Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez

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

Gladys_j_cortez

Final (83/22/3); Closed by Rlevse at 02:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gladys_j_cortez (talk · contribs) - This, despite the stigma attached to them, is a self-nomination. (My original first sentence has been refactored, because Giggy makes a good point and it's not nice to poke people who can't poke back.) I've been considering this move for several months now, and mentioned it to one of my trusted Wikipedians--Keeper76. He said I was ready, and he's a good enough admin that I trust his judgement on such things.

As for me...First off, let's get the name thing taken care of. As you'll see at my userpage I have tried to be transparent and make sure everyone knows I'm editing under a pseudonym. The reasons for this are detailed there as well; I have no intent of concealing myself from anyone outside my immediate RL world. My online identity is consistent and established; but I feel it's important to make it clear that no, this is not my real government name.

Having settled that: I've been editing here for nearly a year now. I haven't got any FA's or GA's or DYK's, but I've created/substantially worked on several articles--Dooley and Pals and Dr Wonder's Workshop being my two biggest contributions. My article work, on the face of it, shows a narrow-ish focus on childrens' television, but my watchlist is much more diverse and random. My choice of what to edit is based largely on my areas of interest, but I find quite a lot of things interesting and have been known to fall into the Black Hole of Wikipedia for hours at a time--looking up one thing, then progressing through links to another and another, often doing gnome-work at each stop. I do spend a fair amount of time in AN and AN/I--but certainly not for any great love of Wikidrama. To me, those boards are like the morning paper; I read them to find out what the current issues are, what needs doing, what might be going wrong--and seeing if I can improve things in any way. Every so often, I try to throw a bit of levity into the discussion. That's not because I don't take things seriously; it's just because sometimes meta-discussions get so heavy and serious that a note of humor eases the tension a bit.

I do a fair amount of vandal-fighting, and I hope that's not held against me. As you'll see from my editcounter, one of my most-edited pages is in my userspace, where for some months I kept track of the actions of a particular IP-hopper who disrupted a subset of articles I edit. I'm not trying to create a super-secret sleuthing club, but when I'm faced with a pattern clearly coming from one individual, I like to apply my analytical skills (such as they are) to ferreting out the root of the problem. I just try to keep my watchlist clean, is all, and if I'm given the mop I will continue this trend; the tools, however, will make me a little more efficient at it, and give me more abilities to assist in rooting out long-term nuisances.

My weaknesses--for they will surely be mentioned--include an overreliance on automated edit-summaries, my lack of experience in XfD (though I haven't spoken much in XfDs, I do lurk there and I am familiar with the issues) and the occasional bit of uncontrolled snarkiness. That last, however, is well within my ability to moderate; there's a difference in my mind between what Average Wikipedian Gladys says, and what Admin Gladys would say. The Admin hat would weigh heavily enough upon my head to activate my inner critic--the one who says "hey, are you SURE you want to say it like that???"

Before I take this self-nom into the dreaded realm of TL;DR, I would be remiss if I did not mention my reasons for seeking adminship. Most of what I do now, I can do without the tools. I can write articles, fight vandals, do Wiki-gnomish things. However, I think the most important quality I would bring to my adminship has to do with my ability to see both sides of most disputes. I can be a moderating influence in disputes, and I would generally much prefer to engineer a win-win situation wherever that is possible. There are some situations where no one wins; in such cases, I will--perhaps regretfully, at times--take the needed actions, but as a general rule I would prefer to engineer outcomes where everyone benefits, especially the Wikipedia itself. Gladys J Cortez 01:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Added after reading through:

Personally, I would almost agree with some of the reasons for opposing me. Those who oppose on my lack of FA/GA/DYK articles...they're right. I haven't written any. There are people--and I am one of them--who have difficulty promoting their own accomplishments. For me to say "Hey! I wrote this! I think it's really good--I hope you agree with me!"...well, that's out of character for me, to a great degree. I tend toward the more self-deprecating side of the fence, and so in areas where, in order for others to notice my accomplishment, I would have to be the one to bring it to their attention--in those areas, my resume is always going to be thin. (If FA/GA/DYK were structured where someone ELSE nominated a writer's work, I'd be much more comfortable with them; I'd probably blush and mumble a bit if a piece of my work was nommed, but it would be more comfortable to me.) This may make me a strange and quirky person; I don't think this makes me less of a writer. While it perhaps doesn't count for much, I can say the following: 1. very few substantive changes have been made to the articles which I -did- write; and 2. very few of the changes I've made to other articles have been reverted. There's something to be said for the average worker-bee, the cog-in-the-wheel, just as much as there is to be said for the prodigies and stars....or maybe that's just worker-bee apologetics. Not sure.

For those of you who mention my lack of experience; again, based on contributory evidence alone, you're right. I wish there was a way to show the areas in which a Wikipedian READS, rather than the ones in which they SPEAK; I think that would be a far more-accurate gauge of my experience here. As mentioned below, policy knowledge is a critical part of adminship; however, the fact that I haven't, perhaps, SPOKEN on a given policy, doesn't mean that I'm not knowledgeable about that policy based on what I've seen, read, and experienced on WP. I read AN and AN/I, along with several other noticeboards, almost daily; often, I read them without commenting. And as I said, that's not because I enjoy ZOMGDRAMA--it's because those boards, to me, are the best place to get a wide and varied understanding of policy. I'm slightly surprised not to see the usual policy-esque questions listed below; after all, the best way to find out whether or not I understand policy--other than to see when and whether I've ever violated it, that is--would be to ask.

The Twinkle-edit/vandalfighting question...true, I've been extra-Twinkly lately. Largely this was due to R/L circumstances which are currently dying down; when I'm busy and only have a few minutes, Twinkle-based vandalism reverts are a quick and easy way to do some good for the 'pedia. I'd rather do some little good when I have a moment, than not do ANYTHING because I don't have an uninterrupted block of time to focus. And I'd certainly rather not screw up because I tried to do something too-quickly by hand, when there's a tool to assist me in doing it fast and well.

There are, I must admit, some 'oppose' !votes I don't quite understand; however, having seen many, many other RfA's, I must admit I expected as much for myself. Should this RfA fail, I will still be grateful for the insights provided by the opposers, just as I am for the kind words and compliments of the supporters.

And since no one's opposed per "intolerable verbosity", I'll stop now and hope for the best. I thank you all for your input. Gladys J Cortez 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend to work, as I always have, on improving articles and reducing the ranks of vandals who trouble the Wikipedia. However, I would also very much like to expand my focus into areas such as investigating sockpuppetry, working to make the XfD process better and (hopefully!) less-contentious; and, by smoothing the path as much as possible, to help Wikipedia keep one of its most valuable assets--its content contributors.

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

A: I have created, in the main, two articles--Dooley and Pals and Dr Wonder's Workshop--as mentioned above. I have also been instrumental, however, in keeping my area of interest free of misinformation--for example, Caillou is a common target of vandals and (strangely!) even POV-pushers. I realize, in the grand scheme of things, that my contributions are fairly narrow. They are, however, illustrative of my abilities, and I think that those abilities would translate well into the larger arena of adminship.

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: Oh, yes indeed. In fact, the above-mentioned Caillou has been the focus of much conflict. There was a user who was quite insistent that the article should contain reference to an online petition, asserting that the main character was a "bad influence" on viewers. They pointed to evidence of his "whininess" and "misbehavior" and tried to claim that this online petition was a "verifiable source" because the people posting there were "verifiable" people who "verifiably" held this opinion. It took a chorus of myself and several other editors, including an AN/I thread, to convince the individual in question that there was a difference between his/her definition of "verifiability" and the official policy of WP:V; that while, yes, those were "verifiable" people, neither their opinions, nor any expressed on a non-content-edited site, can be used to satisfy the notion of WP:V. Needless to say, this is a core policy, and as such needs to be observed diligently. I have done so in the past, and I plan to continue to do so in the future.

Additional questions from miranda

4. What does BLP mean and when should one ignore the policy?

A: Second bit first: Absolutely never!!!! BLP is critical; as l'affaire Seigenthaler taught us, there are actual, live individuals out there whose names and reputations can be damaged simply by the appearance of impropriety or the faintest of rumors in their WP entries, and it's incumbent upon us as content-authors and -maintainers to keep that fact in mind. Wikipedia is not a game; in the case of real-life people, there are reputations at stake and it's best to err on the side of caution.

5. What does WP:V mean?

A: It means that any information included in a Wikipedia article on a given topic must have appeared elsewhere, in an independent, content-verified publication. Average people's blogs, since they have no independent content verification, are not verifiable. Online petitions, the same. Newspaper-columnists blogs, however, given that their content is vetted by the newspapers' editorial staff, may or may not be verifiable. Essentially, any content that can be randomly added by any user, regardless of their background or knowledge, and with no one to verify the information that they add, cannot be considered verifiable under Wikipedia policy.

6. When you are in a dispute with a user, and you revert war with the user concerning a page. Should you block the user if you and him both brink 3RR? Why or why not?

A: Well, first, I would hope I'd never be THAT intense about something to break 3RR. If, however, it did come to that--no, I would not block the user. I would bring the situation to WP:AN/I or WP:3RR, explain my own breach of the policy, and ask for an uninvolved admin to do the needful work. I would expect, under that circumstance, to be blocked myself; again, though, since I've yet to breach that line as a "plain ol' user", I don't believe it would be something I'd likely do as an admin. At least, I HOPE not...

7. In your articles that you created, you don't have any sources. Why is that?

A: You know what? That's my fault. They exist; I just didn't add them at the time I moved the articles in question from userspace. Thank you for drawing my attention to that oversight--I'm actually embarrassed, since I didn't think to check. I've remedied that issue, and again--thanks for bringing it up.

8. How well do you handle disputes? Do you act uncivil when you are in the wrong (i.e. curse, say bad things, etc.)?

A: I like to think I handle disputes fairly well. (I could be wrong, of course.) Yes, I've let the odd four-letter word escape from my typing-fingers; I can't in all good conscience say differently. However, that's mostly been in the context of playful frustration. In a SERIOUS dispute, I strive to be as civil as humanly possible, and to keep whatever frustration I'm feeling on THIS side of the keyboard. Mostly I'm successful in that regard.

Optional question from Protonk (talk)

9: You mentioned that you want to work in XfD, so I'll try to ask a question in that area. What, if you suddenly had the ability to change things by fiat, would you change to make the XfD process less contentious? If, instead, you had to get the community to commit to a change, what change would you propose? Would those two things be different? Why or why not?

A: I think to defuse the contentiousness of XfD, first one would have to be able to change human nature. Obviously no one wants to see their hard work wiped away, whether it's an article, a list, or a template; and naturally, fans of a given show/band/movie/whatever are going to be partisans toward articles on their preferred topic. If I could issue a fiat, though, it would be to remove two of the most-contentious Wiki-epithets from common currency: "inclusionist" and "deletionist". The use of those two words has done more to contribute to the unhappy ways of XfD than nearly anything else, IMHO; each of them gives the "opposing" side an instant excuse to ignore and dismiss the "other" side's views. Nothing on Wikipedia should be about "us" vs "them"--not ethnic hot-spot articles, not political articles, not vandal-fighting, not XfD. "Us" is Wikipedia. A greater portion of the people who spend their time here do it for the right reason: to create a neutral, balanced, eternally-changing source of information. There are those with nefarious motives, but I sincerely doubt that even the most-challenging XfDer has the motive of "deleting/including everything" or even "making the other guys mad" . We all have our viewpoints about what does and does not belong in an encyclopedia; it's a matter of degree, first and foremost. Only by actively LISTENING to the viewpoint of all good-faith participants will we be able to come to anything approaching a consensus--and hanging the "inclusionist"/"deletionist" tag on the opposing view makes it nearly impossible to truly hear what the other person is saying.

Of course, that would never fly with the community; there'd be howls of "thought crime!" "Political correctness!" "Word Police!" If I had to work out a change that the community might get behind, I think I would propose a policy change in the speedy-deletion realm. I understand that new-page patrollers are subjected to a torrent of unsuitable articles, one-liners, dicdefs and attack pages; however, one of the objections I've heard most-often repeated is "I started this article five minutes ago, and you speedied it! I wasn't done yet!" There are several ways this situation contributes to a negative environment; largely, it embodies BITEiness and leads new editors to believe Wikipedia is a secret cult with Byzantine rules and regulations, designed to keep out the infidel. That's not how we want to portray ourselves, I don't think, and so anything that can alleviate this misconception would help. I would put this issue before the community and then listen to their answers; were I to offer a suggestion myself, I would submit that either some sort of time-limit be observed between creation and speedy deletion (or nomination for PROD, or just plain old XfD), or that a policy be created to make clear that initial article-development or stub-development should be done within userspace, with those who choose not to observe this policy to understand that they are placing their nascent article in a dangerous place, where it will not be immune from deletion. (That last seems harsh, I know, but some people like the risk.)

Additional Question from RockManQ

10. You have said you would like to work in XfD. Please review the example articles I have layed out for you here. Assume these articles are brought to AfD, please state how you would vote in all three circumstances (there may be multiple answers for each article).

RMQ, I'm drafting my answer offline. However, just as I was working, I got a phone call w. distracting RL news, so it may be tomorrow evening before I can recollect my thoughts enough to answer as I wish. My apologies; rest assured I plan to answer soon, however. Gladys J Cortez 03:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. RockManQ (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A: Okey-dokey...rather than blow this RfA up to megalithic size, I've placed my answers here and I semi-apologize in advance for the TL;DR-ness. (Hey, I used to be a teacher--I believe in "show your work"!)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

11. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A:Verifiability, without question. What good would come of an "encyclopedia" full of non-facts, developed by a group of people who may or may not be neutral about the subject? I'm all for consensus, understand, but--and I'm sure THIS example's already been beaten to death--for quite some time, there was a consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe, and all the planets and stars orbited us. Consensus alone does not make something a fact, and encyclopediae are in the business of facts.

Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your response is concise, crisp, plain -- entirely above reproach. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more open-ended and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?"

It seems reasonable to press for a more fully-developed comment and analysis. Your answer comments be studied by a range of editors who are unlikely to note what you do or say in more narrowly-focused threads. This becomes a unique opportunity to affect the evolving consensus on a key point which comes up in all sorts of circumstances.

Now that your elevation to the ranks of administrators is virtually assured, you have an opportunity to introduce a salutatory comment. In effect, this becomes an invitation to convert this question/answer exercise into something more constructive.

Asenine presented a lady or the tiger conundrum -- excellent, unavoidable, illuminating. The only correct answer is the one which illuminates the way in which the alternatives and consequences are evaluated. The question goes to the heart of the reasoning processes which inform good judgment. It also creates an opportunity to grapple with the most difficult challenge which the most highly-valued administrators face with grace and tact -- expressing themselves persuasively about core values.

Diplomacy is sometimes the art of avoiding saying anything which might plausibly cause a ripple of a problem to arise -- especially in a RfA thread. I see the merit in that cautious, restrained attitude; however, a more revealing answer to a difficult question could be seen as appropriate, seemly, and welcome. What are you willing to make of this unique opportunity? --Tenmei (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here goes (and I'm going to make this NOT be TL;DR):

I still think verifiability is more important than consensus, and here's why. If you look at some of our most-contentious articles, you will find that on each side, there are people who are passionate (some seemingly to the point of unreasonability!) about their given topic. Each of those people knows other people who are equally passionate on that topic. Each of those people could conceivably recruit those others to come to WP and contribute their own passion to the "consensus". Eventually, it becomes a numbers game--who can win more people over to their side? Who can recruit the biggest, most verbally-skilled army? And thus, consensus can be manipulated.

Verifiability, on the other hand, as WP uses it, is a reasonably-static construct. Either there is, or there is not, substantive coverage in third-party reliable sources. It's like being pregnant; there's no such thing as "a little bit verifiable". A fact either IS covered verifiably, or it is NOT. (The questions then come up re: what constitutes a reliable source; this is verifiability's weak spot, actually, and represents one of the few ways it can be gamed, which is why we have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard--and at least part of why we have admins, IMHO. If we can't be counted on to enforce such a core policy, then what the heck are we doing holding this mop?)

It's impossible to base a factual item such as an encyclopedia on a construct that owes so much to the mood of the moment--the current trends in science, politics, culture, and the attitudes and opinions which people bring to those areas. Consensus is like the sand, and will shift over time; verifiability, on the other hand, is the bedrock, and is the only solid place to build from.

12. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Going through my contributions list, I'm not coming up with any examples of exactly the kind of interchange you're describing. However, my own philosophy of dealing with conflict is that I'd rather defuse a situation and craft a compromise, rather than throwing fuel on the fire; in short, I try to be diplomatic when dealing with heated situations. Here's an example of a conversation which was generating a lot of heat, and here is my input...I recognize that's not exactly the question I was asked to answer, but it's representative of my style of conflict-resolution. (I'm going to add here that it's also fairly-easy to find examples where my tone was a bit less-moderate, but it's almost never directed at a person--always at a situation. (I'd say "never" but the minute I did, somebody would dig up a diff from some long-forgotten Worst Day Ever that would prove me wrong, and there I'd be with a face full of egg.)

13. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: I'll probably slow down a bit on the "traditional" (i.e. Twinkle, reversions) areas of vandal fighting; I'd focus more on long-term abuse cases, for one, and slowly move into more administrative areas like AIV and page-protection. As I said, I'd like to work more in XfD--however, anything new I take up will be done with extreme caution and focus. I plan to ask a lot of questions if I'm not sure about an interpretation of policy.

Additional question from Jock Boy

14 What would you suggest to a user who had been editing for a long time, but due to one or two large mistakes made over their long career, didn't pass their RFA?

Erm, "welcome to the party--the cooler's that way"? Nah...seriously, it sort of depends on the size of the mistake. I mean, let's put it this way: there are certain things--and no, I don't want to list them, because I don't think it's even necessary--that would pretty much disqualify someone from EVER passing. Not even because they're unforgivable or unfixable, but because they have the stigma of being unforgivable or unfixable. Just because the Wiki is an evolving thing doesn't mean that human nature changes; people will still remember the bad you do, if it's egregious enough. Now, if it was a smaller "large mistake"--outside of that "no one will ever forget" realm--I would tell the person in question to look at the criticisms in their failed RfA, to look at the area their "sin" was committed in, and focus especially on improving and "proving oneself" in that area. If their mistake was edit-warring--police themselves religiously, making sure they never go beyond 1RR. If they were civility-blocked--make sure they stay WELL within the bounds of civility. Concentrate on your weak area, and when you can point to six months, nine months, a year of contributions that PROVE your past problem is no longer an issue--find someone trustworthy and respected who's willing to nominate you. Make your case to them, and let THEM make your case for you in the nom statement. When the old stuff is brought up--and it will be!--handle it calmly and coolly. I think that's the kind of advice I'd give.

General comments

• See Gladys_j_cortez's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez
• Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez/Q 10 Answers

• Links for Gladys_j_cortez: Gladys_j_cortez (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gladys_j_cortez before commenting.

Discussion

• If Keeper trusts you, why didn't he nominate you for adminship? miranda 03:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll let him speak his piece here, but essentially, Keeper has declared that he will no longer be a party to throwing anyone under the great big painful bus that RfA has become. However, I give you this link. Quoth the Keeper: [1].Gladys J Cortez 03:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I tried to nominate Gladys back when I was nominating other users, several months ago. She declined, probably wisely, to gain more experience. We've "kept in touch" on my talkpage, and I told her to bluelink this damn thing because she needs the "bit". Consider this my nomination. Keeper ǀ 76 14:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

;Question from VG q: You seem to have made quite a few edits to "Requests for page protection" relative to your edit count. Can you detail the circumstances? VG ☎ 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I figured this out from your edit history, no point in replying. VG ☎ 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The above cancelled question was moved from the question section. –xeno (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, can the specifics of my user name be removed from the introduction please. I find that somewhat uncomfortable, although I appreciate it was done in good faith, it just feels awkward. — Realist² 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, honestly, no hard feelings. :-) — Realist² 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - I've only had limited interaction with this editor, consisting mostly of a threat on her part to sue me (it was a joke, in case anybody's considering blocking per WP:NLT), but I've seen her comments at WP:ANI. Reasonable, cool-headed, and experienced. Have a mop. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
2. I don't know who you are, but I like your style. Keegan^talk 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support for now. I must admit I've never heard of you, though some respected editors seem to like you. At first glance, your edits seem fine, and so far, I see nothing that concerns me. I'm going to watch this for a while. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - I think you would benefit from the tools.   jj137 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Per Keeper. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Per Keeper as well. Glady seems like an honest individual who will do well with the tools. —the_ed17— 02:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Keegan states it best. CL — 03:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Keeper hasn't even edited this page yet. Either you're confusing Keegan with Keeper, Keeper said something about this candidate somewhere else, or you guys have some sort of telepathy/IRC going on. bibliomaniac15 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Our bad's. See this. Cheers! —the_ed17— 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Support I thought about asking if you wanted me to nom you, but 1) I suck at writing noms and 2) I suck at writing noms. Either way, you should have run a long time ago. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Giggy (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    Very weakly considering the abysmal first sentence of the nom. Giggy (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, that is a serious comment. Please change it.

    In hindsight...um... have a full support. Giggy (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

11. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - I know Kurt can't poke back but he even said last time that the reactions to the "self nom" jokes was out of hand. I'm not saying that it makes the jokes cool but just so we keep things in check. Ok. Back to the support. This is partially a "per keeper" support, because I trust his judgment, but "Gladys" has also earned my trust. Where I see him/her around the wiki s/he (ZOMG, gender!) tends to be helpful and incisive. This interaction has been (minus AN/K) been almost entirely in the project space (as I don't think I've ever looked at much else edited Clifford the Big Red Dog). As such, I'm not terribly concerned about this editor's ability to pick things up as s/he goes along and to not abuse the tools. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Has almost the same record as when I was promoted. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 05:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Sure. I don't see why not. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - as I said below in a now-removed oppose, " . . . the contributions I've seen are rather fair" - and since the primary motivator for said oppose is now gone, it would be illogical to do anything but support. I have some experience-related concerns, but those are neutralized by what I can gather of this candidate's temperment - I do not think she'll jump in over her head. Badger Drink (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - I trust Keeper, and I trust the candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - everything I've seen from you so far is excellent, and Keeper clearly knows what he's talking about too. I'm going to have a closer look at a few more of your projectspace contributions tonight, but right now I'm very happy to support. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 07:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. Good contributions and good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Everyme 09:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support per Keeper Gazimoff 11:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Seems to know where her towel is. Everything else can be learned on the job. --barneca (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    Expanding a bit, per Sarah's reasonable point below: Usually I would actually do the opposite of what Keeper says, but in this case I'm making an exception. I've run across Gladys directly 2-3 times, and seen her comments at WP:AN and WP:ANI somewhat more frequently, and believe she demonstrates (a) maturity and cluefulness, (b) an interest in improving the encyclopedia, (c) a hesitancy to do something wrong; i.e. she's not going to go off half cocked, she's going to watch and learn and do it right, and (d) the intelligence to figure stuff out. Also, my newest admin criterion, (e) doesn't seem overwhelmingly impressed with herself all the time. --barneca (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

22. Hello, I am John Wilkes Booth -- what's playing at Ford's Theatre tonight? Oh, sorry, wrong queue...but while I am here: Support for a worthy candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Keeps a cool head under any situation need be? Excellent... —Sunday · Speak 13:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Style and Keeper? There's something you don't see every day! Sam ^Blab 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Nominator level support. I don't do nominations anymore, but this editor was one that I attempted to nominate several months ago. Extremely clueful, humorous, fair, hardworking editor. Has her "stamp" on several areas of the wiki, and she gets this place. The community would be well served by this careful and judicious editor. Keeper ǀ 76 14:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. There are many reasons why she is suitable for the mop, the one's explained here will suffice for now. Caulde 14:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong Support This one has been a long time coming. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Not as much experience as I'd really prefer to see but everything I've seen from Gladys has been great and she I'm sure she'll do just fine with the tools. I actually would have been willing to nominate her myself had I known she was interested in adminship (and I don't nominate many people). I'm not sure what the problem is with the blog - I spent ages reading it trying to work out what would be of concern for an administrator candidate on Wikipedia, but I couldn't see anything that worries me. It looks transparent, honest, well written...all things we want in an admin, right? Sarah 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC) And can I suggest to the people blindly voting (and that's exactly what they seem to be doing) per a comment Keeper made elsewhere that they should be reviewing the candidate themselves - if people voted like this in the oppose or neutral sections, they'd be jumped on and hassled.

    I absolutely, 100% agree Sarah. Keeper ǀ 76 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

29. Support An eminently sensible editor who has an excellent understanding of policy and its application. Beyond that, a fine and self-deprecating sense of humor. Acroterion _(talk) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Level headed and with the support of some very well respected editors. --Banime (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Support, great editor who has contributed a lot to the project. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Support per the nomination and Wisdom89. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Support A solid and sensible individual. The opposes are entitled to their view but I have observed that the skill set required for being an admin has minimal overlap with that required to write FA/GA. Some of our best admins have never written a FA/GA, and some of our worst admins have written several. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Comments sometimes remind me of CharlotteWebb. Used "egregious" in a section title on ANI. Self-nomination statement and answers are honest, decent and truthful. Seems clueful. I'm with barneca and Sarah. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. Intelligent user=intelligent admin. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
36. Support- I see no issues with giving this user the mop. Reyk _YO! 01:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
37. Support, no real reasons not to. fish&karate 07:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
38. Experience in admin areas is a big plus. Whilst Gladys hasn't got any FA's or GA's, she's got some content experience which will put her in good stead if she gets the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
39. Support per all above, seems to have a good head on her shoulders. GlassCobra 10:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Seems trustworthy, I don't see any obvious evidence of a possibility of misuse of tools. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
41. Support per thorough and reflective self-nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - while I'm tempted to oppose for the tl;dr intro statement, this user seems to have a clue, something that many people seem to be lacking nowadays. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
43. I like the way you speak your mind and state your opinions with conviction. You know how to do the Right Thing^TM and you have my trust. It's always good to see this editor inject clue and humour into a conversation. Seraphim♥Whipp 19:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
44. switch to support. No one has come of with a specific indication that user will misuse/abuse the tools. I would have preferred more experience, but I came up with no problem either. Dlohcierekim 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. If you can't figure out after 2400 edits whether or not a person is going to be a good user, you're probably not going to. This one looks good to me. --Smashville^talk 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - A definite net positive. iMatthew (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. Forget the "seems trustworthy" and similar, she is sensible and intelligent according to her answers above. So what if she doesn't make the perfect admin. No-one has yet. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - per good comments on ANI. Also, snotburger is my new favorite word. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
49. Support as there is no reason to object. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Net positive skills-wise, and I generally like the approach candidate's taken to the RfA. Townlake (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. Confident candidate will use tools appropriately and within her comfort zone. I wouldn't mind if you really did stop being so verbose - I almost fell asleep reading this, and it's not even close to "a long post" for you - but whadeva. Also, you have my support not to answer Asenine's asinine questions. Tan | 39 05:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
52. Support, I don't see why not. RockManQ (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
53. Support I don't think Gladys will abuse the tools. rootology (C)(T) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
54. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
55. abf /talk to me/ 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
56. Support (despite intolerable verbosity). Gladys is, admittedly, at the lowest edge of my comfort zone in terms of overall experience and substantive interactions with policy discussions/actions...however, her editing patterns (and our limited interactions) suggest that she "gets it" to a sufficient degree, and will have a managable learning curve, that I feel comfortable supporting. — Scientizzle 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
57. Support I've seen Gladys struggling against the kiddies who edit the same articles as she, and she always acts in utmost good faith; accordingly, I trust her with the tools and the rest may follow in due course. --Rodhullandemu 20:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
58. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 17:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
59. Weak Support Not too sure, but seems to be experienced enough Ijanderson (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
60. Support per Caillou & Teletubbies. Specifically Talk:Caillou, and the history of Talk:Teletubbies. Your contributions show great patience and willingness to teach kids how to edit an encyclopaedia. Also there were several things in your blog that give me a feeling of confidence in your judgement. ϢereSpielChequers 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. I admit to not having fully checked GJC's contributions, but if the parade of inanity which currently constitutes the "oppose" section is the worst that can be dug up by those who have, I can't see any cause for concern. While we all have different standards in an RFA, it would be ridiculous for an RFA to fail on grounds like "swore on a blog", "2500 edits is not enough", "hasn't written any GA/FA" or "participates heavily in user talk pages". – iridescent 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Edit count is a bit low but makes good decisions. — Jojo • Talk • 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
63. Support. Seems like a careful and intelligent editor who has the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. Who's bothered about an occasional little "snarkyness", apart from the far too many kiddie admins? Let's see a responsible adult promoted for once. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
64. Support. No reason not to. You are just a trooper with Caillou; it'd be interesting to have an administrator (assuming we don't already have one) that is primarily focused on working with children's tv-related articles. Good luck! —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
65. Excellent candidate. Acalamari 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
66. Sod reviewing the stats, questions and answers, or even the Supports/Oppose/Neutral rationales... - I've interacted with the candidate and will Support on that basis! Said. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Upon reviewing the opposes, I shall expand - confering tools is not supposed to be about need, or experience in areas they can be used in, but about trust! I trust this candidate, on the basis of my own interactions, and therefore they have my support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
67. Support II MusLiM HyBRiD II 01:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
68. Oppose per intolerable verbosity. Pedro :  Chat  08:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - Garion96 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
70. Strong oppose support, even though your lack of 10,000 edits/3 FAs is concerning... (On a serious note, I do have one small comment, though – have a look at WP:DASH, since you use a double-hyphen a lot where the use of em-dashes is recommended.) Bonne chance! haz (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

    I apologise for the ambiguity of my original !vote. It was, as usual, a half-witted attempt on my part to bring about the odd wry smile, which inevitably completely failed. However, I'd like to take this opportunity to elaborate on my reasons for supporting, since I didn't actually cite them first time around. I am not supporting Gladys solely because of some drawn-out underdog complex, nor simply to make a statement in the face of some aspects of opposition reasoning which I personally have qualms about. While some would look at the figures and assume that Gladys is not experienced enough to warrant sysopdom, I believe that she has good knowledge of the areas of Wikipedia policy that are important in administrators; she shows a good ability to draw those policies together and form a synoptic argument (first comment at this AfD); and. what is more, she knows when she's wrong and is willing to admit it, which is something that in my opinion several administrators would do well to emulate. In my opinion, these qualities far outweigh the "paucity" of edits and the lack of featured contributions. haz (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

71. Support because of expressed desire to find win-win resolutions in an on-going process of making the rough places plain and the crooked places straight. --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
72. Support – Per Sarah. The opposes don't concern me much. – RyanCross (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
73. A bit weak support Good contributions and many many clueful edits. Candidate is able to admit mistakes and does not want to answer questions in a way to appeal to !voters. The only thing to weaken it is the fact that she had few edits within the last months, but I always say every admin is a good admin if he does only one good admin action. As the discussion on WT:RFA shows us, we need more anyway (but I'd have supported her anyway if we didn't). SoWhy 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
74. Support Am persuaded that the candidate will not misuse the tools, just be cautious in using them in areas where you do not have much experience if you are successful. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
75. Weak Support Feel the candidate will not misuse the tools.Contributions are good and track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
76. Support per the "intolerable verbosity", no admin has ever been a bad admin because they were overcomunicative. Normaly I would be botherd by the lack of admin related expeince but I 'm not, just a gut feeling, I dont know. - Icewedge (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
77. Support: The user has really kept cool here and cool heads make for good administrators. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 08:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - You lack the experience I like to see in a candidate. Normally, I would oppose, but I refrained because from what I've seen from you, I like you. I know we're not supposed to vote on things per WP:ILIKEIT, but does that count for RFA? I'm not sure. Anyway, I've put a good deal of thought into this, and while you don't meet my unwritten criteria, I don't think you'll abuse the tools or the position. Just keep in mind that you have a lot of admins at your disposal to seek help from, and don't feel like you can't ask questions. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
79. Support - I think you have the right attitude and enough experience for the tools, no substantial concerns I can see. I have reviewed the opposition and some comments have merit but I do not find them overall convincing. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
80. Support Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
81. Per me at the Foxy Loxy RfA. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
82. Support per intolerable verbosity and talk page badgering, but mostly because of Keeper's support of you. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
83. Weak Support per some good arguments to opposes as well as a good answer to my question. Honestly, and we have to assess ourselves on this because it says a lot about the Wikipedia community, who cares about what a user writes on their blog? Is it a genuine reason to oppose an Rfa, or just an excuse not to support someone you have a beef with? Jock Boy 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Certainly a good and valuable editor with no warning signs, but the overall contribution record just does not seem sufficient at this point for an admin job. 1149 mainspace edits and 453 Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk edits just does not cut it for me. I would like to see a more substantial contribution record, either in mainspace or in projectspace for someone who wants to be an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Rather hefty oppose. I say, "fuck 'em all". Drames (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Could a crat or an admin indent the above vote, please? Seems to me a bad case of trolling, possibly vandalism. Nsk92 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Just was about to say the same. The guy is obviously a vandal. CL — 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

2. I think the candidate needs more experience. I have reservations on support #1, which she said a legal threat to a user. I have also glanced at her blog. Some entries to me very much concern me. From that evidence gives me a big red flag which gives me an inference that she can't handle disputes well enough, such as off/on-wiki threats, conflicts, consensus on disputes, etc. miranda 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, geez, the "legal threat" was here. As I said in my support, it was very much a joke, and no basis for an oppose at all. Obviously you're entitled to oppose on the strength of your other reasons (though from my observation she's actually excellent in disputes); I'd just hate to see her penalized for my silly offhand comment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   "Obviously you're entitled to oppose on the strength of your other reasons" - no, an opposer may oppose or support for any reason.  Asenine  17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Er, you're correct, of course (except that I don't see how an opposer could support). A better wording would have been "You can keep opposing on the strength of your other reasons without my viewing your oppose as ludicrous". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   What, exactly, do you find objectionable on her blog? You've mentioned that two vague bits of evidence lead you to distrust her ability to handle a wide variety of situations, but I'm not seeing a connection (and it provides precious little for Gladys to go on for self-improvement). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

   I don't see how any of this should have any affect on why she shouldn't be an admin. I'm undecided myself, but I would oppose for other reasons. Obviously, in looking at the above "legal threat" it is more than clear to me that it is a joke. As for the blog entries, while they might be "questionable", isn't she entitled to her own opinions on her blog? I believe what she does off Wikipedia is not our business (within reason). Just take into account what I said, and see if it changes your mind. Jock Boy 00:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

   Honestly, and if this torpedoes my RfA at this late hour then so be it--if someone came to me and said "Change X about your blog and we'll let you be an admin", I'd say "no thanks, then". My blog is my home. If I walk into my home, I can take off my shoes, belch out loud, and hang from the chandeliers if I want to. However, this doesn't mean I'll do the same if I walk into YOUR home, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean I don't know enough not to do it in public. If I do those things in my own home, it wouldn't make me less-qualified to be a manager somewhere; now, if I were to have done them in public, it would CERTAINLY cast doubt on that ability. But I haven't, nor have I shown any tendencies in that direction--so questioning my suitability for a public job (WP admin) based on stuff I said in my own home (my blog) isn't really on, if you ask me. Gladys J Cortez 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Not enough edits to the entire project let alone project namespace (I don't care about DYK's, GA's, FA's and content contributions). I want to see enough contributions in these areas so I can get a round about basis for your policy knowledge, opinions on blocks, bans, and situations where you've had to use your brain (in relation to tool usage that is). So far, I'm not seeing this. Synergy 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   2388 edits, including 437 to the project space, is not enough? Giggy (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Not after the mistakes I've seen, no. Synergy 12:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oh goody. Do I get to see these mistakes too? Giggy (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   You sure can. Click that user contributions link and leave me alone Giggy. Synergy 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Right. So you come here, make up a nonsense reason to oppose, and when this is shot down, make a handwaving claim about mistakes made that nobody else has provided diffs for. When this is challenged, you give a response that delibarately doesn't answer the question, then tell me to bugger off. And next you'll go to WT:RFA and complain about how the RfA process is broken. Yeah. Thanks Synergy. Your contributions are valued by us all. Giggy (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Don't turn this into a mudslinging contest Giggy. Whats nonsense to you, is not nonsense to me. Live with it. After looking to see if my criteria had been met, I realized I couldn't find enough to properly gauge. Synergy 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)P.S. I shouldn't need diffs, she has less than 3,000 contrib's. Like zOMG, check project space contrib now and then giggy.

   Oppose - I have reservations towards granting the mop towards anybody using their real-life name as a username, due to stalking concerns and what I perceive to be slight "internet naivety" inherent in such a choice. While the contributions I've seen are rather fair, I see nothing dramatic enough to shake these reservations. Apologies to all those livid at reading this. Badger Drink (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Removed based on below discussion - I'm off to find a 24-hour reading glasses center. Badger Drink (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   As she says on her user page, she edits under a pseudonym. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, not to be a total snotburger, but I mentioned it here too, up in P2.... Gladys J Cortez 05:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose, WP:NOTNOW. For the past three months Gladys has done little more than twikle-based vandalism reverts in article space. OTOH, she participated heavily in user talk pages. While I consider wiki-gnomes quite valuable to Wikipedia, I am concerned by the lack of more substantive content contributions on her behalf relative to her participation in the social aspects of Wikipedia. I'm uncomfortable with her stated desire to engage in XfD discussion as an admin, after her admitted experience in that area is little more than lurking and the occasional snarkiness (her words). I'm worried about the promotion of admins that have little experience in editorial work; it leads to a disconnect between the policed and the police. Compare here edit summary with these two (which are likely to fail their RfA): Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Tadakuni, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/WereSpielChequers. VG ☎ 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Admins should not serve as police of non-admins. There is nothing wrong with twinkle work, as long as it is varied and constructive. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   In case it wasn't clear enough from what I wrote above, most of her article space edits in the past 3 months are TW-based vandalism reverts. VG ☎ 16:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Is there anything wrong with vandalism reverts? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Why should I answer a straw man question? VG ☎ 16:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   There is nothing wrong with vandalism reverts, but candidates who want to become admins, should make substantial contributions to articles. AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Do the tools help to write articles? Of course not. Do they help to fight vandalism? Absolutely. Being able to write 20 FAs is utterly unrelated to knowing about blocking and fighting vandalism, which is a big part of adminship. "You need the block button to help you fight vandals, but because you don't write articles, I'm not willing to give that button to you" seems to be the rationale here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Tools don't help to write articles, but without good articles, Wikipedia will lose its value. I'm also a vandal fighter, but I also contribute to articles. Fighting vandalism is very important, but if you want to become an admin, you should also make substantial contributions to articles. AdjustShift (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Would you consider an article that has been blanked and replaced with "poop" a value-decreasing one? It takes all types to build an encyclopedia, including those who protect instead of create. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yep! I'm also a vandal fighter and I know the importance of reverting vandalism. But, as I said earlier, if you want to become an admin, you should also make substantial contributions to articles. AdjustShift (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Why? Does one establish a greater need for the tools by writing articles rather than reverting vandalism? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   The buttons are only one part of it. — Realist² 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   What's the other part? From WP:ADMIN: "Administrators, commonly known as admins and also called sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have access to technical features that help with maintenance". Adminship is, and should be, about nothing but greater technical abilities. The only article-writing ability admins have is the ability to edit fully protected pages, which should only be done in extreme circumstances. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not wasting my time on this, partly because it's late at night, my connection since moving is slow etc. However, the notion that the only thing separating the 1000 admins from the other accounts and IP's are "a few extra buttons" is a laughable idealism. Wikipedia, like the rest of society doesn't function in that manner. Admins, rightly or wrongly, have a much broader role than mere button usage, often asked to resolve a war between two camps. Off track now, a few months ago I built an article in my sandbox. It was a good article too, near GA/GA standard already. I copy and pasted it into article space. Despite it being in excellent condition, perfectly sourced etc, some tool of an admin nominated it for deletion 8 minutes after the copy and paste over to article space. Safe to say his deletion argument of "controversial and POV" was a terrible rational by any standard. However it showed how disconnected he was from the actual encyclopedia, and must have been in warcraft mode against the article writers. Save to say having a perfectly good article nominated for deletion by an admin of all people is quite crushing. Obviously it was kept, he didn't have clue what he was talking about and I got it to GA a few days later. — Realist² 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   R2, perhaps I'm reading your comments wrongly, but it sounds like you are assuming that all contributors who have very low article-building activity have poor knowledge of article-related areas of policy. That's an incredible assumption of bad faith, and I concur with Erik here: since the tools are only useful for maintenance tasks and do not in any way aid article-building, the opposition of candidates based on a lack of content or FA/GA/DYK contributions is counter-intuitive. I can't help but think that by perceiving a divide between those who construct articles and those who maintain them, you are only developing that divide: your view that administrators exist to "police" those who add and develop content is worrying. If anything, they exist to aid them in their task: you'll probably agree that it's a lot easier to contribute to an article which isn't being repeatedly blanked by a single IP, or is subject to edit warring. You're also using a OSE-esque argument – just because you've had bad experiences with certain administrators, it does not mean that you can extrapolate those to the point where you're using them as arguments against promoting a candidate who has nothing to do with those incidents. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that fervent deletionism isn't limited to administrators – initiating XfD, ProD and SD are all actions available to non-sysops, which means that one is able to check whether this is likely to be an issue simply by looking through a user's contributions – and analysis of Gladys' deletion nominations would not suggest that this is the case. haz (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Practically only TW work for the last three months, I have no problem with Twinkle and use it all the time, but it doesn't allow me to see your policy knowledge or evidence of suitability.  Asenine  17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. The candidate hasn't contributed any FA or GA or DYK. AdjustShift (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   I don't wish to be rude, but neither have you. Caulde 18:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Please see my talkpage, I've written/expanded four DYKs. AdjustShift (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   I see now; surely though, when opposing candidates on article grounds you should at least have one FA (considering DYKs are much more easy than an FA) to qualify yourself to oppose in that manner. I hope you see what I mean; it's like opposing on the grounds that somebody hasn't got email enabled, but then neither has the opposer. Caulde 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think there's anything wrong with holding admins to a higher standard than one's self; it's only hypocritical if you request adminship without meeting your own standards. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

7. The candidate hasn't contributed any FA or GA or DYK. — Realist² 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, neither have I. Dlohcierekim 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   This is a response to comments from the last two opposes. None of you are running for RfA. It doesn't matter who has or hasn't written articles, unless it's the person in the spotlight. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   I beg your pardon? I've already had mine, thanks. This is a consensus building discussion, and we weigh the merits of the arguments presented. As an admin, I see no value in the mistaken belief that an admin somehow needs to have FA, DYK, or GA experience. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   I could add more to my list of opposing reasons, but that would be unnecessary. The reason I have already stated is enough for me to oppose, I don't need to add more to beat the poor candidate up. In depth article writing, particularly on contentions topics bring numerous skills to the table. Why not look at my rant at the current RfA for IMatthew to see just one angle on why such work can be beneficial. I don't see any proof that this candidate would be able to help me in dispute resolution up against the screaming children and background noise that is all to common. Unless he knows BLP, reliability, consensus, undue and recentism like the back of his hand, how can he help me against the masses? Hell, he might even believe their "consensus" is more important that my court document. No. — Realist² 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   (this incorporates a couple threads above, with a kudos to Erik the Red for part of this)

   Maybe you should add more, because writing a FA/DYK/GA does not and has never demonstrated policy knowledge as an admin should have. The Manual of Style and RS are what it takes to write the article, not maintain it (more on that in a moment). Secondly, administrators are not to help in dispute resolution on behalf of the person requesting assistance. Admins exercise sanctions based on ArbCom rulings that may be applicable, and they are to follow the blocking policy. They are not, nor should ever be, referees. That's what keeps it from being a "special class" of its own. Finally, I and others find it absolutely insulting when RfAs insinuate that not writing articles means that a person is lacking in value and knowledge to Wikipedia. I have written a grand total of two articles, both small. My interest, as many others are, is in the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Writing articles, the drive of reading them that lead me to my participation here, is fundamental to the project but not to adminship. So I think it is fine if other users respond to such criteria as opposition, and "look at my rant at the current RfA..." is in no way inspiring. I have no desire to read rants. I still <3 you, Realist2. Keegan^talk 05:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   The fact that most the people who harass my reasoning are usually admins with little article work hasn't lost my attention (maybe they think I wouldn't have supported their past RfA?). I'm glad you still love me, although most here know that I'm not at Wikipedia to make friends and probably have a hate list longer than my friend list, shrug, oh well. In an ideal environment you would be right, but all to often admins are asked/needed for their input on a dispute. These comments, even if not enforceable, do speak volumes. When one recent candidate thought that consensus was more important than fact, my concerns are stronger than ever that admins are disconnected. Article work brings on many skills that are learnt from experience and application, not reading policy. Unless an admin has a strong foundation in this I don't want them to have access to the delete or block button. I'm thinking of writing a more in-depth essay on this topic in the near future. — Realist² 08:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   R2, while normally I'd be loath to reply directly to an oppose--I understand your concerns. However, if I can speak on my own behalf here--that admin you're describing? Oh, so very, very not me. If anything, I will be OVER-consultative and OVER-cautious. I recognize that you have little evidence to go on; if Mr. Nixon and his antecedents haven't utterly destroyed this phrase for all time, I'd simply ask: Trust me. I know myself well enough to recognize that the disconnect between admin experience/temperament/personality and WP policy which you're describing--an utterly valid concern, and ironically enough one I share--simply isn't an issue in this case. I recognize you've got little to go on based on my contributions; if there was something I could point to, I would. All I have, however, is (30<x<40) years of self-awareness and my own (occasionally over-)cautious behavior re: interactions with others. (Re-reading this, I'm not sure I'd believe it if someone else were saying it; right now, though, it's the best I can do.) Regardless, I appreciate the substance of your oppose; and whether this RfA succeeds or fails, your concerns will be something I will remember and strive to correct. Gladys J Cortez 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   No, you're not getting me. I'm saying that the criteria (although stringent) is valid, and accusing other people (or stating that you yourself) of not generating GAs, FAs or DYKs is kinda irrelevant. We're talking about this particular candidate, not Realist, not you, not anybody else. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   not quite ready yet I see good work with WP:AIV, but would like to see more. I would also like to see more XFD work, as that was an area mentioned in question 1. I would like to see more WP:CSD work because it rounds out your experience. I would like to see more article creation. Some subjects don't lend themselves to DYK, FA, or GA-- I think there are plenty of subjects that need articles though they will never be more than B class articles at best. And do please source any previous article work. Citing sources is essential to an encyclopedia, and I think an admin should do their best to make sure sourcing is provided. Dlohcierekim 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

   switch to neutral. Dlohcierekim 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose Per miranda. I think she said it best. America69 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose, but reluctantly. I'm sorry, but there is just something about the admittedly contrived persona that screams, at least to me, "Don't trust me." Deli nk (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   I'd like a little more clarification here. Are you opposing merely because this user operates under a pseudonym? If so, to be honest, I find that objectionable. The vast majority of editors are less than keen to divulge RL information, and I do not feel that penalization for this is just. GlassCobra 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   No, I'm not opposing merely because the user operates under a pseudonym, and I'm surprised that my comment could be interpreted that way. This is just my opinion, but the persona behind the pseudonym comes across as so contrived that it hides the nature of the real person (not just their real name). Deli nk (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I heartily disagree. As Gladys very clearly states at the top of her userpage, nothing in her online identity is contrived besides the name: "the life of online-character-Gladys exactly parallels the life of offline, real-life human Not-Gladys...Aside from the name, though, everything is true. I've not made up any credentials for myself, nor claimed any life experiences I've never had; if I claim to know something, or to have done something or experienced something, it's because it's the truth." I'm having a hard time what exactly comes across to you as untrustworthy. I interpreted your comment as being merely in regards to the concept of a pseudonym because I thought that the fact that Gladys is only fabricating a name and nothing more should have been clear to anyone looking at her user page. GlassCobra 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits suggests a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Insufficient experience in most if not all relevant areas, as pointed out by several people above.  Sandstein  19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per lack of experiences in Wikispace.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose not enough experience in encyclopedia building. Only about 300-400 of the article edits are not machine edits and they aren't very big. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose with regrets. You're off to a good start but need more experience in admin areas; additional content-building would help as well. Stay at it and you'll get there. Majoreditor (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose this time. Come back with wider experience and more article-building. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Weak oppose. Some inexperience in areas, but should improve within months of further editing. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

    Further editing of what? Your favourite article? My favourite article? Spending more time in the slough of despond that is AfD? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

17. Weak oppose, you seems to be sensible and to think carefully about what you're doing, but that is balanced by the fact that you haven't a great deal of experience. Although I wouldn't advise you to expand the article on Vista (I read your blog! :)), making some careful and collaborative contributions on a controversial subject that you don't have strong views about would go a long way towards me supporting a future RfA. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Weak oppose. No glaring mistakes or missteps in edit history, but I don't think the user's edit history shows sufficient depth or breadth of experience. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect people who wish to participate in AfD as admins to have some (or any) prior AfD experience. A lot of RfA oppose votes also make it sound as if the opposer is passing judgment on the editor rather than their suitability as an admin, which is the sole attribute I am speaking of here. It should be noted that the user is extremely valuable to the project as a competent Twinkle-user; I just don't feel they are ready for the tools. Yet. Keep working, try some new things, some new areas, and I have no doubt that you will be a good candidate for the tools in time. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Per miranda and the answer to Q7, the candidate has far too little experience for me to trust that they are competent enough to wield the tools. Steven Walling (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

    "Support"? Everyme 03:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

    For serious. If you can't keep track of which section you're writing in...(everyone, please finish that sentence to your own satisfaction, as no ending I can provide doesn't skate painfully close to WP:CIVIL)Gladys J Cortez 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

20. Oh, boy... Weak oppose on account of recently heavy activity and relatively low count. Ditto with another ongoing candidate, Foxy Loxy (talk · contribs · count). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Weak oppose Too inexperienced for me to trust. Lack of both admin-related and article-writing experience, as shown by Q7. Epbr123 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose due to concerns over inexperience, per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

#I think she needs more experience, but I may change my answer once I am re-assured. miranda 03:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Switch to oppose. miranda 03:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

per concerns I raised above. Dlohcierekim 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Seems sensible, and is supported by very sensible people. Not much to go on apart from that. Somehow I suspect the candidate would add to the drama on Wikipedia. But maybe in a good way. We'll see. N p holmes (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral -- doesn't really meet my requirements for XfD participation. But has clue. I'm willing to be badgered. My main concern isn't the snark (I think more snarky admins is better than policy wonks) or even the lack of mainspace contribs so much as the inexperience. The fact that Keeper76 speaks for this editor is almost enough to make me support. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 20:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)-Switch to support -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral Because of concerns raised in the oppose section, I have to go neutral.--LAAFan^sign _review 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral - She's on the margin of qualified, but no major concerns were raised, so I will not oppose. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

   I'm interested to know what prompted you to post a neutral vote. Is it like a graffiti tag, so that others know you were here? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

   (pokes Mal with an elbow) Careful...that reads to me like a "neutral-leaning-to-oppose", and faced with THAT choice I'll gladly say "Neutral it is, then. Thank you. Much appreciated." :) (I have learned that it is often best, faced with an answer one may not like, not to ask the question in the first place.)Gladys J Cortez 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

   You're quite right, this is your RfA. Poking with elbow fully understood and accepted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

   Jeez, does that mean we're an old married couple now? lol...Gladys J Cortez 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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.