in her response, I was 100% wrong and "her people" were 100% OK) and that experience echoes the feedback of others here. There is not enough distance from the problematic behavior. Saying "I won't block if I am involved" is not enough; the comments of admins have weight and we need to be able to trust that they are considered and fair. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never had a bad experience with Montana and supported this RfA, but a large number of people can obviously attest to the fact that this is a legitimate problem and I endorse the sentiments of this comment 100%. I think this perfectly summarizes the lesson she should take from this RfA. Swarm ♠ 03:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral, leaning weak oppose. Moved to oppose. It's refreshing for me to finally see a nominee whose "User talk:" edits are not in the top 2 highest amounts of edits they have done; the nominee's top 2 are the "Article:" and "Talk:" namespaces, both valuable namespaces to participate in regards to ensuring that the main reason why we are here, content creation. However, in regards to this editor becoming a administrator: I'm not completely sold. Here's my main concern: "User talk:" edits are significantly higher than the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. For an administrator, I consider experience in the "Wikipedia:" namespace a very necessary trait. The "Wikipedia:" namespace is where most, if not all, of the WP:XFD forums reside. In addition, all of the "request fulfillment" pages (such as WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:REFUND) are all in the "Wikipedia" namespace. Long story short, if one doesn't have ample experience in participating in consensus-based discussions or being a "requester", then I do not see supporting evidence to need to give them the administrator tools to close discussions to "delete", or "be the one fulfilling requests". Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to Q13 is putting me on the edge of changing my vote. If there is not a major drive or the need to use the tools, then why should they be granted? It seems that less than 5% of the existing administrators are active in performing administrative tasks; I'd rather not contribute to making that percentage lower than it already is. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious why you feel that the relative percentage is more important than the absolute quantity. I don't believe anyone should be obligated to meet certain admin activity requirements beyond a basic level required to maintain competence (awareness of policy developments, etc). She does indeed say, "I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop". Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others. — Earwig talk 02:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question is why would you give the tools to someone who will only need them sporadically. RO(talk) 02:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to that is, as above, "Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others." The only exception to that I can think of is if their infrequent actions are poor (due to, e.g., inexperience) that they cause problems and other users need to spend time reviewing them. Given Montanabw's consistent activity over nearly ten years, I can't see that applying here. — Earwig talk 02:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To me, stating that they have seen "a need" doesn't equate to them having the experience and knowledge of going through the proper channels and forums that exist on Wikipedia. If a need is found, it should be reported on the proper board as soon as possible so that an existing administrator can resolve the issue, and so its existence can be validated for our fellow editors who don't have the privilege of being an administrator and only have the option of reporting it. I'm honestly a bit tired of seeing an editor being granted the admin tools, but doesn't have the drive to manage or understand the boards that existing administrators monitor and assist ... which I have found is usually due to lack of experience participating on them as a "requester." Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you had not had an edit conflict, you would have noticed that Earwig points out The candidate has been editing for 10 years in March. I am pretty sure she's filed many requests at the various boards over time, and has no lack of experience in doing so. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the edit ratios, and even noticed that the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace is over 3000. Experience may be there, but since that namespace is not even in the top 4 of their most-edited namespaces 10% of their total edits, it doesn't seem to be a focus of theirs. (However, I found a different reason for opposition, so I'm sticking where I moved my vote.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I like Montanabw, she's a great editor and fun to be around, so I can't really bring myself to oppose right now, but I privately discussed nominating her for RfA myself in June and concluded I couldn't, partly because of the track record at AfD. As it stands today, it's just under 65% called correctly on 140 debates - that's just not quite enough to show a good understanding of basic inclusion policies and how to demonstrate them in an argument. Specific examples I raised previously are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karuna Institute (2nd nomination) ("Keep:Adequate notability established. Needs expansion, but that is not grounds for AfD. See WP:DONOTDEMOLISH") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition Survivors ("Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, the thing is two days old, for chrissake, let the creator work on it and expand it a bit.") both of which just sound too much like wanting to keep an article based on wishful thinking than improving it or supplying sources. Since my discussions with her, I now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities impacted by current sea level rise ("This article has a clear criteria for inclusion (cities currently affected and those having a plan to deal with it) and per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, it is a valid topic that will, no doubt, expand.") with exactly the same problem! These aren't the only examples, but the most obvious ones that come to mind. In short, I feel there is a serious risk that Montanabw will end up causing more drama and controversy than reducing it, simply by being herself. Sorry. Still, this RfA looks like a slam dunk pass, so what do I know? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It's one thing to play AfD as a numbers game, and try to get one's AfD stats up by going with the existing !votes so that your own !vote will match the final close. It's another to be a courageous inclusionist and genuinely care about articles that one considers potentially useful or encyclopedic, and to go to bat for them. Folks can turn AfD stats into a weapon and claim that poor matches indicate someone who does not understand notability or policy and therefore someone who would make a bad admin or who would close XfDs against consensus. I'm not at all sure that follows. Being a heartfelt inclusionist does not necessarily mean that one would close XfDs against policy, and it certainly does not mean that one does not understand consensus. Having courageously unpopular opinions in AfDs is probably a good thing, and a sign of someone who thinks for themselves and is not playing a numbers game for the "stats". All of that said, I commend Ritchie for having this unpopular !vote/opinion, and if it has merit, I hope Montanabw takes it into consideration if and when closing AfDs and making other notability or other policy decisions. Cheers, Ritchie. Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie, don't you think she's smart enough to recognise consensus (or no consensus) and has integrity enough to close per that - regardless of whether she agrees with the outcome? (I do.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the time, I think she'll be okay. It's more a gut feeling that every now and again there'll be one that results in a massive noticeboard thread somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also uncomfortable about User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox - I appreciate that gathering evidence for an ANI or Arbcom case has merit, but this could easily be interpreted as "A list of people Montanabw doesn't get on with" ... keeping a log of editors you've butted heads with seems incompatible with the fairness and level headedness we expect from admins. I am certain I have either told her, or at least intended to tell her, to get the page deleted per WP:CSD#G7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please post a diff of you asking her to get it deleted or remove the statement as irrelevant. The community, or at least a small subset of it, endorsed the page at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Montanabw/ANI_sandbox; certainly there's nothing untoward of her keep a record of the times her own behavior was raised in dispute resolution forums. It's fair to ask her to remove out of date content and I shall do so forthwith. NE Ent 11:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, Ritchie and NE Ent, that the ANI sandbox you have linked above contains material on only one user, who has had multiple identities, including a recent sock that resulted in an indef block on that user about a month ago. Like ItsLassieTime, I probably need to prepare a LTA for this user so that I can blank that sandbox. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I don't question Montanabw's contributions to articles, which are tremendous. Her AFD record is cause for concern, but I would have to dig more and see why the percentage is so low before using that as a deciding factor. What puts me here is different. Montanabw would probably make a great lawyer because she knows how to be an advocate for a person or cause, and I think that is a very good quality for an editor here. Passion and persistence (to a degree) are helpful to move things forward and to insure that both sides of an argument are heard, but being an admin requires being able to step back, be less involved in the mix, and simply apply policy using experience and your belief in what a consensus of the community would agree to. I'm not sure she can make that transition. This isn't a negative statement on her character, quite the opposite in fact, but it can get in the way when you are an admin and that those same qualities that are helpful in hammering out difficult content, make you a lightning rod for drama and criticism when you are using the tools. There are a great many editors at Wikipedia whom I hold in high esteem, typically due to their content contributions, but that doesn't mean I think they would make great admin, often because the passion they show in editing (and sometimes fighting about that content) could get in the way if they had the tools. So for now, I'm here in the land of neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos to Dennis for making a genuinely clueful and relevant statement here. I hope that M takes these words to heart, and steps way back when using the admin tools. Perhaps if she sticks to the mundane and the obvious for quite some time, and saves her passion and opinionatedness for non-admin edits and posts, all will be well. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm generally not going to pop into these discussions as I am the candidate, but here, I feel it is appropriate to note that I am following these discussions and I appreciate Dennis's comments and do take them to heart. Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral...This is a very tough call as I respect the noms greatly along with numerous supporters and opposers. I've worked tangentially with Montana (we share the same state of birth though I only lived in Montana as a child and off and on since), so our contributions overlap but I've never personally had any bad encounters with her and regard her a net positive in the arenas she works in. I generally lean to support female admins of which we have too few and always willing to overlook the occasional miscues, however the opposers have presented evidence that prevents me from supporting at this time. I think a six month period hence with no evidence of the issues mentioned by the opposition would land me in the enthusiastic support column.--MONGO 16:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: I will neither support nor oppose my fellow Montana Wikipedian. Her contributions speak for themselves. I will however opine that I suspect there’s a good probability BW will stumble when it comes to civility on confrontational issues she gets involved in as an admin. BW has a propensity to become snarky and sarcastic unexpectedly during discussions where other editors might disagree with her. Example: [43]. This may be tolerable by an editor, but when it comes to admins, no matter what decisions they make, 50% of the participants are likely to disagree and engage and challenge the admin on the decision. There’s no doubt in my mind that BW is capable of good decisions in the best interest of WP, but I think confrontations as an admin will eventually get the better of her. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I am truly undecided about this RfA. Montanabw is undeniably an enthusiastic and dedicated content creator. She eagerly helps editors that she views as comrades in arms in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. But being a superb editor is different than being a great administrator. I can't forget times when she pursued accounts she believed were sockpuppets to a greater degree than even CUers or clerks. Some might see these actions as a dedication to sockhunting but for those accounts that are not proven to be sockpuppets, it looks like harassment that can drive away new contributors. I also see a sort of score-keeping, as in Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore_infobox mentioned in Folantin's remarks. Wikipedia has suffered in the past from admins who held grudges and while Montanabw has been calm, cordial and polite in her conduct in this RfA (which is admirable!) I'm not sure she can let go of her penchant to come to the aid of those who are friends and have no sympathy for those she sees as less worthy. Administrators sometimes need to actively defend editors they dislike if their edits are on the right side of policy. Right now, my vote could go either way and, believe me, Montanabw, I know the next 5 days will seem like 50 days but they will help me make up my mind. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But being a great administrator is absolutely synonymous with being a superb editor. But what is a sure sign of a really poor admin? Talking down to the content creators because you have no sympathy for those you see as less worthy? Promising at RfA to improve a dismal record of content creation and then doing nothing about it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning weak oppose. Moved to oppose I will, for full disclosure, say right now that my vote will not swing to support. I was at the receiving end of Montanabw's behavioral issues for too long for that to be possible. I do have to give her credit for finally deciding to behave civilly, and since then we have been able to colloborate fairly successfully on some articles, although her ownership and resulting dictatorial behaviors have continued to be a source of frustration to me. At that end, I posed question 14. She danced around the question, crafting her answers around her and my interaction, but finally said something that spoke volumes to me. When I pinned her down by asking: "Even if one doesn't wield the mop, isn't a disservice to the project to have an admin who doesn't acknowledge and temper ownership issues?" she responded "If there IS an actual problem." Seriously? I had, in my question, brought out this diff and other compelling evidence that there is NO DOUBT a problem. Since then this discussion was brought to light in which Montanabw stated: "But let's not be a hypocrite, if you want to own this article, then respect the "ownership" of others." O.M.G. Here is someone who, at the time was drumming up support for this rfa, was outright condoning ownership of articles. Non ownership of articles is a BASIC PREMISE of wikipedia, and here we have an editor that blatantly flouts that policy trying to become an admin. And, that's not the only policy I have seen her openly disregard. My observation is that, she feels entitled to disregard the rules of behavior, rules on civility, ownership, tag-teaming, admin-shopping, etc., in order to enforce the rules she believes to be more important, no OR, no close paraphrasing, no Synth., etc. Yes, she does write some good content, but her rigidness in insisting that the rules she wants followed be followed to the letter, combined with her attitude that that end justifies any means, is a big overall minus in my mind. And, she is oblivious to these issues. Go back to earlier in this paragraph. "IF there is an actual problem"???? I've seen so many support votes stating that, by giving her the tools, she will step up to the plate. I don't see how she can step up to a plate she can't even see. I agree with MONGO. She needs to acknowledge these issues, then work on them for at least six months, better a year. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - Like many others here, I like Montanabw as a person and believe she is a strong force for good. I admire her loyalty to her friends, yet I understand Bishonen's point as well. The episode with Folantin also gives me pause. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. (Moved from support) Sigh. Much as it pains me based on Montanabw's excellent content work, I see too much baggage/drahma surfacing at this RfA for me to support it.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I came to this process ready to support; I have the utmost respect both for the candidate's content work and strong understanding of the norms associated with page improvement here. Likewise, I have respect for the nominators and trust their judgement; I think it likely they weighed the pluses and minuses before nominating. On reading the oppose and neutral assertions in this process, I can't help but be reminded of my first impressions in interaction with the nominee and therefore have a hard time dismissing some described behaviors as occasional missteps. I see a pattern of behavior I can't endorse in an admin candidate. I won't support at this time, but will not oppose. BusterD (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Moved here from support. A lot of information and discussion has occurred since my initial support. I haven't had a chance to read through it all so until that time, I have moved here. Mkdwtalk 20:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral As far as I can recall I have not run across the candidate very much in the course of editing, and I have no personal experience to incline me to express an opinion either way. I see that in both the support and oppose camps there are editors whom I respect greatly. There is plainly very strong feeling among both the supporters and the opponents, and I regret that I cannot contribute more to the discussion. Tim riley talk 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral A great potential candidate, but just a bit too temperamental to cast a support vote.--TMD Talk Page. 13:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral at this point. moved to Support I've noted Montana's snark on occasion, but honestly don't think it's any worse than the kind practiced by a number of established and respected admins. At least with this candidate you know exactly what you're getting and it's not hidden behind soft double-speak or the like. I don't know that she'd be quick to block, but she might be a touch too quick to engage. I do lean support, but just can't quite get there yet. Intothatdarkness 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Because of this type of fighting, I ended most of my editing years ago, only to dabble via IP. I have always thought Montana was a level-headed sort, and noticed no more snark that usual. After reading RO's vitriol, I dig deeper, and saw an incredible campaign of attack. I was about to vote "Support" only to prevent RO thinking that anybody agreed with him. However, I took a closer look at some of the other issues, and Mastcell and Dennis seemed to capture the real essence of the concerns. I hope Montana can take that difficult self-reveiw and see how some of these issues have portrayed her. King Pickle (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral - I simply cannot decide here. One says "this editor has a battleground mentality and a campaign against RO and blah blah blah" and the other says "this editor has created a lot of content and understands WP:INVOLVED and blah blah blah". If I go to support, opposers probably contest me and vice-versa. And I don't like how opposers are taking advantage of Montana's previous mistakes (at least 95% from more than a year ago) to oppose her. Mistakes happen and are allowed, no one can be perfect. Also, I'm quoting the following part from that page: "However, mistakes may not be used to prove that someone is unqualified to edit pages regarding a topic. Mistakes should be met with counsel, not criticism.". Please, guys, you are just making the discussion hotter and hotter and it may eventually burn. --TL22 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends whether you think "we don't have enough good, experienced admins, and this could be one.", or "Oh my god, some people shrieked, and I might have to talk to them again." HTH. Begoon talk 12:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Portraying behavior that one HAS to know is wrong as a "mistake" is outrageous. The examples provided aren't mistakes, they are egregious violations of policy. The "mistake" is in the subject's thinking she will never be held accountable. As far as I can see, the only time Montanabw has ever been held accountable for her behavior is this RfA. The fact that 95% of the examples may have occurred more than a year ago would be relevant if the same behaviors hadn't occurred in the past year, but as it is they reveal a long-term continuing pattern. If, in a year, she tries again, and no more examples of such behavior can be brought up in the last six months, (I have no doubt that it will take her several months to rein in her ingrained patterns of behavior) then maybe her prior behavior could be overlooked. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]

Not a !vote I really like Montana. She's obviously smart and has a fine wit about her. I admire her passion, but I don't think her temperament is suited to adding her to the rolls of the admin corps. From the evidence provided by several editors above, she has a penchant for drama. I think the kicker for my oppose was her ad hominem attacks in a flap over at ANI. We have far too many admins already that are insensitive to responding to users who have been (in most cases) rightfully sanctioned. It's bad for Wikipedia and chases off editors. We need more admins like Dennis Brown and less like Bbb23, both of whom I respect immensely, but polar opposites in terms of abrasiveness. We have too many tough cop admins already. In any case, should this RfA pass, I really hope Montana takes my concern to heart and moderates her temper.69.143.136.26 (talk) 08:23, 21 Septem

"the kicker for my oppose" -- What oppose? IPs are not allowed to !vote at RfAs, and your attempt to do so was immediately deleted. I recommend you redact your comment above to reflect that. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this IP also User:Jasphetamine, itself highlighted as socking by User:Flyer22 above... both pretty keen on entering a clear 'no' !vote. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would ping a check-user it does seem off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think User:Bbb23 (et al.) might want to know all the same? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A CU will not be run. We almost never publicly disclose the IP address of a named user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I threw a way out if this is indeed a sock, WP:AGF can only go so far. It might be one of those WP:DUCK vs WP:NOTFISHING cases. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my IP. Jasphetamine (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can WP:AGF here and say okay I believe you, but if you are socking expect a swift block. Coming clean will at least give you more of a chance to come back and edit in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am one human being, with one Wikipedia account. I have no interest beyond improving the content of Wikipedia -- I made this account to help with copyedit. I wound up making a real fool of myself. However, I am myself and absolutely not a sockpuppet. This is simply the truth.Jasphetamine (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the sock talk is kind of moot, and bitey. As with any suspicion, I recommend holding off comments until someone has some real evidence, then taking it to SPI. It is a bit incivil to just make blanket statements about someone being a sock without evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where there is reasonable suspicion of WP:Socking in a WP:RfA, especially suspicion by more than one editor, it is common for the WP:CheckUser tool to be ran on the registered account or IP, whether or not an IP is publicly tied to the account. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as stated at Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP information disclosure, there are times where publicly disclosing the IP cannot be avoided. Persistent WP:Socks only have themselves to blame for their IPs being publicly revealed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And reflecting a similar discussion here. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

______

Moving this here from "Oppose" section per Dirtlawyer1's comment below. Moved content:

Oppose Primarily due to pervasive side-stepping of questions meant to probe candidate's history of ownership mindset and lack of professionalism. Administrators should be capable of facing adversarial questions and comments with substantial answers; political maneuvering doesn't serve the goal of WP.Jasphetamine (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasphetamine, your account was created 5 hours ago, and you have made exactly 4 edits, one of them on namespace. Why are you !voting here? Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, Jasphetamine (talk · contribs) is obviously a WP:Sock. And since it seems no one else wants to state that, I have. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to strike !vote per WP:RfA: "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ('anons')—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) 'votes' in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account. . . . Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets." This RfA has already generated enough emotion-wrought rhetoric on both sides; we do not need anyone gaming the system with newly registered accounts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe the faux paux I committed in posting this. I did not intend to register a numbered official vote in this RfA process; I thought I was just putting in my two cents as the RfA policy invites editors to do. I made a severe mistake. I'm not a sockpuppet though. Kind of wish I was right now. Jasphetamine (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: More on this matter is seen here, here here, and in the #General comments section below. I've done my part. Flyer22 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have your suspicions but without a formal SPI with evidence there is not much to go on. An admin and a check-user both made calls on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated, I've done my part. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of moved content. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

______

I think it depends on how amusing they are. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the issue is, if someone makes an SPI then make an SPI but I see no evidence unless im missing something. Are there any similar patterns? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the aforementioned IP and Jasphetamine, there is a little behavioral evidence, such as the fact that they both sign their usernames right up against their comments (meaning no space in between). That stated, there is not enough evidence for an official WP:Sockpuppet investigation, and Jasphetamine has also signed his (or her) posts without the signature right up against the comments. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, despite our differences in the past, I believe that Montanabw would make a great admin, so long as they followed their recurring pledge:
"I've handled many things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best." (from Q3's answer)
"I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I just simply will not and cannot use the tools." (at 17:31, 17 Sep)
"People are concerned that I have a short fuse and would overreact like this in the future. Put simply, I would not use the administrator toolkit to do any of these things." (at 02:32, 21 Sep)
"Of course I would not deal with a dispute that way as an admin" (at 21:29, 21 Sep)
What seems to be missing here, at this RfA, and which methinks would improve a future RfA for this candidate, which I strongly encourage them to file should this one be unsuccessful, is some kind of statement about willingness to be desysopped-via-recall, aka via some kind of informal-yet-well-specified mechanism (i.e. well short of the dreaded com o' arb). There is somewhat of a precedent for this type of thing, in past RfA nominations.[45] I am happy to make concrete suggestions about what sort of informal-yet-well-specified-mechanism might be best (on usertalk), but deem that adding such a mechanism to this year's RfA attempt is unlikely to sway the regular bangvoters here.
  As an additional recommendation, should this year's RfA end up being unsuccessful, I urge the candidate to take a deep DEEP breath, review all comments above with a clear wiki-eye, and then prove to the 'pedia that Montanabw can in fact, consistently and for many months at a stretch, *act* as if the admin-bit had been granted in September 2015, comporting herself in a manner befitting, henceforth. In short, I think that a future RfA would be a success, assuming this one is not a success, with the following tweaks: adding a recall-provision to the future RfA, and in the months between now and then, becoming "Missouri_bw" and showing folks here in the oppose-bangvote section, that Montanabw is not merely a great wikipedian content-editor, but are also ready to be a great wiki-janitor, always cool under pressure, from whence seldom is heard a discouraging word, despite all dramah. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"That anyone would use an editor's cordial interaction with, and posting on the talk page of, any other Wikipedian as a reason to oppose..." That's opaque to me. What are you referring to? DeCausa (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to references to interaction with, and posting on the talk page of Eric Corbett (but it's not actually about him) cited in a few opposes. NE Ent 00:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NE the closing party is going to pan through all of this, if it is indeed off topic then I would assume it would be discredited as would anything else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 23 September 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