Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady

Orlady

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (51/11/4); Scheduled to end 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Orlady (talk · contribs) – Orlady has been a Wikipedian since 2004. During that time she has authored and improved countless articles (a few to featured status), fought off trolls and vandals, earned numerous barnstars, worked tirelessly to enforce Wikipedia policies, educated countless newbies, conducted herself in a civil manner, and just in general been a huge asset to Wikipedia. She usually works in lower traffic areas, so if you haven't heard of her, it isn't due to inactivity. It's high time she be given the tools appropriate to her level of Wikipedia experience and activity. Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I appreciate Kaldari's confidence, and I accept the nomination.

I've been a fairly active "Wikipedia dilettante" since some time in 2006 (although I registered in 2004, I was not very active until 2006). I'm usually not very predictable in my activity levels or systematic about my contributions, I'm not a technically minded tool-builder or template-maker, and I'm not much interested in wikipolitical processes or wikibureaucracy. Mostly, I got involved to fix mistakes in articles and edit articles about topics I find interesting, I used to figure that I could leave the admin work to other people who are more dedicated and more technically adept than I am. However, for a long time it has been clear to me that much of my "work" here has been essentially admin-like, including reverting vandalism, warning and reporting vandals, ferreting out sockpuppets, participating in XfDs, trying to ensure that NPOV is maintained in various articles that I have watchlisted, and participating in featured list reviews and at DYK. I am aware that if I had admin tools, I could do some of these things more efficiently (for example, I could tell when a newly created article that looks like one I recall having been deleted earlier is truly the same as the one I recall) -- and reduce the workload of the administrators who I suspect might be sick and tired of responding to my requests for help with tasks I don't have the tools to perform.

If granted admin privileges, I can't promise that I won't make mistakes (heck, I know that I will make some mistakes; I will go so far as to PROMISE that I will make mistakes because people who don't make mistakes aren't trying), but I can also promise not to break anything intentionally -- and to try to clean up after myself when I do mess up. --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (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: To be honest, I don't know what I will do. (I don't have a crystal ball.) I do know that when I notice errors on the main page, I will repair them myself instead of posting at WP:ERRORS. Also, when I find an article with a non-MOS title that requires a sysop to move it to the correct title, I will move it myself instead of requesting sysop assistance. Other areas where I am likely to help out are:

• WP:DYK - From time to time, I get involved at DYK (including reviewing hook suggestions, doing minor editing on articles proposed for DYK, and building hook sets for future updates). With admin tools, I expect to help with main page updates when the bot isn't working, and to move hooks into the queue for future updates to the main page. DYK is a very energy-intensive feature of Wikipedia (meaning that it requires a lot of volunteer energy to keep it running), but I think it is beneficial for bringing attention to a diverse variety of new articles and drawing people into helping to improve those articles.
• WP:AfD - My experience in AfD runs the gamut: nominating articles for deletion, participating in discussions, working to "rescue" some nominated articles, and participating in deletion review discussions later on. I have done just one or two non-admin closures, but if given the tools it is likely that I would use them to help out with AfD closures. I believe I have a solid understanding of most policies related to deletion, I can recognize comments and "votes" that are based on invalid reasons, and I can judge whether or not WP:consensus exists. As an aside, I think AfD is a very important process, not only for helping to rid Wikipedia of articles that do not belong in the encyclopedia, but also for causing improvements to be made that cause seemingly doomed articles to be kept, and for thoroughly teaching contributors (like me) about Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I would like to be able to help at WP:CfD, but my experience there (notably my experience with tagging large numbers of categories for renaming) leads me to think that effective involvement requires someone more technically savvy than I. As for other XfD processes, I might help at WP:TfD, but templates are of less interest to me that articles and categories. I would not take an active admin role at WP:IFD because I don't understand image-related issues as well as I do text-related issues.

• WP:AIV - Having warned many vandals and reported some at AIV (about 90, according to my edit count), I think I have a pretty good understanding of the accepted criteria for imposing blocks and other responses to vandalism, and I probably will help out at AIV.
• WP:RFP - The ability to protect pages is an effective tool for protecting the quality of Wikipedia, particularly until such time as flagged revisions are implemented. Having reverted a lot of vandalism (manually, using rollback, and occasionally using Twinkle) and having requested page protection on several occasions, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the basis for judging when page protection is appropriate, and I would expect to help out here. A few weeks back (when Plutonium, an article on my watch list, was featured on the main page) I learned that the featured article of the day is not protected except in cases of unusually egregious vandalism; I guess I was sheltered from that knowledge earlier because there are few FA-class articles on my watchlist.

Having had long-term involvement with monitoring continued sockpuppetry by one certain banned user, I would like to be able to contribute to deleting the articles that emanate from this user's new sockpuppets, but I think that Wikipedia policies discourage that kind of involvement with a sockpuppet case that I am close to. Thus, I might still need to ask for a less-involved admin to help with clean-up. (I welcome discussion on whether my perceptions of policy are accurate.)

Additionally, I am likely to help with speedy deletions, particularly the more obvious varieties (such as school lunch menus, advertisements for local motels, pages blanked by the creator, and obvious copyvios). I've dabbled in new pages patrol a few times in the past, and would be more likely to contribute there if I could speedy-delete articles myself instead of placing db templates on the obvious candidates.

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

A: Unfortunately, I fear that my single best contribution has been sticking my arm in the dike (metaphorically speaking) in order to help stem the tide of vandalism, particularly on the set of articles that I monitor on my watchlist. A large fraction of my edits are reversion or repair of vandalism, and several of the pages where my edit counts are highest (for example, Purple drank and Amsterdam (city), New York) are articles where I have made few substantive contributions, but have reverted (or repaired the article in the aftermath of) large numbers of "unconstructive" edits.

Along the same general lines as reverting vandalism, I have somehow developed a specialty in what might be called the "Netherworld of Education" (specifically articles about diploma mills, other unaccredited universities and colleges, and schools/programs for kids with serious problems), and I take some pride in having contributed to creating articles that are sufficiently well-sourced and NPOV that they are no longer subject to frequent edit wars and WP:AFD nominations. I can't point to any masterpiece articles in this area, but I think both the world and Wikipedia benefit from the information content of articles like Columbus University (not to mention List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, where I've done both rescue work and continuing maintenance), and it is satisfying to be able to create articles like Elim Bible Institute as short-but-stable replacements for earlier articles that had been deleted.

However, just as Sisyphus surely wasn't proud of his progress in rolling the rock uphill, there's not much satisfaction in continually reverting vandalism or crafting short articles about "marginal" topics.

When I create articles, my usual goal is to create a "good enough" article to fill a void in the encyclopedia, so I don't have a thick portfolio of featured articles to point to. One of my best contributions is List of cities and towns in Tennessee -- I didn't start that one, nor did I do the work that took it past the bare-bones list stage (Kaldari did that before I got involved), but I greatly expanded the list content and took the article to featured list status, with help from other Tennessee editors and some regulars at WP:FLC. After getting acquainted with the FLC process, I contributed to a bunch of reviews at FLC, and through review comments and editing I have helped several other nominated list articles reach FL status, such as List of United States graduate business school rankings and List of National Park System areas in Maryland.

A few of my creations have been featured on WP:DYK (at last count, I believe I was credited for 17 DYKs: 14 for articles that I created or expanded, two articles by others that I nominated, and one for which I was granted "co-creator" credit because of the extensive additions I made after the article was nominated for DYK). One of my contributions there, Stroke Belt, garnered 14,900 hits during its short time on the main page.

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, I've experienced conflicts in editing. The main thing I do to avoid stressful situations is that I generally refrain from contributing to articles on topics that I feel passionate about. In fact, I generally try not to read articles about topics I care deeply about. I have, however, encountered stressful conflicts due to (1) topics that other people seem to be intensely passionate about, (2) continuing altercations with vandals, and (3) the feelings of protectiveness and pride that most contributors have regarding their own work.

Type 1: At various times, various articles about controversial educational institutions have been subject to intensive editing activity involving both opponents and supporters of the institution. One particularly "memorable" series of experiences was at Warren National University, between about July 2007 and October 2007. The article history indicates that I was actually a relatively minor player in the battles over that article's content, but I still have managed to accumulate 139 edits in the article and 85 edits on its talk page, and I was the recipient of a fair amount of talk page abuse from one particular single-purpose account with strong COI before the account was finally blocked. I have learned a lot since that series of incidents. Other contributors and I spent far too much time and energy on minute-by-minute interaction over the article, endless arguments on the talk page, and a frustrating series of attempts to get help, including an attempt at mediation, a mostly inconclusive RfC process, and various WP:AN reports. It would have been far more effective to have requested full protection for the article early on in order to "lower the temperature" of the situation. It also would have helped to have been more assertive in reporting 3RR violations, instead of trying to "make nice" with the other "combatants." Since that time, I've also become much more familiar with Wikipedia policies, and (although it is against my nature to be someone who continually quotes rules) I've learned that it is often effective to cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's definitely not wise to assume that all participants in a dispute are aware of Wikipedia policies.

Type 2: Average run-of-the-mill vandalism is annoying, but not a source of stress. However, I would be lying if I did not acknowledge that I experience stress as a result of continuing interactions with persistent vandals whose disruptive behavior includes personal attacks (such as the Jvolkblum sockpuppets, who have engaged in what might be called "character assassination by sockpuppet" by posting allegations and insinuations about me on other users' talk pages under a variety of different names and anonymous IPs). Sometimes I try to ignore them or stay away from Wikipedia for a while, other times I fight back by reporting the behavior (although there's not much more that can be done about a user who's already banned and blocked). The main thing is to have a tough skin and try to avoid reacting in anger.

Type 3: The most upsetting conflicts I have experienced involve a few good and well-intentioned contributors who were profoundly insulted when I said negative things about their work, and who continue to nurse deep grudges. Most notable of these conflicts is with Doncram, who seems to have been deeply offended by my objections to the WP:FLC nomination of an article in which he had a strong interest, and who has chosen to interpret our subsequent interactions as some sort of a personal war. Geronimo20 also apparently holds a grudge related to an occasion 5 months ago when I found a serious problem with an article he had nominated for DYK.(See DYK nom, my talk page, and Geronimo's talk page.) DoxTxob also seems never to have completely recovered from being offended by comments I made about assigning "importance" ratings to articles (here). I'm bothered by these conflicts because these are good people -- I can't shrug them off as vandals. When I find myself in a seemingly unresolvable content dispute with a good-faith contributor, I generally back away from the article, since the subjects of most disputes are usually pretty inconsequential. I believe that these particular disputes got elevated because I didn't engage in mutual backscratching ("you do me a favor and I'll one for you") and I was not prepared to say "He's generally a good guy, so let him have his FLC (or DYK) trophy even if the nomination isn't up to snuff."

Question from Ottava Rima

Q. 4: Why do you think that pages should be deleted before users are allowed "any more time to establish notability"?

A.: As worded, that's a question in the same form as "When did you stop beating your wife?" As it happens, I think that creators of articles about topics that are potentially notable should be encouraged to establish notability for the articles they created, and should be given time to address problems with the articles. This is especially true of articles created by newbies. There are some articles that qualify for speedy deletion (typically under G1 or A7) because there is not even a shred of evidence that the topics are notable. When I think there is a small chance that the article topic is indeed notable, I typically will "prod" it or nominate it at AfD instead of tagging it for speedy deletion under A7. Also, I sometimes have nominated an article at AfD with the expectation that the AfD process would spur the article's creators to address long-standing issues that had not been resolved by gentler means.

The example you cite actually shows that I give users plenty of opportunity to fix their articles. The situation involved an article about a family graveyard that had at most 25 burials in its history and was now abandoned, with almost all (or perhaps all) of the burials exhumed and moved elsewhere. I had flagged the article as an orphan and lacking evidence of notability 4 months before I nominated it at AfD. The article's creator had added many references to the article, mostly to personally maintained online genealogical sites (non-WP:RS). None were to reliable sources that supported the article's content, there was nothing to indicate that anyone buried in the cemetery had been notable, and after 4 months the article was still an orphan, although Jvolkblum (editing under an anonymous IP) had stopped by and removed the notability and orphan templates. I believe that the article's creator had ample opportunity to fix the notability issue before I started the AfD you cite in your question, and the AfD discussion led to a thorough investigation of the topic's notability (far more than I think the topic warranted, but YMMV). --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow up Q did it occur to you to look for additional sources yourself, as explained at WP:BEFORE? DGG (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Q. 5: Can you provide the link to where you contacted the "article's creator" mentioned above and when you discussed the issues with the content on the talk page? Can you explain why "needs improvement" is a legitimate reason for deletion?

A.: My response to the first part of your question is "Touché!" From a review of the history, I am embarrassed to find that I apparently never contacted the article's creator regarding either my concerns about the article or the initiation of the AfD. The article creator had no difficulty finding the "notability" template, because s/he returned ~4 days later to add many reference citations to the article. I don't recall why I did not notify the article creator about the AfD, but I have two theories: (1) I considered the article to be a clear case of nonnotability (an argument possibly could have been made that it qualified for speedy deletion under A7) and the creator had already made his/her best shot at fixing the problem, with dismal results. As I stated in the AfD: "... no evidence or indication of notability (for example, nobody notable seems to be buried there)...." (Although it might have qualified for speedy deletion, I thought it better to take it to AfD. At AfD, articles get far more attention than they would ever get from pestering an article creator to accomplish something that they have already tried to do and failed at.) (2) It is likely that I mistakenly recalled the creator's name as being one of the blocked sockpuppets of Jvolkblum, who cannot respond to notifications due to having been blocked. (Most articles about New Rochelle topics were created by users who were subsequently blocked, and the most recent non-bot edit to the article had been done from a blocked IP.)

As to the second part of your question, it's another case of "When did you stop beating your wife?" "Needs improvement" is not a legitimate reason for deletion, and I have probably said those very words more than once in an AfD discussion. Lack of evidence of notability is, however, a legitimate reason for deletion, and I have observed that sometimes an AfD nomination provides the motivation that causes a recalcitrant article creator to (1) explain why their topic is notable and (2) provide documentation to support the claim of notability. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Collectonian

Q. 6: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School, you appeared to display a poor understanding of WP:COPYVIO and general copyright laws. What did you learn from the AfD result and did you take steps after to correct your understanding of copyrights?

A.:

Q. 7: How you feel there is a difference between determining consensus in an AfD discussion, and simply counting keeps/deletes? You noted that you feel you can tell which "comments and 'votes' that are based on invalid reasons". Can you give some examples of what you would consider invalid keep reasons and invalid delete reasons?

A.: Part 1: Ideally, consensus should be entirely different from voting (or even !voting). True consensus would mean that all participants in a discussion are listening to one another and weighing the arguments given by others, and that participants who initially disagreed have modified their views and recommendations to converge on a single solution -- or at least acquiesce to the recommendations of others.

That seldom happens here at Wikipedia for a variety of reasons -- because discussion participants can't interact in real time (people come and go), because there's no eye contact ;-), because some participants never return to a discussion to see what has developed, because the participants are often strangers to one another and don't have a good grasp of the other paricipants' perspectives, because people often have radically different levels of understanding of policies, etc., etc. Thus, Wikipedia "consensus" is inevitably not true consensus. Raw numbers are often a strong basis for judgment: if 11 out of 13 Wikipedians agree, they probably have the right idea (assuming that they are independent players and not skewed by sockpuppets, people canvassed to participate, or the like). However, when the !votes are split (and even when they aren't), it's important to see whether people have been presenting reasons, what their reasons are based on (see below), whether they've been discussing the issue with one another -- or just at each other, and whether views have changed during the discussion. "Lack of consensus" sometimes means that there is a relatively even numerical split between the "sides," but it also can mean that both sides are strongly advocating their positions with seemingly reasonable arguments, and no minds are being changed as a result of discussion.

Part 2: You ask for invalid reasons for "delete" and "keep" votes. I've listed some examples, followed by (in parentheses) some commentary on each one.

Some examples of invalid reasons for deletion include: "the article is poorly written" (this can be a fatal flaw if the article is so incoherent that meaning cannot be extracted from it, but poor writing can be overcome if the topic is notable and the content is verifiable), "the topic is ridiculous" (this is not actually a reason), "the negative content in this article will be bad for our organization's public relations" (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium; we judge content by whether it's verified and presented from a neutral point of view, not by whether it benefits the article's subject), and "the person who created this article had a conflict of interest" (COI is definitely a problem, but if the article has been rewritten from a neutral point of view, using reliable sources, it might belong in the encyclopedia).

Some examples of invalid reasons for "keep" include "it's interesting" and "it's useful" (maybe true, but is it notable?), "this church is notable because it's very large" (OK, but large doesn't connote notability -- is there any indication that it's in any way unique, and has it been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources documenting this notability?), "this person is admired by everyone in my town" (maybe so, but this is a global encyclopedia we need an indication that the person is notable by Wikipedia's criteria, not just in your town), "I found six other articles about similar topics" (the flaws in this argument are discussed at WP:OTHERSTUFF), and "the article is accurate" (that's important, but are there sources to indicate that the topic is notable?).

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

8a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: That type of page can be deleted instantly, in accordance with both A3 (no content -- what the page has right now) and G11 (blatant advertising -- what the page is likely to become when the promised construction is complete). Before deleting it, however, I would look at logs for previous versions of the article and I would probably take a quick look at the company website and do a quick Google search to see if there is any hint that the web company is notable. In almost all such instances, the company will turn out to be non-notable (I say that because the world is full of small web companies that want to use Wikipedia to advertise themselves), in which case I would delete the page without further ado. In the edit summary I would provide a full statement of the reasons for deleting the page (including the lack of evidence that the company meets WP criteria for notability and the WP policy against using the encyclopedia as an advertising medium), and I would send the page creator a message appropriate to the situation.

If I found evidence of possible notability, my action likely would depend on both what I found regarding the topic and the experience/history of the page creator. In some rare cases (for example, strong evidence of notability and a user who has previously demonstrated poor command of English and has repeatedly tried to start the same article) I might even remove the speedy deletion template and write sourced content for the article, based on the sources I found. --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

8b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: That's a circumstance I've never seen -- a page with a title and no content other than the underconstruction template! (Does this actually happen?) In that type of case, I think I would look first at the page creator's history. If this is a brand-new user, I would move the page to the creator's user space, with a note indicating that they can develop the page in their user space and resubmit it when it has content. If the user has a longer history, I would likely delete the page as "no content", with a note asking them not to re-create it until they have some content to provide. --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Followup I've certainly seen it happen. it's routine for an inexperienced author to write the title, and the following minute (literally) someone at NewPages nominates for a Speedy. How would you deal with this?DGG (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Live and learn! I had no idea this happened -- presumably because I'm not a sysop looking at speedy deletion requests, and when I do new pages patrol I tend to focus on unpatrolled pages that are at least about 20 minutes old. (Someone else is usually busily tagging the most obvious issues with the newest pages, so I seldom attempt to try to deal with those, but instead look at the slightly older pages that often present more complex issues.)

Since I've never encountered nor thought about this question before, the clear first step is to ask an experienced administrator how they normally handle the situation. (How do you handle as this situation, anyway?) As for my general philosophy on how to address this, I believe that newbies deserve some leeway. Initial contributions that may have encyclopedic value (unfortunately, many first contributions don't) should not be deleted on sight. Instead the newbie should be given time to build the article, particularly if they have placed an underconstruction template on it. A new user should be given at least an hour to start the article, but if no content has been added within the first hour, my solution of "move the page to the creator's user space, with a note indicating that they can develop the page in their user space and resubmit it when it has content" might be the best approach. It's less important to make allowances for experienced users (those who have started articles before), as they should have learned that a new page in article space needs to have content. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I handle this by replacing the speedy tag with the one for "underconstruction", alerting the user to the problem & explaining the need to get things to a reasonable adequate stub state before leaving the article, reminding the person who put on the tag to give people a chance, and coming back in a few days--not just one hour--to see if the article is being worked on. some good admins use a Prod tag, which gives 5 days. But the essential point is to explain. Most newbies don't know about the underconstruction tag--some even place it and the holdon tag at the same time, which of course only lists the article for speedy deletion! There are a few experienced people who insist on creating unsourced ministubs, and they are a problem. DGG (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

8c. Under your understanding of WP:BLP, which of the following statements may be removed if not properly sourced: "XXX is gay", "XXX is married", "XXX is of German, Polish, and Irish ancestry", "XXX is a violinist", "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate", "XXX was accused of incest by his daughter", "XXX is Presbyterian", "XXX is Muslim", "XXX was born in 19XX".

A: All of those may be removed if not properly sourced, because Wikipedia should not report unsourced information about living persons. However, some items must be removed instantly (as soon as they are first "sighted") due to their potentially defamatory nature (in your list, the incest accusation is the most extreme example of this, but "gay", religion, ancestry, and "did not graduate" are very close behind it), and personal identification details such as dates of birth should not be included unless they are sourced. However, as a practical matter, information that is neither defamatory nor personally sensitive (in this example, this would be "XXX is a violinist") may be allowed to remain -- at least for a brief period -- to allow for verification.

8d. If after removing all statements from a biography that must me removed under WP:BLP, if the article meets WP:CSD#A7, would it be proper to speedy delete it?

A: Do you mean that the article is now eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7? Yes, it would then be proper to speedy delete it, but with a summary that indicates that the article could be re-created if the new article complies with WP:BLP. (I think it's important to document reasons for deletion so that prospective article creators are not intimidated by the article's deletion history.) If the article subject is notable, a better solution would be to create a properly sourced stub that indicates why the article subject is important or significant.

8e. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A:

Additional question from Dream Focus (transcribed from "Oppose" section)

9. Is there a way to list every single AFD she has participated in?

A: I copied out a list of the AfDs I participated in during approximately the last year. It's here (on the discussion page for this RfA). --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions from doxTxob

10. Can the sockpuppet investigation against Orlady, which was filed on or before Feb. 24, 2009 by blocked User:MagdaOakewoman, be un-deleted? (also see "Oppose" section)

A: That case was not deleted. It was renamed, because the accuser was found to be engaged in sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Followup: 10a. Usually sockpuppet cases are named for the accused, not the accuser. From the history of both pages it is not obvious what led to the renaming of the case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orlady does not link to the renamed case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive nor is the latter case linked to the first. Can you provide any information about where the renaming of the case was discussed on Wikipedia in a way that the community could take part in the discussion?

Comment Closed sockpuppet investigations are "moved" (apparently copied) to /Archive by a bot, but you can find the history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman. For example, here is where the case was renamed: [1]. --GRuban (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I had nothing to do with closing that case or renaming it. The case was investigated by a checkuser and renamed by another administrator. The user who had accused me of sockpuppetry was in fact engaged in sockpuppetry. Those who are trying to dig up dirt on me probably will be excited to know that earlier one of the sockpuppet accounts had accused me of edit warring in connection with an article where I had made exactly two edits three days apart. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Interesting, that user who dug up dirt on you is now also indefinitely blocked. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Followup: 10b. The page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive states that Orlady was not checked and the case was closed. For a proposed admin, the accusation of sockpuppetry is a very, very serious one. Would you agree to an investigation of the accusations made against you conducted by an independent party, to clear your record of any doubt?

A: The request is unreasonable. Do you not trust the findings of the checkuser process? Do you not accept the possibility that some vandals disrupt Wikipedia by filing accusations of sockpuppetry where there is no basis for the accusation? --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable and do not know if there is a basis because the report states that Orlady was not checked. (See Oppose section below to save some space here) doxTxob \ ^talk 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

11. You have been involved in the Jvolkblum sockpuppet investigation for a while and have reported many users as sockpuppets. Imagine the following scenario: One editor requests that you step back from the case completly and let other experienced editors handle the case, due to a concern that you might be biased by your long involvement in that very case. How would you respond to that request?

A: This is not a hypothetical question -- you (i.e., "one editor") have been asking me this question on various different talk pages. I have not answered because you don't "own" the situation any more than I or anyone else does. At various times in the past there were multiple users contributing and cooperating to take note of Jvolkblum socks, but several of those other users have disappeared from Wikipedia or moved on to other projects. If other people were to become productively involved in this area, my level of involvement would quickly decline. Contrary to Doncram's allegations, I don't enjoy playing "whack-a-mole" (I think it's a frustrating and unproductive exercise, but a necessary one).

I consider myself as "one editor" of Wikipedia, you are absolutely right. I have asked the question not several times but only twice to offer a solution that might be best for the Wikipedia project, and there was no response from you. I do not own the situation (and you don't either) but I am seriously interested in Wikipedia and seek the best for the project. The best for the project might be without you, doncram and doxTxob (myself) being involved in this particular case. As you try to diverge from the question, let me explain here to the participants of this discussion what my complete proposition was: All heavily involved parties in the discussion that got out of control, Orlady, Doncram and doxTxob (myself) would agree to not further pursue that case and let other experienced editors and admins take over as I am convinced that every one of these three (incl. myself) is too much involved to judge fairly, unbiased and for the best of Wikipedia. Refer to: User_talk:DoxTxob/Archive_2#Hello and there Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=281632533

The question becomes hypothetical when it is about your qualification for adminship, because this situation might happen again and at the cost of valuable contributors of Wikipedia. I formulated the question the way I did to find out what you would do if such a case repeats. I mentioned it before at a different place and I said that I was very, very impressed by User:Coren, who closed two AN discussions. At the beginning of the arbitration, Coren suggested he/she would reclude from the discussion at the request of any participant. Wow, that is the wood a good admin is carved from. I salute to Coren for this behavior that could be used an example for anyone, inside and outside of Wikipedia. If there is any doubt about your integrity, you (and anyone) should let someone else take over, just to make sure everything is judged properly. doxTxob \ ^talk 06:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Quadell

12. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. One such instance is documented at Talk:National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts. Here's the story:

I believed that the page did not belong in article space, in accordance with WP:NOT, but that it might be appropriate in wikiproject space or user space. I first discussed my concerns on the [[talk page, where the article creator participated energetically in defense of the page, and another user commented that a move to project space would be a good resolution. After almost four days had passed without further discussion activity following my last comment on that page (in those last comments I had responded to the creator's request to provide a detailed explanation of my reasoning), I concluded that the discussion had ended with acquiescence to a page move (if not a consensus), so I moved the page to project space. Thirty-five minutes later, the page's creator moved it back to article space, illustrating that he did not think that consensus had been reached. The page's creator (who is now vociferously complaining that I am a "bully") had earlier effectively dared me to take the matter to AfD, saying "If you don't feel like explaining, and if you feel inexplicably compelled to continue, then go ahead and raise the issue in AfD or wp:Requested moves or requests for arbitration or whatever other forum, and I will respond more fully to point out what I feel to be inaccuracies in your statements, and I will muster arguments for keeping this list-article where it is now." Seeing that talk page discussion had failed, a few hours after he reverted the page move I started an AfD discussion. After 3-1/2 days of lively discussion, with several users supporting either deletion or a move to project space and several others supporting retention, the AfD was closed as "keep." I accepted that conclusion (albeit reluctantly) and continued with other initiatives; I have had no subsequent involvement with the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 13. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 13a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A:

• 13b. ...a page to be protected?

• A:

• 13c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A:

• 13d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A:

• 14. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A:

• 15. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A:

• 16. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A:

General comments

• Links for Orlady: Orlady (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/Orlady before commenting.

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I have seen Orlady around doing good work. Should do fine as an admin. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Orlady will make a great admin. She helps out at DYK by reviewing nominations, preparing sets of hooks, and alerting admins when the next update is due. She's polite, understanding, and helpful with newcomers. And she's been invaluable with debugging DYKcheck (also shows she's willing to try out new things). Shubinator (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Orlady's been here
   Longer than many admins
   More than qualified.  GARDEN  15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Lots of good edits
   Vandal fighting for the win
   So why the hell not? FlyingToaster 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Orlady finally running for adminship? That's excellent news. I remember her as an admin or whatever they call it of the Open Directory Project, a bit less than 10 years ago, when I was active there. She absolutely had the right personality for her influential position there; and from all I have seen since I started watching her talk page about a year ago, I predict that she will be one of the best admins here as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC) — Since there are a couple of oppose !votes, I think I should add: This is absolutely normal for an editor who has been an "admin without the tools" for a long time. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong support. Orlady guards Wikipedia articles like a mama bear guards her cubs. She homes in on the singular goal of making the article better or more accurate, and doesn't relent until that end is achieved. Giving her admin tools is long overdue. Bms4880 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. I wish I could right a haiku, but that's not my thing. So, I'll just say, looks good! Cool3 (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Looks like a very good and trustworthy editor. She should have gotten the tools long ago. Timmeh! 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - my experiences with Orlady have all been positive, she's been here longer than most of us and has surely earned her chance. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, and not just for the Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet fighting. I think she's shown a lot of patience in this matter, but she has a lot of other great contributions all across the project. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support I don't recall when I put this page on my watch list, but it was so that I could support this editor when and if the day came that they were nominated. That day is today. I've seen Orlady's work before and am supportive. GRBerry 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Looks trustworthy. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Clearly trustworthy. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support, unequivocally. bd2412 T 17:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Orlady is an asset to DYK, no matter what the opposers here might try to claim. Giving her admin tools will be a net benefit to the project and to the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - In addition to default Tennessee support, I've always seen Orlady as a strong contributor that has unquestioned zeal for improving the encyclopedia. TNXMan 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Strongest possible support -- #1 Orlady is an editor's editor. #2 She is judicious and diplomatic; in controversies, she always just takes the discussion back to encyclopedia-building and our editorial standards, thereby defusing behavioural issues. I've been asking her to stand for admin for a couple of years now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support -download | sign! 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Has a clue, will travel. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Yes. America69 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support no worries here; longterm prolific and uncontentious editor with a clean block log, (the only block was an accident in 2007 that was reverted within three minutes). ϢereSpielChequers 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. I've often seen this editor doing good work. I trust her to improve the project with whatever tools she has.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Everything I've seen indicates this editor works in good faith and is a major contributor to the Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - A valued colleague and s good spirit, unflagging in her efforts to improve this project; truly worthy to wield the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Net positive and should help, plus there aren't enough admins yet. :D--Giants27 ^T/C 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Aye Long overdue. Black Kite 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Sure- why not? Seems to have a good head on her shoulders. Reyk _YO! 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I've been impressed with her work on diploma mil^H^H^H^H^H^H *cough* unaccredited institutions. Skinwalker (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Strongest possible support Orlady is great improving articles as well as preventing vandals from degrading Wikipedia. My experience with Orlady is that she's very respectful when dealing with others and encouraging others to improve Wikipedia as well. Making her an admin will lead to making Wikipedia better. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - Great work at SPI. KnightLago (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support This is an easy one. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support A tireless contributor and defender of Wikipedia policy. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support - seems committed to the encyclopedia, patient in disputes, good contribution record. Euryalus (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Knowledgeable editor. The opposes are not persuasive. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. Despite my shock that Doug is fourth opposer... --candle•wicke 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support, but remember that while it's nice to be important, it's more important to be nice. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Eusebeus (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support in the Strongest Terms Possible Orlady is a great editor, is a tireless proponent and advocate for Wikepedia policies, and is highly respectful of other editors. Contrary to some of the arguments made below in opposition to her candidacy, she does indeed suffer fools gladly. She will make an outstanding administrator. Fladrif (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I remember Orlady from the Open Directory Project, where she was invaluable as one of the more steady, patient, and even tempered editors, and eventually Meta-editors. Her work here seems to continue that trend. Probably the best evidence for that is the links her opponents seek to use against her, showing that she is able to change her mind and is diligent and thorough. If this is her worst, she'll make a fine admin. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
45. per above. --Kbdank71 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support I've encountered Orlady in a couple of articles and article talk pages that are on my watchlist and have found her to be an impressive editor and is able to back up potentially controversial edits with sources. --Polaron | Talk 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support I haven't encountered Orlady much at Wikipedia. Only once or twice. However, the plaudits above seem persuasive. I did nose around a bit regarding the Jvolkblum matter, and cannot see that she's done anything wrong. Orlady may recall interacting with me quite a bit at DMOZ ages ago, and not in a very pleasant way, but that's water under the bridge, and anyway neither the water nor the bridge are at Wikipedia. Good luck, Orlady.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support excellent contributions and discussion at DYK. Your help will be appreciated! Royalbroil 00:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Kaldari appears to have hit the nail on the head below -- Orlady "seems to have a gift for maintaining calm and patience in the face of persistent antagonism." Indeed. --JayHenry (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support DGG is fairly convincing, but thinking about it some more reminds me that it's okay for admins to do a bit of learning on the job. Orlady has definitely proven her basic trustworthiness and dedication to the project, and I assume that she'll ask someone or look something up before speedily deleting things she's unsure of. Steven Walling (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose - From her comments at DYK, I have not seen anything to suggest that she respects standard consensus procedure, tradition within DYK, nor would I trust her having access to update the mainpage in any way, let alone having the ability to properly discern what could go on the mainpage especially in regards to fairness, appropriateness, or monitoring for articles with plagiarism. I will add other concerns for other areas shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Lengthy discussion moved to talk page.  iMatthew :  Chat  12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady#Ottava's oppose lengthy discussion - Which has far more opposition points including her AfD record. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Saw her actions at a recent AFD, and reading what she wrote about recognizing invalid arguments and ignoring the opinions of anyone who disagrees with her when forming consensus for an AFD, is rather troublesome. Is there a way to list every single AFD she has participated in? I think that is the best way to judge someone's character in these things. If the majority of editors in an AFD state something should be kept, they believing it meeting all requirements, would she ignore that simply because her opinion was different? We need administrators who listen to the consensus formed by editors, not just decide on their own straight away what should be done, and dismiss anyone else's opinion as invalid. Dream Focus 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Considering how much of your userpage is dedicated to vociferously opposing article deletion, I have to wonder what articles you would actually be OK with having deleted. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   I have in fact voted to delete articles in the past. I believe in reviewing things case by case though, not just trying to delete something outright because it didn't get mentioned by a third party media source. The guidelines are just suggestions, to be ignored, if the consensus of the editors in the AFD say so. Only policies have to be enforced no matter what. People have to remember that, and accept the consensus of all editors, not just ignore them automatically, determined to delete something they don't like, no matter what. Dream Focus 00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Stong Oppose - I intended to stay out of controversial issues on Wikipedia. As my username is mentioned above in the Type 3 conflicts I will take a few minutes to describe why I am opposed to Orlady's adminship. First of all I must say that I appreciate her contributions to Wikipedia and see her as one of the best editors we have. I cherish her skill with words, she is an excellent writer. When it is about conflicts, however, she lacks what it takes for an admin, in my opinion, to solve a conflict in a fair and neutral fashion. She stated her common practice herself, if she has a conflict with a Wikipedia member who is established, she cannot "shrug them off", like she does with new editors who have not established many contacts on Wikipedia yet and therefore no-one to stand in for them and support their view. Those newbies are bombed with WP policies or are shrugged off as vandals, their edits reverted and they leave Wikipedia discouraged.

   Established editors who she can not easily shrug off are treated differently. She withdraws for a while and in later discussions she claims that these editors still have a "grudge" against her stemming from a former case. Thereby, unfairly and wrongly, implying that she was right in that former case. I am glad that she mentioned the case we discussed, about article rating in which she and I were of different opinion. I need to go into a little detail here, I hope you excuse that. When this occurred, I was very familar with the 2000+ Tennessee related articles because I had rated them for "quality" a while before this controversy. The incident Orlady refers to above started when I rated Tennessee related articles for "importance", following the written rules on the assessment page of the Tennessee project strictly and applying the standards for the importance ratings as stated on that page. The page states that every member of the WikiProject can rate articles, without prior discussion, and examles are given to make sure that the rating structure can be understood easily. I rated more than 2000 articles at that time to provide an overview of the quality and importance of all Tennessee related articles. Obviously I made a few mistakes, maybe half a dozen complaints came in which I fixed. Six wrong out of 2000 is not too bad in my opinion and in my ratings I relied on people watching the articles they have created to complain if my rating was too far off the point. Except for these six mistakes, the rest of the 2000 ratings are still like they are, showing that I could not have been so wrong, after all. In the discussion that followed, Orlady expressed her general opposition to my actions, accusing me of applying "blanket ratings" obviously after having only checked a few articles I had rated. I explained to her that not at all I was applying "blanket ratings", just to have the articles rated. I tried to explain to her that of 2000 articles, of course, the vast majoity will turn out to recieve a low ranking. Instead of considering my valid arguments and discussing a solution she claimed that she did not like the articles rated at all. In the discussion she did not respond to my arguments but stubbornly insisted on her opinion. During the discussion I had the impression that she did not even care to read and understand my objections. The problem was never solved, a solution was never found. Later, she accused me in another situation that I still had a "grudge against her" as if she wanted to imply that she was right in that old case and I was just pouting. Not solving problems does not bring Wikipedia forward.

   Orlady's way to respond to negative comments is done in a fashion that the thread of the discussion is concealed and very hard to trace. When a topic is raised somewhere, she likes to respond on the talkpages of the involved users and that destroys the thread. So if you want to follow one of her controversial discussions, you would have to stitch together discussion fragments from the article page, the talkpages of users involved and her talk page. This becomes increasingly difficult if the discussion is older and some fragments are achived already. Well, that bad habit can be changed if there is not a reason for this concealment.

   In a recent case of New Rochelle sockpuppets (discussed on AN) she accused User:Umbarella of sockpuppetry although no harmful edits emerged from that account.

   Summarizing the above, it seems to me that in certain cases Orlady takes personal possession of topics and articles without regard to the quality of material provided by other editors and discusses problems in a way that conceals her mistakes. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Regarding the importance ratings discussion on WikiProject Tennessee, it was you, not Orlady, who took the argument personally. Orlady was simply wondering if assigning importance ratings to Medium and Low priority articles was useful, and you somehow construed that to mean she was attacking your ability to apply such ratings. You then threatened to leave the project if she remained. Bms4880 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I left the project because the problem was not solved at all. I acted according to established, accepted and documented community rules as outlined on the assessment page, which allow every member of the project to assign ratings if the documented standards are followed, that is what I did. The standards do neither explicitly nor implicitly require or suggest a previous discussion because the standards are well explained and easy to follow. Orlady preferred to take the interpretation of community standards into her own hands and replace them by her own. Under these conditions I rather withdrew from the project than accepting Orlady's rules. This entry on my talk page documents that Orlady, called my 2000+ edits "arbitrary" and "meaningless" without checking them properly before commenting about them. You would not take that personally? I was also falsely accused by Orlady for rating something wrong that had been rated by someone else. Again, she did not check the facts before criticizing.

   No, I wouldn't take it personally. She simply misinterpreted what you were saying (I made the same error in assuming you had arbitrarily assigned these ratings, based on what you had written), and she apologized for it. It wasn't lack of fact-checking, it was misinterpretation. You communicate with long posts and responses, and you're easy to misinterpret. Bms4880 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   But that was not my point, if Orlady accuses editors of wrongdoing without checking the facts properly, she is not equipped with the right mind set for an admin, at least not in my view. She resopnds impulsively and judges prematurely without checking and thinking before criticizing, but is rather driven by an "impression" she has. Furthermore, the way she formulates criticism can easily be taken personally, I can list more examples here if requested.

   The key phrase is can easily be taken personally. Any criticism or questioning of one's actions can easily be taken personally, regardless of how many smiley faces and warm fuzzies are attached to it, and in that exchange on the TN project last year, no one could post anything without you flying off the handle. Huntster had to reassure you that no one was attacking you. Orlady has a dry, cold rational style that is mistaken by some (not most) as "confrontational." Through it all, her singular focus is on the health of an article or the encyclopedia, and in the end, that's what's important. Schoolchildren will be reading these article years from now, they won't reading about the egos that got bruised in the article's making. Bms4880 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   This is not a single occurance, in the Jvolkblum sockpuppet case Orlady is quick to add new "sockpuppets" to "shrug" new users "off". On Feb 23, 2009 Orlady presented this evidence against a registered user: "I just added MagdaOakewoman to this report. This user registered within the last hour, has a user name that appears to refer to my user name (compare "Oakewoman" to my user name "Orlady", which is short for "Oak Ridge lady") and has a total of four edits (...) I can't imagine who but Jvolkblum would follow me around in that manner.'" All four edits good additions to Wikipedia, in my opinion, and the alleged similarity of the usernames would require a lot of vivid imagination not to be called far fetched. Blocked indefinitely after four good edits for arbitrary reasons and something in Orlady's imagination. I do not see any admin qualities here.

   A sockpuppet investigation against Orlady was filed by User:MagdaOakewoman on Feb. 24, 2009 and quickly deleted without much ado, it seems: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orlady. Is it possible to un-delete that page so that every participant in this discussion can make up their own mind about this acusation of sockpuppetry against Orlady? This accusation was made pretty recently and before voting in a new admin it should be made sure that there are no skeletons in the closet.

   [Insert Orlady's response from above (Answer to question 10 to the candidate)]: "That case was not deleted. It was renamed, because the accuser was found to be engaged in sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)" (PS - I added followup questions 10a and 10a to this question above. doxTxob \ ^talk 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

   Here is another example from the "Jvolkblum casefile", dated March 27, 2009: "I just added new user User:Umbarella to the case, based on duck-like edit activity. This user's 3 edits all have been to tweak minor historical details in articles about New Rochelle topics." This user was not blocked but reported after 3 edits for duck-like activities in a field of articles that Orlady seems to claim her own. For minor tweaking of historical details? I do not see the oversight necessary to become an admin here, either.

   These new users did not have a chance at all to establish a reputation on Wikipedia because they were appended to Orlady's sockpuppet case after 3 edits and shrugged off as vandals, as she formulated so perfectly herself. Change my "oppose" to "strong oppose" doxTxob \ ^talk 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   In response to your followup 10a, you might want to see this edit; the edit summary explains the move was to reflect the sockmaster. Shubinator (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I see the edit summary but the change of titles was not discussed by the community to be shifted from the accused to the accuser. That would be like re-naming the "JFK asassination case" to the "L.H. Oswald asassination case" without any further comment. It does not make sense and it looks like there is something to hide. The question remains: Where was the change discussed in the community that so conveniently keeps Orlady's name out of the spotlight? I am curiuos to learn the answer! doxTxob \ ^talk 07:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   It appears to me that you are asking to have the checkuser results published here for the whole world to study. That's a bad idea. Checkuser data are subject to privacy restrictions, for valid reasons and in accordance with WP:CHECKUSER. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   The request might be unreasonable if it was about a regular editor who has an account in good standing. As you are proposed as an admin, I do think that an accusation of sockpuppetry against yourself is quite a serious accusation, and honestly - if I was in your position - I would want any possible stain on my record be checked, to make sure for everyone about my integrity.

   I do not distrust the general process, however, I am always suspicious if the facts are not laid out openly. Wikipedia is a cummunity of volunteers and I feel very strongly that secrecy needs to be reduced to the absolute minimum level.

   Look further down at Doncram's comment. There, User:Deskana who also is a checkuser, mentions my name and Doncram, implying improper behaviour or possible sockpuppetry based on uncommon formating errors without even bringing it to the point. Wow, that is bad! Is that a method to get rid of uncomfortable opponents? And as you asked about trust in the process, that user would be one I could not trust. I demand that this accusastion against me and Doncram is checked and cleared and I demand an apology for that. Here and ASAP!

   I do absolutly value the rights that every user has and I am aware that personal data can not and should not be made public, not here and not elsewhere. My suggestion would be that one or two users not related to this case get temporary checkuser rights. That could, of course, not be you, me nor Doncram. It should be someone who be both trust and whose word be would both be willing to accept. My suggestion would be User:Huntster, we both know him. My alternative suggestion would be User:Otto42, he followed up well on a disruption by an IP user on the Talk:Memphis, Tennessee article. I have no idea if they want to get involved and are willing to do that, but both seem to be technically savvy and established enough on Wikipedia to be trusted by the community to absolutely ensure the privacy of the results. Would you agree that this could be a solution to ensure enough privacy but still get an outside opinon? doxTxob \ ^talk 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   If the sockpuppetry charge were in the slightest way credible, Wikipedia has plenty of systems in place that could be used to investigate and adjudicate. The charge was not credible. As near as I can make out, the allegation was that User:Director Magda was my sockpuppet. That user's entire contribution history consists of this diff. If you can find a credible basis for linking those edits to me as a sockpuppeteer, I think you have a brilliant future as a fiction writer. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Discussion relating to DougsTech's vote can be seen at WT:RFA--Iner22 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Strong oppose Orlady routinely deals with newbies and less experienced editors in rude, sarcastic terms and with the opposite of AGF. For one example, consider the treatment of relatively inexperienced editor who posted recently at User talk:Orlady#Suffield University. O's very first interaction was to assume bad faith and make an unjustified accusatory suggestion with this edit summary in this diff. In followup at User talk:Rumblebee she used sarcasm "Perhaps you are clairvoyant, but I'm not..."; she accused the person of edit warring (unfair in my view, the person suggested a Prod and reverted Orlady's rude dismissal once). In the Talk:Suffolk University exchange, O strongly objects to the editor posting some rewrite-needed-type tag, but, later in a separate section O acknowledges that some Yale Daily news material is indeed inappropriate to have included in the article (I agree with both Rumbletree and Orlady that the material should be removed). However the removal of that material is done in a way to negate any credit to the Rumbletree editor, and the net effect is that the editor has been threatend by Orlady and chastised by someone else for not assuming good faith. It is also ironic that Orlady's treatment of the editor is heavy-handed, while the editor explains he/she was trying to force some development/improvement of the article by a 5 day Prod, given that I have seen Orlady try to force changes of other articles by use of AfD nominations. This is just one small example of Orlady's participation causing bad feelings and collateral damage.

   Orlady is a powerful person within wikipedia already, as she has writing skills and attention to detail in sourcing, etc., as well as skill bringing to bear Checkusers and others to support her in enforcement actions. I consider her to be a bully, and while I don't myself need extraordinary protection to stand up to her occasional attacks at my Talk page or elsewhere, I think it would be a gross mistake to give her Administrative powers.

   Also, she is embroiled (as am I) in a running lowgrade war on articles concerning the New Rochelle, New York area, the subject of two recent wp:an discussions that i opened, here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady and here) and a request for arbitration (that was denied as unsuitable for arbitration). The situation was not fully discussed in any of those, but relates to what is reportedly the largest-ever sockpuppet case in wikipedia, which has consumed a large amount of Checkuser and other administrative resources and has cost a lot of good will. Dispute about this has seems to have caused more than one good person to retire from wikipedia, at least temporarily. Others opinions may differ, but I blame Orlady for a large share of responsibility of aggravating and extending the situation. Her use of sarcasm and heavy-handedness and open scorn for the person or persons involved seems to encourage and perpetuate a big game. After a year of involvement in New Rochelle area articles, an area which she states at my Talk page that she personally dislikes, it seems reasonable to conclude that she is enjoying playing the whack-the-mole game and is proud of being involved from the beginning. The collateral damage involved seem unimportant to her and she seems to have disdain for whether or not there are more than one person unfairly caught up in it. An arbitrator, while declining the case, cited wp:DENY (which has to do with downplaying rather than exalting in size of sockpuppet cases) and commented "it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master", which in context refers to Orlady's involvement. The final arbitration discussion is available here in this version of page (next edit was clerk's removal as rejected). I don't think it appropriate to promote her to Administrator at this time, without resolution of this problem, which she has, in my view, largely caused. doncram (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   P.S. She has a sharp tongue and a knack for insulting. I think her characterization of me in her Type 3 section is grossly insulting. Rather, as she speculated elsewhere, i am in fact motivated by her bullying. I am in touch with that and can sympathize with others damaged by her, because of her involvement with me and wp:NRHP in many matters, not just one featured list nomination. Unfortunately, to stand up to a bully involves, somewhat, being seen as negative and perhaps bullying back. I don't take on this role lightly. doncram (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   How curious that both you and DoxTxob have both made the same uncommon formatting error when expressing the same opinion. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I take it your comment is just a belligerent jab? To take away, in some way, from what i write about, above? It takes an extraordinary situation to attract my interest in sharing what I know about a candidate here, so I may not observe indentation formatting or some other conventions here. doncram (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Weak oppose I've had disagreements with Orlady, but "disputes" that were just strong-yet-calm disagreements about how to describe different types of settlements on templates really aren't significant. Granted, they're more significant than the "too many administrators already" argument above (why shouldn't everyone be an admin who is qualified to be one?), but that's no reason to oppose. Orlady has been involved in enough situations that I've seen to make me uncertain: she seems to fit every positive bit that we need — experienced with Wikipedia in general, familiar with policy, firm in fighting vandalism, technically capable (probably more capable than I, an administrator, am), and likely to continue editing for a good while — but I'm uncertain about her being perhaps overeager/hasty to enforce policy. As an outside occasional-observer in this long-running Jvolkblum sockpuppet case, I've been concerned about her manner of seeking to enforce a justly-imposed ban: no complaints about her motives, but I fear that her methods made it more likely that innocent new editors could have been caught in the crossfire. Bear in mind that this is not a deep concern (otherwise I'd be opposing rather than supporting), and I've not been closely enough involved myself to speak for certain, but everything that's occurred with this case has made me uneasy with enabling Orlady to have tools that might (I don't say "would") be misused. In conclusion, the fact that this good editor is receiving such strong opposition from other good editors means that her administrative actions might be fraught with controversy, and I don't think it would help Wikipedia at this time. If this case ever blows over, or if the disputes related to this case calm down, I'll be more open to a new RfA; but right now I don't think it's the best idea. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose - Unlike other opposing editors who have had long term experience of Orlady's style, I have had only one central encounter with her, which culminated with this exchange (bottom half). So the exhanges I am reacting to can be followed though from there. I notice that defenders of Orlady are defending her actions. I don't think her actions are what is at issue here; it is her tone. She has an exceptionally confrontative style, the style of a zealot who becomes swept away with her cause and feels no holds are barred. Once she gets her head of steam, she tries to flatten everything in her path. Orlady is intelligent, and if she becomes an administrator, I do not doubt that she will pursue transgressors relentlessly and run them into the ground, and do it in a way that does not violate the Wikipedia guidelines. But I think, and this may be a minority view, that an administrator should also posses some pastoral and communication skills, including core respect and sense of proportion when dealing with other people. I would support Orlady in a future RfA if she showed, in the intervening time, that she was aware of these issues and was making progress in that direction. In fact, if she developed more appropriate communication skills, she would make an excellent administrator. But as it stands, she would be a disaster, leaving a trail of unnecessary wreckage in her wake. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC). Addendum: Not to mention motivated sockpuppets. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose. I know this user does good work, and I believe she would defer to consensus when push comes to shove. But her abrasive and sometimes sarcastic style of communication make me worried she might misuse her tools if provoked. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Why does a "sarcastic style of communication" lead you to believe she will abuse admin tools? That seems to me a non sequitur. Have you seen her abuse Wikipedia in any regard, or do you simply have a problem with her style of communication? Bms4880 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I've been on Wikipedia for five years, and in that time I've seen a number of admins do a lot of harm. Nine times out of ten, the trouble starts when a difficult user provokes an admin, the admin overreacts. In my experience, the way a candidate has treated attacks and accusations from difficult users is the best indicator of whether the admin will abuse their tools. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Can you give an example from one of her posts where she uses a tone you find "abrasive," and thus indicative of someone likely to abuse admin tools? Bms4880 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I can't imagine Orlady ever interacting with another user with an "abrasive" tone. Indeed she seems to have a gift for maintaining calm and patience in the face of persistent antagonism. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Kaldari (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Instead of imagining, you should look dispassionately at what she actually does. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I have looked dispassionately at what she actually does, including the commentary of concern listed above, and I do not see anything I would find abrasive. Can you give us an example of her "abrasive" commentary, or evidence of her abusing Wikipedia in some regard? Bms4880 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   (In regard to Bms4880's question above) Yes, I think this (mentioned above) could be fairly termed "abrasive" and "sarcastic". – Quadell ^(talk) 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   If that's the worst you can find of her thousands of posts and the hundreds of conflicts in which she has been involved, you've got nothing. Bms4880 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, you are from Tennesse as well, and write Tennesse articles like Orlady, and she scratches your back and gives you barnstars. Bur this needn't blind you to the dark side of Orlady, her very different treatment of people outside her fields of interest. The most causal perusal of exchanges on her talk pages will provide you with many examples of her abrasiveness and lack of a wide perspective. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   You see, Geronimo, that is a personal attack. You're accusing me, who you don't know, of a quid pro quo, based on nothing more than the fact that Orlady gave me a de facto Barnstar last year. Thus, you've shown me you're willing to make personal attacks, but you haven't shown me Orlady does. I perused her talk page, and I still do not see any evidence of abrasiveness (or at least from anything she wrote). If you can find a few traces here and there out her thousands of posts, kudos to you, but such posts appear to be the drastic exception. Bms4880 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   So let's get this straight, Geronimo20 plagiarizes material from treehugger.com and spacedaily.com for an article that he wants to get featured on the Main page. Orlady brings attention to Geronimo20's shenanigans (rather than simply banning him from Wikipedia). Geronimo20 then announces that because of this he is going to oppose Orlady's RfA. If it had been me, I would have been a lot worse than sarcastic in that case. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Tennessee cabal --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Could you guys take this somewhere other than my vote's comments? Thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Strong oppose per comments above, does not appear to be admin material, nor have the temperment of a desired admin. Ikip (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
   • Oppose, for example for her "understanding" of notability [2]. NVO (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) wrong example, discard for now. NVO (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose moved from neutral. Three reasons a/ the totally unsatisfactory answer to my follow up Q at Q8. though she does not say she intends to work in that area, deleting articles by Speedy is such a basic function of any admin--because, do what ever you do, you will come across them. Rereading the discussion of the proposal for what areas the candidate plans to work in, I notice the "to be honest, I dont know what I will do." -- a good indication of insufficient preparation for this role, regardless of the skill in article writing. b/ the exchange with another editor, O.R., in the "neutral" section in which the candidate does not recognize having had any problems with him, though he keeps pointing them out--and I was quite aware of them myself as a bystander c/ the various answers unfortunately do show a tendency to push other people a little too hard. DGG (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Aside from not meeting my personal criteria for content building, looking through some of the (occasionally overhyped) charges I do feel the user has a bit of an abrasive tone, and does not use proper discretion in being sarcastic or not. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose In my view, an admin needs to be able to communicate with maturity and respect, even when dealing with people that could make the saints go ballistic. However, Orlady’s putdown of Geronimo20 [3] and her insistence that Doncram is being played for a patsy [4] are too obnoxious to be ignored. I am also getting the impression that she is very uncomfortable being called to task for possible faults in judgment, as witnessed by the flippancy in her answer to Question #3 when she claims three of her Opposers “nurse deep grudges” – which is strange, since none of these individuals have Wiki-histories of antagonistic behavior – and in her continuing refusal (as of this writing) to answer Question #6 about putting forth Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School – which not only shows a lapse in understanding copyright violations, but also finds her nominating an article for deletion because it is Orphaned and Unreferenced. Furthermore, her launch of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) suggests she would rather delete worthy articles in order to one-up a persistent sockpuppeter. I am sorry, but I cannot support this RfA. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I can not seem to decide if she should be an administrator or not. From the looks of it, it seems she would be a good one but then their are also things that others say that make me uncertin. so i am neutral.Hawkey131 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Pending answers to the questions above, for now I'm neutral, leaning towards oppose. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose #It's not all that common that I agree exactly with Collectonian,but I do here, word for word. I'll just add that Orlady and O.R. have come into conflict a number of times; I regard it as a matter of two strong people pushing against each other in an equally stubborn manner, and I'm not sure either one of them has the temperament for being an administrator. I definitely do not endorse all of O.R.'s charges, but he correctly points out the general manner. DGG (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Are you confusing one of us with someone else? I don't recall having conflicts with Ottava Rima. I've been aware of him (and presumably he has been aware of me) for quite some time, but I don't think we've had much direct interaction. We both participated in this this heated discussion about DYK, but I was a pretty minor contributor there, and that's the closest thing I can recall to a "conflict" with Ottava Rima. --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   There have been no direct arguments between Orlady and myself. My comments about DYK dealt with her response to the consensus proceedings (a stray comment about unwritten ideas being consensus, which I find troubling) along with a lack of rigor in the areas that separate a reviewer from an admin who adds hooks to the mainpage. I am highly concerned about what admin put on the mainpage and have made an issue about many stray hooks that had major problems with them. I have not seen the same from Orlady, which is why I made the statement about not trusting them in such a role. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava Rima, regarding quality control at DYK: In my activity at DYK, I focus on reviewing hooks before they get to the main page, although I sometimes have pointed out main-page errors at WP:ERRORS. If you don't believe that I have been involved in quality control at DYK, you might note that one of the people who has registered strong opposition here formed his negative view after I objected to a DYK hook due to serious problems with the article. (See DYK nom, my talk page, and the other user's talk page, and a more recent message on the same topic.)

   Many people have verified pages. I just haven't seen enough from you to make me feel as if you would be able to review for -all- of the very tiny stuff that is very important, nor do I feel that you have an eye towards spotting certain things. You have not spent a lot of time with high end contributions nor do you have experience in reading content of that type in which you can spot many of the problems - this is why Awadewit, Jbmurray, Mattisse, and myself are easily able to spot problems like plagiarism - we are able to see changes in language or things that stick out because we have so much experienced with the heavily polished pages. We need DYK admin with such ability. That is why I would easily support someone like Awadewit for the position, but I don't feel as if I can trust someone without her background. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

3. I've seen impressive work from her and lean towards supporting, but some of the opposers allege incivility or heavy-handedness in incidents that look like they'll require a deeper investigation. So neutral until I get time to dig a little deeper there and see if there's anything worth being worried about. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral - Though others seem very impressed with the nominee's content-related work, various drama situations at WP:AN/WP:AN/I leave me with questions (beyond my regular ones). But as this RfA already looks like a run-away support, I won't bother asking. I'll be content if those "voting" support, will be on hand to help coach/council the nominee in the future (presuming the nominee is receptive to such), should the need arise. - jc37 02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Changed my mind and decided to at least add the regular ones. - jc37 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)