Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panyd 2: Difference between revisions

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

Panyd 2

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) 'Final (102/0/3); Closed as successful by (X! · talk)  · @858  ·  at 19:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Panyd (talk · contribs) – I first encountered Panyd ten months ago during her first rather awkward RFA, which didn't succeed for several reasons, one of them being a mishap with her PC that left some wondering whether the candidate was a sock of the nominator. I've since met them both at a London meetup and can confirm they are two different people. Since January Panyd has widened and deepened her Wiki experience. She has become an OTRS volunteer and also been referencing unreferenced BLPs as part ofWikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. I believe that Panyd would be a useful addition to the admin cadre and commend her to the community. ϢereSpielChequers 09:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be a bit surprising to some for me to be making a statement here, given that the other co-nominator is WereSpielChequers. We disagree over practically everything, from deletion philosophies to content, so it should say something about the strength of this candidate that we're both here.

Panyd is an excellent editor. From backlogs to content to deletion work, she's made her mark on the wiki, and I'm confident she can be trusted with the tools.

As well as being an excellent editor, Panyd is also schizophrenic. This is not an issue, because no mental disease is an issue if the sufferer can recognise it. Panyd knows when she's having an attack, and when she's going to, and stays off Wikipedia when that's a possibility. The chances of anything happening are infidecimal, and nothing on Wikipedia is irreversible. Wikipedia follows a simple rule; comment on the content, not the contributor. If any of you can show evidence that she's posted a 3,000 word screed on the voices inside her head, fine, but until then, stick with paying attention to her edits - edits which show her to be an excellent candidate. Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination with a big thank you to WereSpielChequers for the kind words.

I just wanted to put a quick note here to talk about some things that were brought up in my last RfA and what I have learned regarding them in the interim. I hope that it will help people make their decisions. It may be expanded later as need be.

For those who aren't aware here are issues I've dealt with since my last RfA and what I've learned

In the interim between now and my last RfA I have created articles and brought 9 to DYK. I have also worked adding sources to BLP articles as part of BLP rescue and also to AfD articles which have subsequently been kept thanks in part to my edits. From this I have learned a lot about how much time it takes to correctly source and write an article from scratch which has helped me with my understanding of WP:CSD#A7 and just how much time and effort goes into creation quality articles and why people can be so passionate about their work and maintaining quality on Wikipedia.

At my last RfA my account was accidentally used by a close personal friend (another editor) who didn't realize it was logged in as me. This resulted in a CheckUser clearing the both of us. However, from this incident I've learned that account security is paramount. To help ensure that this won't happen again I always log out of my account now when not using it.

I have been sick for a period of one month this year, during which time I did not edit Wikipedia at all, nor did I edit in the months surrounding the illness. I had other users place the appropriate tags on my User page for me so that I did not even log on. I hope this has shown that I can be trusted not to edit when sick and that I communicate with the community regarding my illness. People looking for more information about this should see User:Panyd/Mental_Health.

I have had experience between now and my last RfA with CSDs and this has given me an appreciation for the narrow criteria used at CSD and it's practical application in saving articles which need work and filtering out unencyclopedic content. I have also improved my edit summary usage to 100% since my last RfA. I know that edit summaries are important not just so that people can see what you've been up to but also so that people can revert, update and edit articles more easily.

In conclusion, I feel as though I have addressed the various issues raised in my previous RfA and look forward to hearing your thoughts on them below. As an extra note, I have been in admin coaching with PhantomSteve but unfortunately he has real life commitments which mean he cannot currently continue to work with me there.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The majority of the work I intend to take part in centres around OTRS. Mostly, I want to be able to restore articles and images we now have the appropriate licenses for but there are a whole variety of things that administrators need to do with regards to OTRS. This includes things like closing AfDs which were created as the result of OTRS tickets (knowing the full context of the debate is infinitely valuable; even if it's just knowing that you can dismiss the arguments made in the original email), and taking administrator action based on OTRS emails (such as valid page protection requests from the subject which have not been spotted by regular contributors).

All but one of these things I could do through a middle-man, but I have tried this in the past and it is a needlessly complicated process. Especially as most administrators are not OTRS volunteers. I feel that with the tools I can be remarkably more helpful in all areas relating to OTRS.

A small portion of the work I intend to do is closing AfDs and CSDs as I feel this is an area which not only needs attention but which I understand quite well. I have ventured further into CSDs since my last RfA and have been successful at interpreting policy. I also intend to do small amounts of vandal fighting.

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

A: I am perhaps a little too proud of the Andrew Green (ghost hunter) article,but I feel that it is my best contribution to the project from a content-creation point of view. I also am quite proud of John Abel as a good DYK.

However, content creation is not my strong point. More than anything I am proud of the numerous times I have come into an AfD and been able to save an article based on my contributions. This doesn't always work, and rightly so, but when it does, it's a very satisfying feeling and I feel as though I have added something to the encyclopaedia (for a recent example see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ouija_Board_Criticism).

Other examples of having swayed AfDs can be found herediff, herediff, herediff and here.

I am also extremely happy with the way I've handled and uploaded a lot of images to the project per OTRS requests. I think this is an invaluable service which needs more people involved.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have had disputes but they have never escalated into anything more than amicable conversations about disagreements. I hope to keep up this trend; although I have recently had a user come to me with misunderstandings regarding the tone of my comments, but I feel I kept a cool head and was polite and more importantly helpful throughout.

Off-wiki I deal with a lot of stress and upset users on OTRS which members will be able to see by checking my past tickets. I have had a very limited number of tickets which were closed unsuccessfully.

Additional optional question from Mkativerata

4. You are closing a difficult AfD. Because it is a contentious debate with many contributors (around 50), you you take your time to wade through the arguments presented and review the article under debate. After 30 minutes of consideration, you have written out a detailed 4,000-byte closing rationale that explains the main arguments. The decision you have reached is "no consensus". However as you post your closing statement, you realise (by edit-conflict), that 20 minutes before, another administrator closed the discussion as "delete" with no rationale at all. You can't see the basis for a delete close - the numbers and arguments seemed evenly balanced and there were no overriding policy considerations (such as WP:BLP) warranting deletion. You also notice that the administrator is "semi-retired", hasn't edited actively since 2003 when he/she became an admin, and belongs to Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. What do you do?

A. I think this problem could be avoided by using the closing template. However, assuming I didn't use this:

First and foremost I would talk to the administrator in question and ask them why they decided to close the AfD as a delete and explaining my opposing viewpoint. As they are semi-retired I would send the request for an explanation to both their talk page and their email account for the maximum chance of getting a response. I would then wait around 48 hours for a response. If I received a satisfactory response to the question I would ask them if either I or they could post the rational on the deletion discussion page so that other users could read it; ensuring that they received appropriate feedback for such a long and involved discussion.

If I received a response which I did not feel was satisfactory or did not take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments presented, I would still ask that either they or I be able to post the rational on the discussion page, before moving into a deletion review.

If I received no response I would take it directly to deletion review, posting my reasoning for the 'no consensus' verdict on both the administrator's talk page and the review page.

Additional optional question from 28bytes

5. You mention you've brought 9 articles to DYK, but one of them, Black Eyed Kids, was deleted shortly after appearing on the main page. I'm wondering if you could comment on that article in particular, and your views on sourcing in general? Thanks.

A: Certainly! I was actually not counting the Black Eyed Kids article as a DYK as I agree with SandyGeorgia that it shouldn't have gotten there after the third source was removed. With regards to that particular article I will admit that I made a mistake in my sourcing in that I quoted from a book which itself referenced WP. The book looked very reputable on the surface, what with it being a Webster's title, but a little more probing by another editor soon found that it was infact quoting a deleted WP article and as such had to be removed from the article itself.

With regards to sourcing in general, I tend to lean towards inclusionism more than exclusionism with the obvious exception of BLPs, but I also feel that users must always conform to WP:RS. To use the Black Eyed Kids as an example, it is, in my opinion, a notable subject in a fringe area and you can find a lot of coverage of the subject in various books and magazines and websites. However, none of those media meet the criteria for WP:RS and as such I did not include them in the article and would not use them on their own to support notability at AfD as I do not feel that is appropriate.

Additional optional question from Parrot of Doom

6. You say you have an understanding of how some editors can be passionately involved with articles they've put considerable work into. With a view to disputes centred around such articles, what is your view of Wikipedia's civility policy?

A: - I am a very big believer in WP:CIVIL and I honestly don't think that there is ever any need to violate it, regardless of how much you might disagree with someone. However, I feel that having put in a fraction of the work some content-based editors put in, I can empathize with someone who might lose their temper.

My feelings on dispute resolution are that each side should present their case as they see it, as neutrally as possible, and then have a discussion (rather than an argument) based on the merits of their case. If neither party can agree then a third party should be solicited. There is no place for incivility in this process.

However, one thing editors do need to take into account is the law of diminishing returns, which can be invoked without breaking WP:CIVIL. If they are having a dispute with an editor who will not see reason, and multiple neutral parties have concluded that they will not see reason, there is little need to continue engaging with that editor with regards to that specific issue, except to explain that community consensus has been reached, and it does not concur with them. Taking this approach not only means that incivility is avoided but will also minimise any disruption caused by aggrieved editors.

Additional optional question from FT2

7. As an administrator your decisions and comments may need to be checked at unpredictable times after they are posted. Administrators must on the whole be contactable, and when away their old decisions may sometimes need attention. So I'd like to check how the notices will operate to ensure when you're away (perhaps on short notice) any requests are dealt with. The questions below should be seen as a double check that the process is well thought out, more than a "test" of any kind.

A: Can you link to the notices you use, to get an idea what a user will see?

A I currently use User:Moonriddengirl/Unwell but from your questions it actually seems that it would be appropriate to create a special template for users to see should I get a mop. You can see a draft template here

B: Talk pages can fill up and notices can be lost behind further requests and posts. How will your talk page be checked and managed in your absence and will any notices that users need to see, still be clearly visible to any talk page visitor after a few weeks?

A I always ensure that when notices are placed they are placed at the top of my talk page and userpage which means that regardless of how many messages accumulate in my absence the notice is still displayed prominently. I would ask that whoever was putting up the notices also archive all messages which are closed which would mean that on my return all messages on my talk page would be things I would need to deal with.

C: Consultation before overturning admin actions is often important. Will the notice contain a standing instruction that other admins can overturn decisions and admin actions without consulting if they think it's needed, while the notice is displayed? If so, would it be "as they see fit" or only "with consensus"?

A Yes, it would be as they see fit to avoid the need for consensus for non-controversial reverts. I don't consider myself infallible and that should also be taken into account when allowing other administrators to take action against me.

D: Are you relying on just one person to set everything up and manage it in your absence, or will you tell/request multiple users to handle it, watchlist relevant pages, etc? Do you anticipate handling it by private arrangement with individuals, or by post at AN?

A I am currently relying on one person but although I cannot make any guarantees on behalf of other administrators, I would certainly be willing to make enquiries to that end should I receive the tools. This would be done in private to ensure that there was no public pressure on the users to agree and it would be done before I was ill as a standing agreement so as to avoid any need for me to log in whilst I am not feeling well.

E: It's conceivable that you could need to take a break in circumstances where you can't readily contact anyone first. If that happens it might be necessary for someone to contact you and see if you respond (or for the community to assume you are on break after a while), and if you don't respond after some time, take some kind of action. What happens in this case?

A I live with another user who is also my next of kin in all medical matters and who will be contacted regardless of where they are or what they are doing, even if they are on a different continent or in a place unknown to me. For this reason I consider it highly unlikely that I will be ill without their knowledge. If I am away from Wikipedia for more than a week, it would be safe for the community to assume that I am currently unwell, and to take action from there as required. I will leave a notice on my talk page to this extent which would be up at all times so that the community is aware of any potential issues. You can find a draft of this here

I appreciate a lot of this applies to any administrator away for an extended period on short or no notice. But as your post suggests you have taken steps to consider these, it's worth checking it'll do the job intended. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}(These are optional)

8a. If someone were to oppose you mentioning that you have only approximately 1500 edits post your resuming editing in the last three months and this is not enough to test your mental health and preparedness for administrative responsibilities - what would be your response?

A: I would presume that this user was concerned that the stresses which come with carrying a mop may be too much for me and that my edits in the past three months might not reflect a mental readiness for the tools. I will answer this question with that presumption in mind, if I am incorrect or you would like another viewpoint I will happily update the answer to reflect that.

I would ask that user to consider a few points which I feel illustrate my good health in the past few months. The first would be the complexity of some of my edits, especially those which involve sourcing and creating articles. Completing these tasks requires a series of logical thought processes which it would be nigh on impossible for a person experiencing psychosis to complete. This is especially true of finding information in academic journals, as I did in the Ouija Board Criticism section, as these are typically written in dense text which the reader has to parse the meaning from.

And on the flip side it is conceivable, though not probable, that someone experiencing psychosis may be able to use AWB. However, I would hope that any user reviewing my recent AWB contributions would see that they are consistant and again reflect the capacity to consider options in a logical manner.

Finally I would ask that user to consider my interactions with other editors and members of the 'general public', both on various talk pages and through OTRS if possible. It is my belief that I have shown myself to be capable of holding reasonable discussions under duress and that I am good at finding amicable solutions to issues.

8b. You come across this new article in your new article patrolling drive (Assume this has been created by a new user on the main article space). What would you do next?

A: Well first things first I would check to ensure that there were no versions of the article which could be saved, before deleting it under speedy deletion criteria G12 as it's a copyright violation of this website which claims to have all rights reserved. That would be my top priority.

I would then go to the user's talk page and explain a few things which they should probably be made aware of before they begin editing. The first priority would obviously be to let the user know that they cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia unless they hold the copyright and they agree to release the material through OTRS. I would also give the user the permissions OTRS email address so that if they did hold the copyright to the original text, they could release it to us.

My second priority would be to ask the user whether they had a conflict of interest, as the tone of the words posted suggests that they do. (I like Ding Dongs but I wouldn't create an article on them saying they were the most delicious, revolutionary snack cakes in the world, so I think it's safe to assume there is a little COI here). I would advise them of our COI policy and invite them to declare any conflicts they have on their userspace. I would also encourage them to try editing articles which already exist before attempting to create one of their own, just so they could familiarise themselves with policy a little more and gain editing experience where they don't have a potential COI.

My third priority would be inviting the user to use their sandbox to recreate the article from a more neutral standpoint, quoting our neutrality policy and also giving them the guide to creating your first article. I would advise the user that I would be more than happy to assist them with the article and that other users would be happy to review it at 'Articles for creation' when they feel they are ready to post it again.

Sorry that was quite long but there's a lot to be done if you want to make sure that new users are informed and hopefully stay enthusiastic after a rejection!

8c. You prodded a newly created article (not a BLP) that has no references. A fly-by ip removes the the prod and adds a reference that's quite clearly not reliable, with a note, ref added. What would you do next?

A: Presuming this was an article without controvertial content I would leave the source but attempt to contact the IP to explain that the source was unreliable and ask them whether they had any sources which qualified under WP:RS. I would also go back over my own work and ensure that there weren't any reliable sources that I may have missed. If (as I suspect from the fly-by comment) there was no response from the IP and I wasn't able to find any reliable sources, I would nominate the article for deletion, leaving the IP address a personal note explaning my reasoning and letting other users know this was a contested PROD on the discussion page.

8d. Reliable sources, en masse, sometimes get reality completely wrong. Our Verifiability pillar mentions that it has nothing to do with truth, but everything to do with reliable sources. Would you therefore agree to include clearly untrue, yet completely reliably sourced material on our project? If yes, quote the policy/guideline you'll use to do so. If not, quote the policy/guideline you'll use to do so.

A: Our verifiability policy, coupled with WP:RS, exists for some very good reasons, not least of which is that it protects us from WP:OR, severely reduces the amount of libel found on the project and stops a host of BLP violations which would otherwise be an issue. Of course common sense should be used when evaluating what to put in articles but unfortunately for the sake of this answer I feel that every case should be taken on its individual merits.

If, for example, it is outdated information which is currently a falsehood but wasn't previously, I would advocate keeping the incorrect information until WP:RS could be found supporting the new assertion. This is simply upholding WP:VERIFY to the best of our ability and is especially applicable if the new information is controversial whereas the old information was not. This is also especially important when it comes to large BLP changes (such as Michael Jackson being dead) or even highly volatile article subjects (such as the 2008 US Elections). However, there may be some cases where it would do less WP:Harm to remove the information altogether rather than leaving up factually incorrect statements or unreferenced material.

The most important thing to remember when dealing with these cases comes from WP:VERIFY itself which states: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. It is my opinion that we should uphold this principle as much as possible.

8e. You come across a BLP AfD where there are seven commentators apart the nominator. The nominator, an editor who has had no edits outside the AfD, has commented "No RS found on BLP, in existence since 2007. Delete." All the seven commentators (incidentally, all administrators) have ivoted Keep mentioning that even though the BLP has zero RS, and even though none can be found, the BLP is of an academician who is mentioned to be the head of a major educational institution. The nominator argues that this fact is not verifiable by a reliable source. All the seven administrators quote from our WP:BIO guideline that "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." All administrators further quote from our WP:BLP policy that only those "quotations and material that are challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." They further provide a line out of WP:Notability (academics) that mentions that an academic is notable if "the person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." You have to close this AfD as the closing administrator. What would you do?

A: Firstly, lets level the playing field here. What matters is the weight of the argument, not the person giving it. Of course it's important to get context for votes so checking an account's history may be a good idea but in closing it doesn't matter in the slightest who is an administrator and who joined yesterday, all that matters is how they apply policy and common sense to their arguments. Honestly, my first instinct here would be to relist to try and garner more policy discussion but if that was not an option:

My close would go something along the lines of:

Delete per rationale given by the nominator. Although I appreciate the arguments given here in favour of keeping the article I must close in line with policy as it is written, and policy in full clearly states the following:

Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Contentious in this case does not necessarily mean bad, it can also mean claims which demand evidence such as the person holding a major highest-level position. For this reason I cannot close this as a keep as it does not provide verifiability/reliable sources for contentious claims made. As these claims cannot be verified within Wikipedia's guidelines, the subject cannot be said to be notable at this time.

I feel it would be important to quote the full policy in the closing statements so that the users understood exactly what I was referring to. After I had closed I would leave a message on the talk page of any administrator who had quoted selectively from WP:BLP asking them to re-read the policy in full and to ask me if they had any questions regarding my deletion rationalle. I wouldn't assume that the ommission had been intentional, but I would be a little worried that the administrator did not know the full extent of such an important policy.

Additional optional questions from — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06

34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

9. Suppose someone comes to you with the complain that a particular editor is exhibiting ownership of an article, and is being rude about any suggestions, edits and comments made regarding the article, unless he/she endorses it. How do you approach the situation? What in your view should be the ideal comments and actions regarding ownership, if suppose the WP:OWN policy is falling on deaf ears for the accused?

A The first thing I would do is investigate the claim of the editor who came to me. It could be that the aggrieved editor is being a steward of the article as opposed to violating WP:OWN, but they could have lost their temper anyway. It could be that both editors have broken WP:CIVIL or it could be that there's been a breakdown in communication and no one has broken WP:CIVIL but someone has broken WP:AGF. All of this needs to be taken into account.

However, assuming that the complainant (editor1) is correct; I would first leave a gentle warning on the talk page of the editor who has broken WP:CIVIL (editor2). Gentle because I would then ask both sides to please explain, in detail, how they see the events that have transpired and what they would like to see happen next. I feel that this is important to ensure that both editors feel reassured that they are valued members of the community and as such their opinions and suggestions will be listened to and taken onboard, if not followed.

Should editor2 be so disruptive that they cannot even do this without breaking WP:CIVIL I would leave a far sterner warning on their talk page and ask again, explaining that I would like to help them. Should they continue to be disruptive and not comply at all with the resolution process I would ask the opinion of ANI as to how appropriate a 24 hour block would be, simply because I would now be an involved party.

However, if both editors comply with the process and lay out their opinions and solutions in a civil manner, I could then move on to advising them on an appropriate action. This could be anything from proposing a direct solution to the problem, to proposing that they seek consensus from the wider community. It all depends on the scale of the issue and how comfortable I feel addressing it.

Should the outcome be unacceptable to editor2, I would follow the law of diminishing returns which in this instance would mean letting them know what options are available to them and how I can assist if needs be, as well as laying out a clear statement letting them know why we disagree; then not engaging with any incivility thrown my way. (My threshold for what qualifies as incivility is quite high when aimed at me, so when I say not engaging with it, I mean ignoring messages on my talk page along the lines of; Screw you you terrible woman! Rather than ignoring; I disagree with you and all your opinions are wrong and why won't you listen to me? - that would need to be addressed).

Should a community consensus be reached and editor2 is disrupting the agreed upon "plan of action", I would again warn the editor and then, should they continue, ask ANI about the appropriateness of a 24 hour block to allow editors to make improvements to an article without constant disruption.

Additional optional question from Groomtech

10. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: It is not the job of an administrator to issue orders in any way, shape or form. Even the word orders is inappropriate in this context as it carries with it the implication that the person issuing the command is in a position to do so, which again, administrators emphatically are not.

Bans however are another issue. The majority of bans should be decided and meted out by the community, as is only proper in a project with the ethos of Wikipedia. However, carrying a mop means that an editor is obliged to complete certain tasks on behalf of the community, and specifically Arbcom in this case. Administrators should only ever issue article bans on behalf of Arbcom or where there is community consensus to do so, but this is a duty they have been entrusted with and should carry out to the best of their ability to help safeguard the community from disruption.

Additional optional question from Shadowjams

11. I previously had concerns about your lack of new page patrolling at your last RfA. Have you done some patrolling since then, and if so, any impressions that you might share (including if you like to patrol the front or back of the queue, common problems, etc.)... anything that strikes you as relevant.

A:I have indeed done some New Page Patrol and have actually used that as a platform for learning about the article creation process. All of the CSDs I have tagged have been from the New Pages backlog if you are looking for some indication of how much time I have spent in that area.

I prefer to patrol the front of the queue because, and I feel this may be a concern many share, there are many articles in the back of the queue which on the surface look perfectly reasonable, but which cover a subject I know little to nothing about. For this reason I like to pick articles which I have some grounding in as they come in, so that I may make an informed judgement regarding the article's suitability for the project.

It would appear to me that most new articles share some common problems, which I feel we could take more care to address with new users.

Reliable sources - This appears to be the most common problem newbies experience when creating articles. Articles can contain sources from somebody's personal blog to myspace pages and newbies do not realise why these aren't reliable. I feel this could be solved by creating a 'fact sheet' or 'checklist' for newbies to consider when adding a source. Something that summarised policy (as much as you can) and made it newbie friendly. I am working on something similar to this as part of the WP:CONTRIB team, but I have to get the backlog drive out of the way first (and run it past SWATJester…).

Neutrality - I feel this is a skill which comes only with experience but this is a common issue. I feel this is best solved by asking newbies to edit articles which already exist before creating their own.

Conflict of Interest - Now admittedly I think we deal with this one very well. The potential COI welcome template is perfect for these situations and encourages discussion with new users about what is and isn't appropriate when editing Wikipedia. However, companies editing for a sole purpose and in a non-neutral fashion is an issue which needs to be addressed more thoroughly and I feel that this can be addressed by example. We can take larger, well formed, neutral articles, and show smaller companies that they can have an article like that, and that it isn't scary to have relevant dirty laundry aired on Wikipedia because a user will know the difference between a neutral article and one written by a PR company and dismiss the latter.

I hope that counts as my two cents. I'm also going to shamelessly plug here and say that WP:CONTRIB is looking for people to work on the New Pages backlog as part of our Great Backlog Drive. Anyone who is interested, please let me know!

Additional optional question from Access Denied

12. Are you an inclusionist? Or a deletionist? Or at what point in between?

A:Apologies for the lateness of this response, today is GLAMWiki! I have to admit I don't like either of those labels, I feel it sets up an expectation which should not be met by any editors. That is to say, I feel every article should be judged on its own merits rather than as part of an overreaching philosophy regarding how much, and what type, of content should be available on the project.

Having said that, I do lean more towards inclusionism than deletionism. I feel that one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is that we can include content which is unavailable to traditional encyclopedia's. Not only this, but I feel that many articles which are nominated for deletion on notability grounds can actually be saved by someone with the right resources (such as LexisNexis and JSTOR). For these reasons I look at AfDs as an opportunity to save an article, rather than an opportunity to delete it. Of course there are many exceptions to this rule and it of the utmost importance that we clear out articles which are unacceptable within Wikipedia's guidelines, but I feel that it should be our aim to try to produce as much quality content as possible and to that end we should be looking to build up as many articles as possible rather than deleting them.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support, obviously. Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Did last time, no reasons not to do so again. Courcelles 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. From what I can tell, you've improved much since your last RfA, so there is no reason to oppose. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - No big deal. As an aside, I'm no RFA regular, but question 4 is the most ridiculous hypothetical scenario RFA question I've come across. Well done. - hahnchen 20:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   It seems like an excellent question to me, and I've had more RfAs than most people have written articles :P. Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   That's the conditioning speaking :P. - hahnchen 20:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   Comment only -- I thought Q4 was an excellent question (although the category was overkill). Knowing the norms and expectations around the tools is one part of adminship. But evidence that when admins differ or find a problem they have good ideas what methods can be used to resolve it is also crucial. That's a much more probing area.

   Q4 is an example of the kind of thing that can and does happen (someone starts closing an AFD, doesn't use the {{closing}} template, someone else edit-conflicts and the first admin is left concerned about a possible issue with another admin's decision). That can happen at AFD, 3RR, unblock, talk pages - it's exactly the kind of thing we want to find a new admin has clue about. It's also good evidence the candidate will try to discuss, consult, and find solutions and not just wheel war if another admin posts a decision they aren't sure about. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   I think FT2 has explained the rationale for the question. It's not about the obscure scenario, it's about testing whether the candidate has sufficient clue to deal with difficult situations generally. The most difficult situations of all for new admins are dealing with poor decisions and actions by other admins. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   I know what you're trying to do with the question. But if you want to find out a user's grasp of deletion policy, and their approach to editor conflicts, then just ask them. You don't need timestamps and bytecounts. A contentious 50 editor no-consensus pile up AFD closed as delete without reasoning? One of the 50 is bound to take it to DRV, I mean, regardless of the user's actions, it's going to happen. - hahnchen 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   Again, missing the point; the scenario is irrelevant, the difficulty is what's important. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   That was my point. You can ask difficult questions without irrelevant scenarios. - hahnchen 23:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Well, yeah. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Support. Reasonable (and prompt!) answers to the questions. The interactions I've seen between the candidate and other editors show an even temperament and willingness to engage and explain her position. I'm not really thrilled at how credulous the paranormal articles seem to be, but I've got no reason to suspect the candidate would misuse the tools. 28bytes (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Support—seems fine to me. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - just met this good-natured user. Looks up to the task.  Ⓢock  20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - I especially like the beginning statement showing all that the candidate has learned since the last RfA. I think that it shows that no one is perfect and there are always areas that can be improved. It's good to take pride in such improvements. Should be a good addition to the admin team.  Orfen  ^T • _C 21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Seems fine to me. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Support Definitely! Ironholds' nomination hit the nail right on the head for the reason that you should get the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
13. As nom, and per Ironholds. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. I think she's ready. -- œ^™ 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
16. As the above, Ironholds says it all. Derild4921☼ 01:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
17. Support I have seen the User in Action, her last RFA Fail was due to some of the most bogus and discriminating statements I have ever seen any where on Wiki. Content creation is still on the low side but better than some Admins I know. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
18. Support Good answers to questions and don't see that health concerns should be an automatic concern. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 01:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Should be a fine addition to our list of admins. Best of luck -- (and happy turkey day :D)Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
20. Support good chance will be a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
21. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 03:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
22. Weak support Light on edits to article space (14 new page creations, 12 redirects); however, the candidate has made improvements and, IMHO, done what she needed to do after first RfA in January.--Hokeman (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
23. Support I think she deserves it after many have opposed for lack of experience. Minimac (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
24. Support I was neutral at her last RfA, but having seen what she has done since then, I am very happy to support (incidentally, the Admin Mentoring we worked on together can be found at User:Panyd/Admin Mentoring). As Panyd said, real-life commitments meant that my ability to come on Wikipedia has been temporarily reduced, and that is why the mentoring was paused - not through any lack of interest on either of our parts! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
25. I haven't participated in RfA for a while, but I'm going to support this one. I did not take part in Panyd's last RfA, but I do recall reading it when it was live. I think Panyd has addressed the legitimate concerns listed there, and I think she'll do fine as an administrator. I also appreciate her acceptance statement, and trust the judgment of both her nominators. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
26. Support, certainly. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
27. Support. Seems sensible to me, and his/her attitudes toward admin status and how that status would [not] effect any judgement calls, are quite welcome. Parrot of Doom 14:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
28. Support per nom as OTRS specialist, though it's good to see the content creation since the last Afd. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
29. Support I once again apologize for my sock-related suspicions last time around but hey, you're better qualified now anyways. No issues with mental condition nor userbox. Keepscases (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
30. Support, answer 8e is encouraging. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
31. Support I watched the last RfA, opposed then, not because of specific problems, but just thought it was premature. I see a lot of progress, and specific addressing of issues identified last time. Some reservations remain, but I see GF attempts to address them.--SPhilbrickT 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
32. Support While I think that you should be involved in more areas of the encyclopedia, hey, it's just adminship. Ajraddatz (Talk)
33. Strong Support Really active, thoughtful editor, She'd make a great Admin, my full support.Theo10011 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
34. Support, thought she already was one. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
35. Having a similar diagnosis as her and her OTRS work, of course. Secret ^account 20:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
36. Support based on (a) a review of contributions, (b) the breadth of support demonstrated in the nominations, and (c) many positive experiences seeing this editor work on sourcing unsourced BLPs, an area I spend a fair bit of time in myself. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. Careful thinker who clearly understands the areas she plans to work in, good answers to questions, and pretty good on policy too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Absolutely needs the tools for Wikipedia Contribution Team work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Panyd has been an amazing asset to both the Contribution and Social Media Teams, and her work on OTRS should also be recognized. --Dmgultekin (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
40. Support The answers here and at User:Panyd/Admin Mentoring convince me that you will be a force for good. SmartSE (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
41. Support I don't see any problem with this user getting the mop. I think she has good, well thought out answers to the questions asked.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. The user has been proven capable in both writing articles and in admin tasks like anti-vandalism and AfD work. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
43. Support Sandstein's neutral is noted but so is this. No reason not to support. --John (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
44. Support No problems here. Bejinhan talks 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Panyd, for a non-administrator as you are, I loved your answer to 8e. By the way, 8b is actually a copyright violation you handled much earlier yourself. Although my answer would have been to rescue the article by deleting the copyright violation content (and not the article per se), I accept your view as one that is safer and for the benefit for the project. Do remember, Wikipedia has many editors who'd be ready to support and assist you the moment you so require. But there will also be a few situations that should test your patience to the hilt. Try to slowly gain experience in handling such situations than jumping right away into the same. Final advice, when you believe that the stress is getting over the edge and you might not be able to handle the admin mop temporarily, it'll be better to request that you be desysopped temporarily (and then get them back later without issues). With WSC nominating you, and the pleasantly good humored IronHolds providing the co-nomination, most of your contributions had already been, as they say, audited. My questions were meant to simply test your analytical strength. And you passed quite well. My best wishes for you (take the scripts from my js book when this RfA passes; and ask me or any of the administrator bunch for any help in using the tools). Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
46. Stephen 05:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
47. I'm impressed. I was going to raise an issue with you dating another admin, and someone who might soon become a member of ArbCom, however I'm going to AGF that the two of you will recuse yourselves from situations where the other is involved. That, and I doubt you'll ever wind up in front of ArbCom for doing something wrong, so the elephant in the room doesn't really apply. Sven Manguard _Talk 07:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
48. SupportGreat Commitment and dedication despite health problems. See no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
49. Hell, it's about time. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
50. Now! Support -- IQinn (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
51. Strong Support - Good contributions; good answers. (LOL at dating another admin.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
53. Support. I looked through some random edits and they seemed reasonable. The answers to the questions are good. (Also, illness really shouldn't be an issue here, but I found this very impressive). I think the candidate can be trusted with the tools, and would put them to good use. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
54. Support. Number of edits is still on the low side, but quality should trump quality. Her answers here seem thoughtful and well-written.KeptSouth (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
55. Support per excellent contributions. ~NerdyScienceDude 14:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
56. Support. Looks good to me. Malinaccier (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
57. Support Reasonable and quite a detailed answer to my question above. We need admins who are patient and are willing to look over both sides of the story properly, like you have exhibited. Hence I endorse your adminship. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
58. Default to Support per drama mongering by administrator Sandstein below. Come on. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
59. Support A read-through of Panyd's user talk pages show them to be level-headed, courteous, and able to resolve problems efficiently. No red flags. Jujutacular ^talk 16:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
60. Support - User has a clue and can be trusted with the tools. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
61. Might as well support. DS (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
62. All looks good to me, especially the answers to the questions. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
63. Support. I see that Panyd has taken an effort to fix the issues that were brought up at Rfa#1, and generally improve and widen her experience as an editor. I see no reason not to support at this point. decltype (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
64. Support – I see nothing wrong with this editor. —mc10 (u|t|c) 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
65. Me neither. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
66. Support. See no significant issues here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
67. Seems like a well-qualified candidate. ceranthor 02:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
68. Support - Leo 03:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
69. Seems to know what they are doing. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
70. Support - She is the very model of a very modern Wikipedian :) —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:32pm • 05:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
71. Support, no problems here. First RFA was unfortunate. Chick Bowen 06:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
72. Support was disgusted by some of the opposes last time, am very happy to support now. —J04n(talk page) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
73. Support, everything looks good - a dedicated and thoughtful editor with a good track record of contributions to a variety of areas. Reviewing the first RfA generally gives the impression of a discussion that was derailed by multiple valid, but separate, issues coming out in a confusing way - nothing raised back then causes me undue concern now, so I think we have a good potential admin here. ~ mazca ^talk 13:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
74. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
75. Support. Knowledgeable, experienced and clueful editor. Great improvement since last RfA. No reason to think she wouldn't do a good job with the mop and we need more active admins, so it's a pleasure to support a well-qualified candidate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
76. From what I've seen, Panyd deserves to be an admin. Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
77. Support - excellent progress since her first RfA.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
78. Support Epbr123 (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
79. Support. From 'Neutral.' Candidate clearly has support of community, and has demonstrated aplomb in handling herself at this RfA. Happily support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
80. Support Give it your best, and good luck...Modernist (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
81. Weak Support, Impressive questions, and generally impressive answers. I only hope the theory works out in practice. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I am back peddling. Moved from support to weak support. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
82. Support No problems. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
83. Support. Lots of patience and clue in the answers to questions. And, having read the essay on mental health in your user-space, I want to say "yes, yes, yes!!!". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
84. Everything looks fine - nice progress since RFA 1, good answer to questions, etc. etc. I have no concerns. Support. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 20:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
85. Have had positive interactions with this level-headed user. Good answers to questions, though I'll note WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. Risker (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
86. Support I was sure I'd already commented, but clearly not! The concept "only one RFA live = umpteen questions" seems to be alive and well I note. Respect to the candidate for their perserverance over them; All looks good IMHO - clearly a clueful editor who can well use the tools. No reason presented not to support, and with regard to the "polemic userboxes" bit below I'm glad to see that issue was rightly addressed by the, then, opposer. Pedro :  Chat  23:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
87. Support. Seems to have a good handle on editing and policy, and to be a reasonable editor. Fences&Windows 23:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
88. Support. Seems to tick all the boxes for doing the job well. MurfleMan (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
89. Support: The time has clearly arrived. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
90. Support Excellent answers to the questions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

    Support I just want to be popular. Swarm ^X 14:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Moved to neutral Swarm ^X 06:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

91. Support Seems like an excellent candidate. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
92. Support. Superb candidate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
93. Support: A proficient user. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
94. Support Fantastic candidate for the mop. Steven Walling 21:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
95.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Panyd. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
96. Support. Excellent candidate... was a bit hard on her at Editor review but in retrospect, she will make a fine admin. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 05:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

    Support. Nothing bad here. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 13:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

    !Vote of blocked sock stricken. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

97. wow Dlohcierekim 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
98. Support – She seems a more than capable editor. Good look. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
99. Support—fully qualified candidate; no red flags. Airplaneman ✈ 18:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
100. Support - Appears to have learned a lot from the last Rfa. Seems sensible and ready to shoulder the load. Best wishes for your adminship, and grats on the WP:100... fine work! Jusdafax 04:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
101. Support - as per nom.Kudpung (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
102. Support. Looks good to me. The Land (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
103. Support per "can be trusted with the tools" - frankly, I feel the editing history is not (even with the prevailing situation) indicative of a sufficient degree of commitment but the OTRS work and especially the candidates candid commentary upon their illness and the steps they have and will undertake to alleviate concerns over it confines me to support, because they evidently can be trusted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose candidates who display divisive statements of any sort on their user page, in this case, the userbox User:Michaelbeckham/FoxNews. Such content violates WP:UP#POLEMIC, which prohibits "polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" on user pages. It is inappropriate for any editor of an encyclopedia committed to a neutral point of view, but especially for an administrator, who must avoid giving rise to even the suspicion that she might let her political opinions influence her decisions. This applies even if the suspicion is unfounded: I believe that Panyd would do her best to treat everybody equally without regard to their opinion. But it is easy to imagine that a new editor whom she correctly blocks for politics-related disruption might wrongly believe, after seeing that userbox, that he was blocked because of his opinions rather than because of his disruptive conduct. That should be avoided.  Sandstein  22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) (Moved to Neutral.  Sandstein  22:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Would it change your mind if I agreed to remove it? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Tell me, Sandstein; if userboxes like that are polemic, why have they not been deleted? Obviously obscenity and offensiveness are defined by the social group, so I'd suggest submitting it to AfD and seeing if it gets removed. Ironholds (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember what it was called, but I vaguely recall seeing an MFD regarding inappropriate userboxes. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that was over a pedophilia userbox. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's also possibly this one which included 7 "inappropriate userboxes", earlier this year. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Panyd, I might have changed my mind if you had just removed it. Evidently, though, you believe that such userboxes are appropriate, including for an administrator. That's an opinion many fine Wikipedians hold in good faith, but with which I strongly disagree. I won't ask you to betray your opinion, but I can't support your candidacy.

Ironholds, MfDing userboxes is pointless as people can just add the code directly to their page. The box is not offensive and probably not even deletion-worthy, just polemical and unrelated to Wikipedia, and as such in my opinion – others are free to disagree – unbecoming of an administrator.  Sandstein  07:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? The userbox is expressing a fairly mild (and widely held) opinion about a TV network. This oppose seems a bit unreasonable. We're treating admin candidates like political candidates now, requiring that no evidence of a personality be displayed on their userpages (which is ironic, since the userpage is the one place that people usually express opinions and such). It's not like it said "This user hates Muslims" or something, it's talking about a TV network. I can't see how this user's desire to express their opinion about TV stations (especially when it's clearly not a fringe opinion, nor is it hateful or negative) is going to impair their ability to use the admin tools. SnottyWong ^talk 17:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been as big of a critic of userboxes as anyone, but I happen to agree with you. However Sandstein certainly has a right to his opinion and vote. Keepscases (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the most trivial of reasons to oppose someone(A Userbox??....Really), are we expecting everyone who goes for an RfA to be devoid of personal opinions and beliefs, will we chastise them for even having any.Theo10011 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...in lighter news, I actually kind of like that userbox. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 21:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed to say that as a journalist, subject userbox is generally considered true? Admins are allowed to have opinions, and I respect that Sandstein has one. I, for example, think daylight savings time is a joke, and there's a easy way to fix it - it says so on my userbox. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Moral Opposition - To avoid pile-on support :^P . Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And there was me hoping for a WP:100 unopposed :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I indented it just for you, Chase me :) (If this was an actual serious oppose, please unindent it.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke (see above for my support vote). Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the candidate has a great story and I too am hoping for a WP:100 unopposed. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure looks like it's going to happen, but there's still two days left. Anything can happen. But let's hope nothing happens and Panyd makes it through with no opposition. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And it happens! 100 support votes! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I did not vote in the last RfA. I'm very impressed by the straightforward way the candidate has approached the issues related to her illness. I do think the article work is a bit on the light side, but obviously a step in the right direction. The userbox issue raised by Sandstein bothers me a bit too. That said, I'm a mild neutral, leaning towards support, and will be watching this a bit more as it moves along. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Move to support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Moved from "oppose" above. I still believe the userbox is inappropriate for any user, much less an admin, but since no other voter has so far agreed with me, I'll accept that the community does not agree with me about this. And it's unfair to oppose somebody's candidacy for something that appears to be widely tolerated.  Sandstein  22:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

   Sandstein, I would like to salute you. You took an unpopular stand, discussed it here, and changed your !vote. That takes guts. Bravo. I think you did the right thing in bringing it up. Jusdafax 06:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Love the responses. I cannot emphasize how much I enjoyed reading the mental health page. A focus on OTRS is a good thing as far as I see it. Short enough on contributions and content that I am not comfortable full-on supporting. Doesn't look like my !vote will m ake much of an impact at the end of the day so best wishes on the added responsibility.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3. I had already piled on when I read Sandstein's oppose; I actually feel their point is completely reasonable and opposing based on that reasoning is as well. In practice, admins generally shouldn't make political statements of any kind in their userspace for exactly that reason. If they were ever needed to intervene in a dispute on the Fox News article, for example (or anything related to American conservatism), their judgement and impartiality could easily be called into question and create more trouble than it's worth. I really don't think it's a terribly big deal, but it's enough to express my concern here (if my !vote would make any difference, I would not strike it - it won't, so I'm moving to neutral). I wanted to do this almost immediately after my support, but my internet lost connection and I haven't been able to make it back until now. I used that box in the past and took it down precisely for this reason. I understand some may feel this is a triviality: I feel that while it is too trivial to make myself a sole oppose (I wouldn't want the candidate to feel that anything has been "spoiled"), I do feel it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose in general. Swarm ^X 06:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   Can you think of any possible situation in which any admin would be "forced" to intervene in an area where they have bias or a conflict of interest? Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   I found myself feeling the same as Ironholds there - and I'd much rather our admins with strong opinions on topics clearly disclose them. That way, if Panyd (as a wholly hypothetical example) were to start making controversial admin actions in a Fox News-related area in the future, it's clear to everyone that there's a problem! Nearly all our admins are generally sensible enough to avoid admin areas where they have a noticeable bias. ~ mazca ^talk 14:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   To Ironholds: It's probable that no user will ever be forced into editing Wikipedia. I did not say there was, and none of my points presumed that they would be forced to intervene in an area where they have a bias. I think they will and should intervene in areas where they have personal bias; I don't think it will effect their actions. It's a lighthearted userbox, not a scathing political commentary. That doesn't mean it's appropriate for an admin.

   To Mazca: I agree. Swarm ^X 17:36, 27 November 2010 (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.