Montanabw

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (107/59/10); Scheduled to end 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

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

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: With over 75,000 edits, I have become familiar with most aspects of the encyclopedia. In the process, I've performed countless non-admin wikignoming tasks on the backside of the wiki. From this experience, I wish to help address issues and solve problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting. I think I could help the most with the perpetual need to deal with vandalism, for wikignoming tasks, and, most of all, to enforce BLP policies and quickly protect editors who are being subjected to outing or other inappropriate attacks, particularly with the following administrative tools:

1. Using revision deletion to remove BLP violations about the subjects of our articles and/or our fellow editors.
2. Article protection, especially as a tool to bring parties in dispute to the table to work out their differences.
3. Wikignoming and assisting the mass of behind the scenes work that needs to be done every day, particularly putting articles into the DYK queue; I've filled prep sets from time to time and frequently been alarmed to see that there are no queues filled with a DYK update only a few hours away.

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

A: Content! I have created over 200 articles, have been a significant contributor to 20 featured articles, a couple dozen additional GA-class articles and recently reached the 50 DYK mark. As many people know, my primary focus has been articles within the scope of WikiProject Equine. I enjoy creating and improving articles in other areas as well, from the fellows who formed one of the first high-tech firms in Silicon Valley to eating Rainbow trout, to oddball topics such as horse roundworms or the Jackalope. In creating and editing content for nine years, I have had to spend time woking on non-content questions as well, particularly the behind-the-scenes work required for DYK, GAN and FAC.

• To give RfA reviewers a sense of my content work, my most recent big effort, in conjunction with some excellent other editors, was American Pharoah, which was ITN when he won the Triple Crown and was just recently promoted to FA. In addition, we also upgraded a related BLP article about the horse's owner, Ahmed Zayat, to GA class. That article tuned out to have some unexpected drama due to the scrutiny Mr. Zayat was under during the Triple Crown season (read the article and its talk page to see the details); the issues had to be handled with a great deal of care and discretion.
• Other examples of FACs where I worked with outstanding collaborators include Homer Davenport, where I had the honor of working with User:Wehwalt, and Yogo sapphire, which took a team of about six people, each with different areas of expertise, from geology to history.

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

A: I have been an editor for over nine years and most certainly have dealt with many editing conflicts and stresses. I firmly believe in using process; most conflicts can eventually be resolved if people will face frustrations and work through their differences. I've handled many things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best. At the end of the day, thought I have not avoided drama, I have never been blocked and I have never given into the temptation to put up a "retired" tag. My strengths and weaknesses stem from the same set of traits; I do not easily give up and I tend to stick to something until it's fixed.

• One thing I know from the conflicts and stresses I have faced is that a crucial component to being a good administrator is to understand WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; when I am editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I cannot and will not use the tools. That said, there are thousands of administrative tasks and millions of articles on wiki that are completely unrelated to any issue where I might be involved with as an editor.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

4. What is your view of Process is important?

A: There is an adage about the concept of process that goes, "those who love law or sausage should not watch either being made." Process is messy, but necessary. I am fond of the law, I am fond of sausage, and I am fond of wikipedia, so I guess my view is that I am willing to deal with messiness and to stay with the process and see if through. While process can be tiring, frustrating and time-consuming, the work done often results in a better outcome. An explanation of the stages of effective group development is "forming, norming, storming and performing." Process is what takes users through those stages and gets to the goal: Good, encyclopedic content. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most unsatisfactory outcomes I have seen on wikipedia occurred because process was ongoing but it was summarily cut off before resolution was reached, or the process was hijacked by a group who had no actual interest in a solution other than their own, so engaged in pseudo-process with an actual goal of subverting discussion, prevailing not because the process worked but because everyone else gave up out of sheer exhaustion. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, there is also a need to be proactive in controlling the process, or even closing it, when it is clear that there is not going to be further progress. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: CSD is a policy. The policy page for CSD is a rather long and complex one, but in short, a policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Therefore, the rebuttable presumption is that it should be applied as closely to the "letter of the law" as is possible. CSD is for obvious cases of articles where deletion is not reasonably contested. It is tightly limited to the specific types of articles listed and it should not be expanded beyond its scope. So I would apply CSD pretty "literally" and not abuse the policy by applying it to articles where it does not fit. If the situation is not clear-cut and/or there is any legitimate question of interpretation, it is best to use other methods to delete articles than CSD. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?

A: A "credible claim of significance" is a lower standard than notability; it's simply enough to survive speedy deletion, the article may or may not actually meet WP:GNG. I liken this to a Motion to Dismiss in a court case (such as a 12(b)(6) motion for those of you familiar with American law): If one accepts everything stated as plausible and potentially verifiable, is there a credible claim of significance made? As an example of A7, I recently de-prodded the new article Wiking (horse), "the all-time leading sire of Arabian racehorses." This is a good example of a stub by a new user that makes a credible claim of significance, even though the article is pretty rough. On the other hand, if I created an article about one of my own horses, such as the models for these images: File:BosalHorse.jpg or File:Green rope halter 01.JPG by saying, "Ally and Bella are Montanabw's famous wikipedia horse models," there is no credible claim of significance made (and I'd also deserve a trout slap). For A9, similar standards apply. An article saying "Joey and Jimmy have a garage band in Harlowton, Montana, would be a pretty clear case: Neither have a WP article and there is no claim of significance made. If it were a closer call, I'd look to past precedent and probably do at least a brief Google check to be sure that we didn't just have a new editor who didn't know that they needed to include in an article. If I had any doubts whatsoever, I'd use PROD or RfD instead of Speedy. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: IAR is a cousin to one of the "rules" of composition in George Orwell's famous essay on writing, Politics and the English Language: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." In other words, rules are excellent tools in most situations, but there are times when a rule does not actually fit the situation and blind adherence would result in something that is not useful, or unjust, or simply ridiculous. In such cases, there is a place to make an exception. IAR should be used when needed, but with caution and with a clear understanding of what the usual procedure is and why, in a particular case, the rule is going to be ignored. Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A: It's something I'd like to do. I already enjoy directing traffic and suggesting solutions, as users such as SusunW can probably attest. I've done a little bit of work at DR/N, and found that even when keeping people at the table doesn't settle the dispute, at least no one gets blocked and it keeps the process going until tempers cool. With the mop in hand to calm disputes, one can step in with some authority and help potentially good, enthusiastic new users calm down so they don't get themselves blocked. One can also back off experienced users who should know better.

From my own experience, I think when there is a disagreement amongst editors who all are trying to edit content (as opposed to vandals NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia), it is important for an admin to first cool down a heated situation, not make a snap decision, and avoid a rush to judgement on any side. Then, even if the admin is forming a pretty clear picture of the situation, giving both sides a fair chance to express their views and then calmly explaining what the guidelines are will solve many problems. Often people start working together once their emotions cool. Even the most contentious editors usually come to the table once they realize that the other side isn't going away. There are always a few intractable situations, but those usually get that way due to user behavior rather than the content dispute at issue. If everyone can remember AGF and NPA, almost all other problems can be solved. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9. As an admin, you are patrolling Category:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "In 1979-80 the <organization>, a feminist art center in <Major US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <Event name>." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, no context. What do you do?

A: CSD#A1 states, in pertinent part, "Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles...If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, there is enough context that A1 is not appropriate." So first off, I'd see how new the article was, and then do a web search to see if it really occurred. If it was real, and could be expanded, then A1 is not appropriate and Speedy would, appropriately be declined. If it wasn't new, I'd probably still decline CSD#A1 if there was, in fact, enough material to expand the article appropriately. (If I had time, perhaps I'd even do so myself) If the editor who tagged the article for CSD wished to PROD or otherwise suggest deletion, raising an appropriate justification, they could do so and that request would then be reviewed on its own merits. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from RO

10. At User:Montanabw/mopprep you offered "Blocking obvious vandals" as a primary reason for "Why do I want to be an admin?" In fact it's the second bullet point of your first reason for needing the tools. I agree that one of the more important things admins do around here is to protect articles from vandals. So will you please offer a policy-based explanation for why you labeled each of the following edits as vandalism?

1. September 12, 2015: ([1])
2. August 9, 2015: ([2])
3. July 31, 2015: ([3])
4. July 20, 2015: ([4])
5. February 28, 2015: ([5])

A: No, I will not. The relevant question for an RfA is if I would block a vandal under a certain set of conditions. And none of these diffs, taken alone, are conclusive for a block, it would depend on the totality of the circumstances involving any particular vandalizing editor. I also see this question is being challenged and discussed below by other editors, so I shall refrain from further comment on this question. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11. Have you ever operated an account and an IP at the same time that edited the same pages? If so, did you ever claim the IP as your own? Did you ever make any edits with the IP that would qualify as vandalism? Have you disclosed it to ArbCom? If you used an IP and an account to edit the same pages, but never claimed the IP as your own, please explain here why it wasn't socking. If you haven't ever operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other, just state that fact clearly, and please accept my apologies for the tough question, but admins have to be tough. Don't you agree?

A: I have, occasionally, edited logged out by accident (as have most of us), and in most cases I have asked an admin to revdel the edit so as to hide my IP. Those cases, therefore, were all presumably examined for evidence of socking or vandalism. I choose not to reveal my RL name or hometown on-wiki, but any number wikipedians know my RL identity and can address any concerns privately with ArbCom or whomever. No, I have never "operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other." That is socking and I have absolutely, positively, never deliberately edited under an IP to evade scrutiny. If you believe you have a specific example involving me socking with an IP, please just go ahead and make the accusation with a specific diff so the CU folks can examine it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever make edits with that IP that would qualify as vandalism? RO^(talk) 02:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not vandalized wikipedia, (though there might be the occasional snarky edit summary from another user who thinks otherwise) and I most certainly have not with any anon IP. If you have any accusations otherwise, please provide the diff of the IP vandalism. Otherwise, I believe this question has been answered. Montanabw^(talk) 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking/giving me permission to link you directly to the IP in question? RO^(talk) 03:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion you are having with other users, below, I suggest that you raise your concerns via appropriate channels and they can email me with your diffs, the IP in question and so on. But for the record, I absolutely have not "concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time." Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever used a shared IP? RO^(talk) 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But beyond that, other RfA reviewers do need to know that you and I have "history," and some of that history does involve me having reasonable cause to suspect that you were socking. Others who looked at the case determined that you were not, User:ItsLassieTime (ILT), though a different ILT sock was uncovered in that time period and my understanding is that you disclosed a previous account privately to ArbCom. As a result of that, I recognized the need to submit Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime and that LTA was approved. I learned a lot from the experiences I had with you in that situation and on your original, failed, Irataba FAC that Maunus was kind enough to fix and hope you take pride that the FAC eventually passed and that article has now been TFA. Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, if granted the mop, I most certainly will never use the tools in any situation where I know you to be involved because I would be WP:INVOLVED as to you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12. Dianna mentioned your "work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI", but your first article, Equine nutrition, was tagged as a copyright violation within the first week of its creation: (tagging; duplication detector report). Unless I missed it, it seems you never admitted it was inappropriate. If you did, I apologize and request the relevant diff/s. If you didn't, will you please explain here why it wasn't a copyright violation? Otherwise, how do you see yourself as an admin dealing with new users who you suspect have violated copyrights? What approach would you take?

A: That's an EXCELLENT question, RO! Yes, in February 2007, (eight years ago when I had been editing about a year) in creating a new article, I too closely paraphrased and inadequately footnoted from a source and was slapped with a copyvio tag on that article by Cyclopia. I was terrified!! (And, (ducks head) a little pissed, too) As soon as I realized what happened, I acted, rolled up my sleeves, went to work, and within about five hours had it fixed and it was restored. I DID apologize to Cyclopia at this diff for my mistake, and also told him/her in turn that I forgave him/her for acting so abruptly. I was particularly proud that about one month later, this article became my third GA. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That case is, in fact, one reason I became interested in CCI and related issues; I learned a lot from that experience. I have since had other experiences that have further informed my approach to CCI. One was the famous User:ItsLassieTime sockfarm and subsequent huge CCI involving something like 700 articles, many cut-and-pasted, and which is still not totally cleaned up. I learned what a mess a single editor can make if they don't understand COPYVIO issues. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12b. Above you said, "I forgave [Cyclopia] for acting so abruptly". Will you please explain why you think they were "acting so abruptly"? Here's the duplication report. There are nine hits of 30 words or more verbatim copy-pasted. Were they overreacting, if so why, and how would you react to a finding a similar duplication report in a new user's writing?

A: Be sure we are clear on the issue, your diff is not the version where the tag occurred. The actual comparison at issue are these two. Your diff is "17:12, February 9, 2007 (Creating article)." That was the very first edit. And yes, in 2007, I did create that article by first copy-pasting the Rutgers content and then copyediting it from there. At the time of that tag I still was working on the article; the diff shows I was down to 6 hits over 30 words, which was still too much material too closely paraphrased, but I was still constructing content. That is definitely not something I'd do today! I think this article was evidence that I learn from my mistakes and become a better editor for the experience. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I would do for a current editor similarly situated today, and what I wished that editor would have done at the time, was to have warned me first and not just shut down the article with a huge "scare tag"—it was a new article, there was active work going on. A better approach would have been to notify me of the problem, perhaps with the dup detector results, letting me know that I had too much duplicate phrasing, and emphasize that I needed to fix it pronto, pointing to the appropriate WP policy of the time. I had the article recovered into a sandbox, I fixed the problems, and in less than a day it was reviewed and the new version restored. As I stated, I learned a great deal from that experience and have not made the same mistake since. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Epicgenius

13. Do you plan on focusing in any one particular admin topic, or will all your admin activity be sporadic?

A: Because my focus is mostly on content, I suspect the answer is "sporadic." Most likely where someone alerts me to a problem where I can help, or when I come across an area where it looks like folks need a hand. I'll probably pop by DYK and RPP on a reasonably regular basis, as there always seems to be a need for extra hands in those two spots. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) To expand on this answer, I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop, so while I cannot use the tools where I am WP:INVOLVED, I feel that with the tools comes the responsibility to contribute to the community; just like my work on DYK in doing prep sets tends to correspond with my own DYK submissions, I have a strong ethic that where I ask for something, it is my duty to give back in return. Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on comments below, I probably should clarify. As noted above, the areas where I have the most interest are 1) doing queues for DYK (as I have done a lot of prep sets, QPQs and now about 50 DYK noms of my own); 2) Revdel and BLP protection, following policy; and 3) RPP, a place I've had to go quite often, given that I watchlist articles that include asinus, manure, cow tipping and jackalope. In other areas, I would probably help with backlogs and focus on areas where I can be fully neutral in attempting to resolve disputes. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from LynnWysong

14. Do you plan to recuse yourself from administering equine articles and generally take a step back from your "stewardship" of them? Whereas I understand you have put a lot of work into this subject, your investment has led to what I and many others believe is a problematic attitude. As far back as 2007 other editors have been commenting on your ownership issues with these articles, and only seven months ago, you came right out and claimed to own one here. This page I think reveals a lot about the issue. The Advice section might as well be retitled: "My rules people must follow to be allowed to edit equine articles." I simply do not see how you could possibly objectively administer issues in this area, and I would think that other editors would be even more discouraged against trying to edit with a "helicopter administrator" weighing in on every edit they make.

A: Of course I would "step back" from using admin tools where I was WP:INVOLVED! As I stated above, I "get it" about WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; if I'm editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I just simply will not and cannot use the tools. WPEQ is one of them. It took some time for you and I to arrive at a place where we could work together in a collaborative fashion (that "forming, norming, storming and performing" thing) but we are working together in a collaborative fashion now and though we certainly don't see eye to eye on the issues, it's slowly making the articles better as we move step-by-step through the process. I look forward to the day when we can jointly nominate Mustang for GAN. If that happens, it will, in my view, be proof positive of the good that Wikipedia can accomplish when people can come together even though they have different views. Montanabw^(talk) 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other half of my question, of backing off of the "stewardship?" Do you think that you have an issue here that you should address? Because, even though I have chosen to put aside a lot of the things that happened between us in the past, I don't think that you have ever really acknowledged the gravity of the issue, and until you do, it will continue to cause problems.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you and I both have strong views on the Mustang topics, and because we both have strong feelings on the issue - on opposite sides - we have not been at our best when dealing with one another. To be a steward of an article or project by its very nature forecloses use of the admin tools in that area per WP:INVOLVED. I think that's all that matters here. I don't use the tools on WPEQ articles. Simple as that. Montanabw^(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run, when I edit content, I am dedicated to ultimately getting it "right" — whatever "right" is (if there is a "right", and sometimes there isn't one right answer). As I have stated elsewhere on a number of occasions, I do give good faith viewpoints respect and consider if you are right and I am wrong. For example, you have helped me see that the feral horse issue in Nevada is very different from the feral horse situation in Montana and Wyoming. But you and I need to continue to deal respectfully and carefully with one another because the best we will do is agree to disagree. The genius of the five pillars, particularly the intersection of verifiability, neutrality and civility, becomes clear where people with serious differences of style, personality and opinion have to work together. Montanabw^(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your question, what has to be made clear is that I weigh the evidence and over time do modify my views based on that evidence. I have changed my views on a number of horse topics over the years. One example was white (horse) where I originally didn't understand the genetics, but now I do, in part from working with another editor (who was at the time a graduate student in genetics) on Dominant white. Another example was Horses in warfare where the MilHist editors held me and others to a very high standard that I wasn't used to at the time, and challenged a number of my assumptions, but it became my second GA. Montanabw^(talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take that to be a "no" that you do not intend re-evaluate your attitude and back off? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to edit the Mustang-related articles that you also work on; I've been here for nine years and my content contributions speak for themselves. Where I think any editor is not editing in a neutral fashion, where I think an editor is engaging in OR or SYNTH, I'm going to continue to say so. That does, and will, make a few people unhappy; I can handle that. Others have the same right to do so to me. Again, this would be a situation where WP:INVOLVED clearly applies and where I cannot wear the admin hat. I absolutely respect that policy. Luckily, there are thousands of other areas and millions of other articles where admin tools are needed and I am neutral. Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one doesn't wield the mop, isn't a disservice to the project to have an admin who doesn't acknowledge and temper ownership issues? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there IS an actual problem. But here you and I have a situation where each person vigorously advocates for what they sincerely believe to be correct information and periodically get pissed off at the other. We each point out the biases the other has, and that's uncomfortable, but good for both of us. Fundamentally, you and I disagree on some highly emotional issues, and I think we both have done a decent job of dialing back our strong emotions enough to avoid blocks. I've repeatedly stated that I won't use the tools on equine topics, and I have also already given you examples of times I have changed my viewpoint and ways you in particular have expanded my understanding.

In conclusion to this discussion, understand that I follow WP:STEWARDSHIP: "...not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership." So yes, sometimes I get a bit testy when people make repeated POV-pushing edits I do not think improve the encyclopedia, and I have gotten testy at you for what I have considered OR, SYNTH and so on; you in turn have pointed out errors in my own assessment of certain things, and where you have provided solid sources, I've moderated my position. That is not "ownership," that's process, and as noted above, process is messy, but also important. Montanabw^(talk) 01:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from SSTflyer

15. Your AfD statistics are not good, with a hit rate lower than 65%. Will you avoid closing deletion discussions (at least before gaining more experience) if you become an admin?

A: Yes. Frankly, I don't have much interest in AfD in an admin role, I'm only there if already WP:INVOLVED in some way, usually by AfD pings at a project where I'm a member. My primary involvement there has been to try and save articles from deletion where I think they are potentially salvageable, such as, for example, Hilda Plowright. I lean strongly inclusionist in general, so once I gained some more experience, I suspect that if I reviewed an AfD where I had no previous involvement and determined that consensus warranted deletion, that would be a pretty clear-cut case with clear consensus! (smile) I thought about doing some non-admin closures there before filing, as I know some people look at AfD stats a lot, but I decided that as the only allowable closures by non-admins are "keep" and I already have a reputation as an inclusionist anyway, that would not help me much here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do not see this as a concern to Montanabw being an admin. This question was meant to ask about her opinions on article deletion and notability guidelines. sst^flyer 02:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Liz

16. Since this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, do you consider yourself flexible on accepting that other editors, even relatively inexperienced ones, can improve upon the articles you have created?

I ask this because as an administrator, you should not be rigid. You have to at least hold the possibility in the back of your mind that you could be mistaken and be wrong about, say, an account being a sockpuppet who might not be. You have to consider alternate explanations for other editors' behavior. Administrators can get into trouble when they believe that they have unerring judgment.

A: Oh, absolutely! With the caveat that the edits DO need to be an improvement. You note on my talk page that I am wide open to WP:TROUT-slapping and when I realize I'm wrong, I do work to make things right. As for people I don't know or who are new to me, I really enjoyed working with Vesuvius Dogg on the American Pharoah article and that user was a wonderful help! I also met Cliftonian for the first time on the Ahmed Zayat article, and he was very helpful in an area where I had little background. Recently, I've been helping White Arabian mare who is very new and inepxerienced but has a lot of enthusiasm and I hope she stays. She's already created three or four new articles and done some helpful wikignoming elsewhere. Just today I saw extensive edits to Campolina by a new user, but the images they added are of uncertain copyright status, and English is not their first language, so there were some hiccups in phrasing. I had to revert for that reason, but I dropped them a note saying that if they can clean up the copyright question, I'd be glad to see at least a few of them go back in. I also pinged another WPEQ member, Justlettersandnumbers to see if he can help this person out because I'm kind of busy with everything right now. Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from RO

17. "I admit I'm more prone to engage in cowboy diplomacy and administer justice with a wiki-Smith & Wesson."([6]) While I assume this comment was tongue-in-cheek, I'm struck by how closely it mirrors concerns raised by others here, particularly Liz and Dennis Brown. Please explain what you meant by this.

A: RO, based on the discussions below, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to answer any more questions from you. We have "history" and it is clear you oppose my nomination. If granted the mop, I acknowledge up front that I will inevitably be WP:INVOLVED when it comes to you and thus I cannot and will not use the tools in any situation involving you. There are other editors who have blocked you in the past, I will not be one of them. Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18. "I don't worry too much about 'hounding' where there is a clear problem and pattern that can be documented with diffs, though sometimes I save the diffs in case they try to drag me to ANI. But that's me."([7]) I assume you meant that you don't worry about accusations of hounding. Is that a fair statement? If not, what did you mean by this?

A: See above. Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from jps

19. Is it possible for you to provide a full accounting of who you would consider that you couldn't act with in an administrative fashion? In other words, do you have an WP:INVOLVED list, and, if so, who is on it (besides RO, for example)?

A: Thank you for your question, jps. I don't keep that kind of a list and, honestly, I don't think it would be possible to create one. Over nine-plus years, I've probably dealt with thousands of wikipedia editors, most in a positive fashion, but too many to keep track in any event. Some editors I was wary of at first are now respected colleagues. Some people I've disagreed with have exercised RTV and returned with a new name, so I wouldn't know we had a "past." I'd probably have to check history on a case-by-case basis, and if I forgot that I'd worked with someone and they raised WP:INVOLVED, I'd probably have to investigate and most likely back out immediately and send it to another admin or, if there was something like a time-sensitive BLP issue or other serious problem, at least immediately notify and consult with other admins on my action, stay open to having my action reversed, and be sure there were other eyes out there. I would definitely not wheel-war. Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be very, very clear: I understand the difference between advocacy and adminship. I am passionate about equine topics, and I know that in that topic area I must be first and foremost an editor — and therefore would never expect to be acting as an admin in those articles, no matter who was editing. I also know there are usually a few editors I'm dealing with who raise my blood pressure, and those are people where I must never interact with them in an administrative fashion. Finally, I also have made some pretty good friends here on Wiki, and have met some of them in real life (such as Ealdgyth, Rosiestep and Keilana ). So I also have to not use the tools in a situation where personal loyalty compromises my neutrality. Where I have a disagreement that falls under any these categories, then I need to use ANI, DR/N, 3O, RfC or other appropriate venues, just like everyone else. Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from User:MelanieN

20. What are your feelings about WP:CIVILITY? When is it appropriate to block for civility?

A: Thank you for your question, MelanieN. If I become an administrator, here's my thinking on how an Admin needs to look at civility issues:

1. An admin always should start with the policy: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." I think that's a good ideal. However, the devil is in the details because Wikipedia imitates life and everyone has less-than-ideal moments. Common sense and discretion is needed.
2. Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility is very helpful here. Blocking is for "serious disruption". I wanted to quote that entire section, but let's just say that I fully agree with the principles laid out there; immediate blocks are for when "nothing else would do" and that it is very important to look at the whole picture.
3. Policy also states, "Immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing. As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventative and not punitive." I agree.
4. In situations with a gray area, I would definitely try to review the whole situation and look at the big picture. In particular, I would look for WP:BAITing: often the person who has the meltdown and resorts to profanity is not the one with the incivility problem; they are actually the person who was bullied to the breaking point.
5. Policy is also clear that other than cases warranting immediate blocks, it's better to open a discussion via ANI and allow community discussion before reaching a conclusion.

Hope that was a complete answer to your question. Feel free to follow up if I wasn't clear. Montanabw^(talk) 02:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Brustopher

21. Two editors FrenchToast and SwedishMeatballs get into an editing dispute. FrenchToast links to a reddit account named SwedishMeatballs as evidence that Meatballs is plotting against him offsite. The account has made multiple posts about Toast encouraging people to troll him. What do you do? Does this qualify as outing?

A: If the usernames were actually real names, then yes. WP:OUTING is clear: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address..." etc. So if we were talking real names as opposed to usernames, that's a serious problem; any personal information disclosed on wiki would require an immediate revdel and a referral for oversighting. If these were usernames in both cases and personal information was not involved, it still might be harassment, depending on the big picture. Once any identity protection occurred, we'd then turn to the users' behavior and look at the overall situation. I'd certainly seek additional help and not fly solo other than to deal with the immediate identity protection. SwedishMeatballs most likely is going to be looked at to determine if s/he was trolling or harassing FrenchToast off-wiki to gain leverage in an editing dispute. (I'm thinking of the example of the editor who was harassing Cwmhiraeth via an off-wiki blog a year or two ago, that was a nasty situation). However, FrenchToast may need to have his/her behavior examined as well, as the policy states, "dredging up their offline opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment." We would want to determine if someone on Reddit was trying to fake that they were the WP editor of the same name to get SwedishMeatballs in trouble. This is a complicated situation and one for a team of people to work on. Other than the immediate revdel for identity protection, the rest would require a thorough investigation and review. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22. Jane Doe is a notable clockmaker with her own BLP on Wikipedia. Someone adds information about her being transgender to the article sourced to two separate investigative pieces from Gawker and Breitbart what do you do?

A: Well, our policies are WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, for starters, and anything potentially negative or libelous has to be removed if not properly sourced. BLP is specific: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Gawker and Breitbart are tabloid-type sources, so inadvisable as a RS on a potentially inflammatory topic. For that reason, I'd toss the info until the story was picked up by more reliable media outlets. The exception MIGHT be if it was an interview she gave to the source and it was a direct quote. But even then, I'd be careful and, frankly, dubious—it could be a satirical or fake interview and the potential of an The Onion-like misstep is out there. So I'd toss the material and ask the editor to see if it gets picked up by a more reliable source. If it's real, and matters, the mainstream press will have it in 24 hours or so, most likely. Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23. There seems to be a few people in the oppose section accusing you of horse related controversy. What's so controversial about horses?

A: Excellent question! I guess that people who are fond of them tend to have strong opinions about the details of their care, which ones are best, and so on. I see similarities with sports fans, dog owners, the dogs versus cats question, Macs versus PCs, Fords versus Chevys, and so on. There is something quite amazing about 1000 pound animals who will let us lead them around and ride them. It warps our brains, I guess. Or maybe it's the falling off part that does that... I don't know, but there is a lot of drama in horse-aficionado land! (smile) Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from RO

24. "But for the record, I absolutely have not 'concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time.' Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) ([8])

Discussion moved to the talk page. (Script error: No such module "Sandbox/Esquivalience/String". comments) Esquivalience ^t 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Gerda Arendt

25. I see that you have to answer many questions, so try to be short: please look at a diff and tell me if your gut feeling would be to ignore, block, talk to the user or what? Only if you have more time, look at the history and what other admins did, and comment if you feel like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A: Thank you, Gerda, I have a two-part answer:

In reality, I probably wouldn't use the admin tools on THIS particular case other than act as an ordinary user, and alert another admin. The reason is that I might fall under WP:INVOLVED because one of the underlying issues is the use of infoboxes and I'm a known participant in the infobox "issue" that has gone to ArbCom and back. I'd ping an experienced but neutral admin to handle this one. In a total crisis, might have to act to protect a user, but then I'd ping another admin and remain open to having my actions reviewed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, in theory, if I had no involvement with the underlying issues, I'd start with WP:BEFOREBLOCK. I'd investigate the background quite a bit before considering a block. I'd not act solely on this single diff and I would not block without a warning, investigation, and talking to both parties. I'd take a look at the relevant edits and both editors' talk pages and contribs. I'd check to see if I had either a total newbie or an obvious newly-created vandal account on either side. I'd look at the block logs of both editors. I'd see if anyone else had warned either party.

If that all checked out, I'd warn the user who posted the remark that they'd crossed the line on WP:NPA and that further behavior could result in a block. I'd also suggest that they should strike their comment and apologize for their remarks. I'd try to calm the user who was the recipient of the attack. A block would only be needed if, after all of the above, one editor continued to attack and harass the other and there was no other way to prevent further disruption.

The actual action taken was a tough call, it looks like the blocked editor had been warned and made no further edits between the time he was warned and the time he was blocked a half-hour later, but maybe wires got crossed between the two edits. The user had a previously clean block record (or mostly), promptly apologized, and the blocking admin actually unblocked within less than 24 hours [9] so at the end of the day, while I would have warned and then blocked only if the behavior continued, I don't want to second-guess an admin who may have been following the entire case and knew more of the background than I have from a brief review. I might also have tried to calm the upset recipient to prevent the subsequent ragequit, though the situation may have already escalated to the point where my stepping in would merely be rearranging deck chairs. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a thoughtful answer. Do I read right that you had the gut feeling that it deserved a block, but would not do it without investigating and getting counsel from an experienced admin, and that you came to the conclusion something had to be done about the "recipient"? I will try to go for that.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I was in the totally neutral role, I would not have acted without looking at the whole picture as best as I could, and I think that consulting with a more experienced admin before issuing a block would definitely be something I'd do as a new admin, probably for quite a few months. My "gut" said we had one editor baiting and the other in a meltdown. So my "gut" would be to make a solid attempt to dial back the emotions on both sides enough to stop the disruption without using the hammer. In the conflicts I've had myself, I've often felt a huge wave of relief when an admin arrived and said, "now everyone, please settle down." Kind of like when a cop shows up at a minor fender-bender. Even if someone is going to get a ticket, you know that when the flashing lights show up, the worst is probably over. Montanabw^(talk) 17:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from DeCausa

26 Several of those voting Oppose, myself included, have cited the interaction here, being behaviour which is (a) inconsistent with being a suitable admin candidate, and (b) not an isolated or one off incident. You've said that you wished that those that have voted oppose had raised more questions.[10]. Here's mine: (1) Do you understand the concern that the linked to interaction raises for those who voted oppose and could you playback what you think that concern is? (I think it would be useful to test your understanding if you precis what you think the concern is.) (2) What is your response to that concern? DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A: Thank you for presenting me the opportunity, DeCausa. I just spotted your question now, and I want to think this through and provide a thorough answer, so please be patient. Working...Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK to answer (1), here's a short list. I'm trying to be concise and probably have not restated everyone's concerns, but I think these are the main points:

1. People are concerned that I would use the tools to protect my "friends" and punish my "enemies."
2. People are concerned that I'd use the tools where I was WP:INVOLVED, particularly on articles or projects where I have been a major contributor.
3. People are concerned that I have a short fuse and would overreact like this in the future.

Put simply, I would not use the administrator toolkit to do any of these things. I also realize my future activity will be watched and commented on, so I will remember these issues to show the good-faith people who !voted here that their concerns have been addressed.

In answer to (2) I definitely made a mistake in judgement in the situation posted. I should not have gone charging into that discussion; I failed to take a deep breath and watch the situation to see how it unfolded. Regardless of circumstances, I realize I overreacted and allowed past interactions to color my actions. I am responsible for the drama I created on that page and it was a mistake of boneheaded proportions (lacking a better metaphor). I learned from this mistake and have no wish to do something that Mastodon-ish again. I also learned that I must remember to react on evidence, not fears, and I intend to do so from here forward.

I don't want to write a tl;dr here, so I'll close for now. If you have additional questions or feel I didn't answer this question to your satisfaction, please feel free to follow up. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from IHTS

27. You just assured an editor, that I have never edited California Chrome before yesterday. [11] Shouldn't you do research before saying that? And did my edits slip your memory? [12] Am genuinely perplexed, please explain. IHTS (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

c'mon IHTS. This belongs on the talk page Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, for several reasons. (And I made twice as many edits to Chrome than she suggests below, if the edit counter tool is correct.) IHTS (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits did slip my memory. (I have 77,000+ of my own and, as has been pointed out above, it's clear I don't even remember all of mine), I see you had edited the article (±30 times) about a year ago between July 4, 2014 and August 10, 2014? This appears to coincide with the PR prior to FAC. I was, no doubt , focused on content, and if I only reverted you once, wow! Worth noting! My apologies I forgot about that. I shall note it at the article talk Montanabw^(talk) 01:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC) And done Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. Support Yes, please! Great content work, level headed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as per nomination statement. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, well qualified candidate. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support. As a content creator, Montana has done exceedingly well. She is level headed, calm, and understands WP policies. She would be a huge asset to the admin group. GregJackP Boomer! 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - I have seen this editor around over the years, and trust her with the extra buttons. I was unaware of much of the content work, which is a plus. Proud to be in the first five supports. Jusdafax 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Honest, straightforward, intelligent, articulate, excellent content work.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
7. Support per Diannaa NE Ent 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per nom. @Montanabw is: 1) a content editor, 2) a trusted user, 3) very useful in defusing fragile situations. Epic Genius (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Still support even though Montana doesn't intend to do admin tasks regularly (Q 13). Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support Need an admin like that. I do believe that she has the credentials of an admin --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support A user with over 70,000 is strong enough to become an administrator whom have good understanding in the Wikipedia's community and I believe she would use the admin tools to improve the community. Per as Diannaa nomination i support her candidacy. AYYYEEE! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 00:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I think this may be my first time commenting on a RFA! Anyway, I've been coming across Montanabw's fabulous content contributions for years (one of my particular favorites is her work on Horse Protection Act of 1970). I too find her level-headed, and am pleased to see that she plans to help promote sets at DYK, as there tends to be a dearth of admins in that area. Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Great content contributor, worked with them on Homer Davenport. Don't see anything "bar"ring them from being a great admin!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Stephen 02:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Montanabw is clearly an exemplary editor who has made large-scale content contributions and I have no reason to oppose. In regards to question 10, revert 1 removed a clearly satirical source, revert 2 was done to remove clear-cut vandalism, revert 3 was an instance where a constructive edit was made after someone had vandalized and Montanabw decided to revert to get rid of the vandalism but added the constructive content back in in a subsequent edit and revert 5 removed false information, inserted to deceive, from the article (Piebald, the article subject, refers to black and white, not blue as the reverted edit stated). The only error I saw in the entire list was revert 4, where Montanabw reverted vandalism, but apparently forgot to re-add a constructive grammatical edit. This was an incredibly minor mistake, and if this is the worst that can be dug up on Montanabw then I am even more confident in voting support. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support because I see no good reason not to. Both voters currently in the oppose section seem to have a personal beef with the candidate, and I find their arguments unpersuasive. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support lots of content creation under his belt and experienced as well! -Euphoria42 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The entertainment value of this adminship should be off the charts. Townlake (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Oppose diffs are convincing. Townlake (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17. Strong support Very happy to see this RfA finally! Montanabw has been at the top of my list for a long time both as an editor I greatly respect and as a prime candidate for adminship. She should have been promoted long ago! Swarm ♠ 04:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Having seen this candidate's high-quality contributions and being encouraged by her proposed focus on DYK, I am happy to provide my endorsement. –Grondemar 04:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Candidate is a solid writer and editor who has the potential to be an excellent administrator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about accuracy at AfD are serious. Concerns about attraction to drama are serious. But still support, due to a feeling of trust that she will never used administrative tools or privileges in support of personal preference in matters of deletion or drama. Administrators are not required to be boring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support. Montanabw is a great person who has been dedicated to Wikipedia for nine years and has a fun and upbeat personality. She has all kinds of content experience and experience keeping the trolls from the door. My only reservations to this adminship are that (1) I hope she does not spend too much time adminning, because we need her to keep doing the stuff she has been doing so well for the past umpteen years. (2) Part of the "large and colorful personality" effect is that she can be dramatic or snippy, and partisan, at times. Therefore, I hope that when performing admin or admin-related tasks, she puts on her most civil and neutral hat and leaves the "colorful" at the door. And I hope she recognizes where she is less experienced and lacks expertise, and accepts the need to learn or take feedback before proceeding. Heaven knows we all can't be, and all admins can't be, as neutral, composed, thoughtful, circumspect, and policy-knowledgeable as, say, NeilN, but I think that level of composure and neutrality and carefulness and policy knowledge is something all admins should aspire to. Anyway, best of luck to Montanabw. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22. One of those candidates that makes me a bit miffed anyone would oppose. Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I may not always agree with her positions on any given article, but she actually discusses issues, and her record at AfD is reasonable. I note further that having had a copyright problem in the distant past would make her a stronger admin on that topic in my opinion. Collect (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Candidate meets my RfA standards. Mkdw^talk 06:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Moved to Neutral. Mkdw^talk 20:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support thanks for the nice diff from RO showing why we should support the candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support The candidate seems quite feisty and so we can expect the tools to be wielded with some vigour. For example, see the duck box incident. But the consensus in that case was ok and someone has to do the dirty work of mucking out the stable. Her content work is excellent and indicates that she's here for the right reasons. And the fact that this is her first RfA, after nearly 10 years of work here, shows commendable patience and restraint. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Based on content contributions and overall "clue".  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Moving to Neutral.[reply]

26. Jianhui67 ^T★C 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - Damn right! Montanabw is fair, impartial, productive, approachable, and knows a thing or two about creating content. She also does not suffer fools gladly. I fully support this candidacy. This, in my mind, is the only stone-bonker RfA since Ritchie333's candidacy a few months back. Cassianto^Talk 08:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - no doubt about it. A scholar, a content developer, and knows her way around. You can say feisty or you can say knows how to stand up for herself, which admins do need, after all. The Equine Nutrition thing was a clear copyvio, but it was 8 years ago and she dealt with it by becoming a copyvio checker and remover herself, so I agree with Collect about that. And everything that Diannaa said in her co-nom. --Stfg (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Indented. There's too much background here and I don't have time to study it, so I'm not qualified to !vote on this one. Please note: not moving to oppose nor even to neutral; just bowing out as unable to investigate enough. --Stfg (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Hmm, after all I've seen enough. Moving to oppose now. --Stfg (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28. Support without qualification; an eminently suitable candidate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support but may need to take more care with picture uploading, eg File:ShowHack.jpg. Otherwise answered questions well, and has a good range of experience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support I've come across Montanabw multiple times in the past and I've always had a pleasant experience. She shows good judgement and I think she'll do wonders if given the Mop. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Have been impressed by the way that Montanabw has stood up to some of our more difficult editors. Number 57 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
32. After quite a bit of thought, coming down on this side. While loyalty is a commendable quality, Montanabw has in the past acted as enabler to some of Wikipedia's more obnoxious characters, which has led to decisions which should have been fairly clear-cut being stretched out into long timesinks before reaching their inevitable conclusions. (No, I'm not going to provide diffs; there's no benefit in reheating old disputes. Whichever crat closes this will no doubt be well aware of the incidents to which I'm referring.) Despite that, I think she's a fundamentally decent person who just happens to have some dubious friends, rather than a dubious character in her own right, and I don't consider her likely to join in the "unblock your friends and block your enemies" brigade (and even if she did, would have a long way to go before being the worst offender among the current admins). ‑ iridescent 11:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support per Philg88, who hit the nail on the head here. Graham87 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support On balance, yes. Deb (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Long term user trustworthy see no concerns clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    —Kusma (t·c) 12:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)no longer convinced I am in the right section here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

36. Support Great all-around editor, will definitely be an asset. I understand the concerns that the tools may not be needed, however if one good administrative action is taken it's a positive. Oh, and judging by the current expectations to write a five page essay in support !votes, let me just say that I endorse the nominations. Kharkiv07 (T) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support has clue. shoy (reactions) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support: Firstly, I admire Montanabw's answer (both paragraphs) to Question 8. This reflects a careful, considerate, thoughtful and intelligent approach that I already observe in her work as an editor. There will be no hasty wielding of the sword in a "rush to judgment". Secondly: I echo entirely Andrew Davidson's rationale in support number 28. I am thankful and excited that this RfA is finally taking place and it will be a pleasure to see Montanabw bestowed with the tools of adminship. Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
39. (edit conflict)Support. Overdue DYK updates are almost a regular occurrence nowadays, and DYK needs more volunteers. AfD statistics are not very good, but it is fine since the candidate is avoiding that area. Should be a net positive. sst^flyer 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
40. Heck yeah - I'm familiar with her administratoresque work and concur with the nominating statements.- MrX 13:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - Genuine content contributor and appears trustworthy. -RoseL2P (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support well qualified. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support No concerns here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support -- an active, obviously passionate and well-qualified participant in the creation and discussion of Wikipedia content. I am in complete agreement with Dennis Brown's insights (No. 3 in the neutral section) -- but I support in the belief that Montanabw will take Dennis' advice and moderate any personal passions when they take on the somewhat mundane, by-the-book tasks of an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - Excellent contributor and thoughtful participant. --Laser brain (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support based on review and agree with co-nom, Diannaa. Could be more objective on AfD work but a net positive overall. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Happy to do so. Sarah ^(talk) 17:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Great content creator. Level headed and displays excellent knowledge and application of policy. Minor4th 17:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Seems OK. Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - basically, per Iridescent. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - A mature, level headed editor with a lot of content and collaborative experience. She should be a welcome addition to the Admin pool.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - fantastic. Level-headed responses to overt baiting by someone obviously trolling the nomination show great promise for someone with access to the tools, and a prolific content contributor to boot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support per Ivanvector, nom statements, and her potential to help out in areas like DYK. Keilana (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support The good far outweighs the bad Aparslet (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support likelihood of being net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
56. Had some initial concerns over the AfD stuff, but Softlavender's comment in the neutral section has convinced me that this shouldn't be a problem. Barring other issues receiving clearer evidence, support. — Earwig ^talk 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Anyone who has been around this long, created this much content, and been as active as Montanabw is bound to have stepped on a few toes, and developed a few animosities. I've also had a few spirited disagreements with them, but in the end I see a mature, intelligent adult; willing to explain their position without soft-soaping their way through a discussion. I believe Montana will continue to have the project's best interests at heart, and will be a net positive in her actions and words. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - Montanabw is passionate about improving this encyclopedia. That's not enough in and of itself, so also per noms, Softlavender's response to Richie333, candidate's answers to questions, and the candidate's understanding of WP:INVOLVED. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Montanabw is not perfect, but is a very good editor and can contribute a lot to the encyclopedia.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare[reply]
60. Weak Support per Iridescent and Ched, my support tempered by some opposes that seem to be rather troubling. Not that troubling though. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support, has competence and character to be a good admin. Cavarrone 21:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Pokerkiller (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pokerkiller - You need to provide a better reason as to why you think they should be given the mop..... –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No they don't. By tradition, voting yes means that you agree with the nom's statement. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That was in 2006, It's now 2015 so people really need to provide a much better reason, If I were to oppose and not provide a reason I would expect to be questioned so I believe the same should happen with those who don't provide a Support reason. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Guerillero:, Davey2010 has a valid question. I support Montanabw and explained why, but getting the bit for life is a big deal, and editors are entitled to inquire as to the reason for support. I will note that Davey's question was polite and non-confrontational, especially when compared to the harassment that most of the opposing editors have to go through. If you wish to address such questioning, you would be of more service to WP to start on the other side of the dividing line. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you would like to change the way requests for adminship are run or to create a de-adminning process that doesn't involve arbcom, get a consensus but please do not interrupt a part of the project to prove a point. Requests for adminship have been called "fraternity hazing ritual" and "chinese water torture" because each oppose vote is worth three support votes and the mood of the process changes at the drop of a hat. It is a vicious process that pushes good editors out. (Also, to call responses to opposes harassment de-legitimises the actual harassment that happens on this project.) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? Exactly what was interrupted? Besides, after watching the CF that the bureaucrats danced around in a recent crat-chat, trying to determine how to weigh supports which had no explanation for the reason, it makes sense to ask those that haven't outlined their reasons why they support the candidate. There is no prohibition on it, and as a number of people have noted, this is not a vote, but a discussion. Or would you rather just allow discussion on one side? Either way, editors are entitled to ask for the reasoning behind a position, and you are not entitled to shut down the discussion just because you are an administrator and an ArbCom member. GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Montanabw#support_reason NE Ent 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

63. Support Why not? (iridescent is speaking some truth up above) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support: People who hate drama don't want to be admins; drama comes with the job. If we find an editor with a passion for the encyclopedia, a strong history of content creation, and generally good judgement, we shouldn't exclude them because they have had some drama. Montanabw doesn't seem to be seeking out drama, but she hasn't shied away from it either. She should have the tools.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
66. YSupport I havent worked with you in quite a long time, but what I remember is entirely positive. Im not convinced by the opposes or the very difficult questions that youve suddenly become a whole different person. —Soap— 04:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These are some of the most emotional oppose votes I've seen (seriously??? A whole sentence in bold? Do you think people are just ignoring the other 157 votes?), and I've been reading RFAs for a long time. I respect all the opposes, and I realize this RFA will not pass, but I am standing by my vote and that is not just me being stubborn. I really think we would be better off if this RFA were to succeed and that the opposers are wrong. —Soap— 21:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

67. Support As per many above supporters. Some Opposers below saying that Montanabw is not sensible enough. We can ignore some issues related to general Human nature, but we can't ignore her contribution to many articles. She is content creator so she can be a better admin. Some people are having issues related to AFD, I have not gone deep into that but I think AFD closure should not be on the basis of number of !votes in AFD. It should be on the basis of policy. Because some users have some so called "enemies" on Wikipedia and these people comment "delete" without any delay when "enemy's" article gets nominated for AFD, so take that thing in account while closing AFD. Thank you. --Human3015^TALK  05:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support This editor criticized one of my very early contributions to the encyclopedia and she was right. I took her comments to heart and am a better editor as a result. She held no grudge whatsoever against me. Yes, she can be brash and sometimes a tiny bit combative but always keeping the goal of improving the encyclopedia foremost in her mind. The sad fact is that socks and trolls and vandals exist and must be opposed, which isn't always pretty but is absolutely necessary. If she is "overly inclusionist" in combatting systemic bias, then that is why we have consensus based deletion policies, and her general attitude about women's topics is commendable and worthy. As for equine topics, she is indispensible. I have watched her interactions with other editors many times over the years and am completely confident that she will use the toolkit responsibly. I support her candidacy proudly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Montanabw is first and foremost a fine content producer. She is level-headed, understands policies, and uses sound, balanced judgement. She is loyal, honest, fair, and responsible. She speaks with an authentic voice. She has my very strongest support. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - What we have here is a long-time Wikipedia editor who has a clean block log (despite whatever "controversy" they've supposedly been involved in previously) and who has been an excellent content contributor so far. After looking at their AfD stats more thoroughly and adjusting for some eventual outcomes (no consensus = default keep), I see around a 69% "green" ("success") rate with a few minor issues, mostly in the AfD nominating area. While this statistic is a tad low IMHO, this editor here has apparently only participated in around 140 AfDs (and voted in only around 126 AfDs). In my personal observation of this editor's conduct on Wikipedia, I have found them to be very helpful and trustworthy. I also think it's important to consider that we are all human beings and that our current Wikipedia administrator corps is far from perfect. This user would make a good addition to that administrator corps. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support One of our best content producers, and someone who puts the encyclopedia first. My experiences with her have been uniformly good. We need a diversity of views on behavior and inclusion/deletion among admins. Acroterion (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, mostly per Cullen328 (3-4 !votes above). I also reviewed the candidate's history at ANI, pointed out by Wbm1058 below, and found either several WP:BOOMERANGs against socks or POV-pushers, or some run-of-the-mill passionate head-butting. As User:Dennis Brown said in the Neutral section, Montanabw tends to be too passionate on occasion, which is not a plus for an administrator, but I still trust her experience and ability to restrain herself enough to believe she will not abuse the tools. No such user (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - I have been urging Montanabw to stand for adminship for years. When I saw the standing for admin banner on her talk page, I had to come out of slumber and support. Superb content provider, can be trusted to stand aside at the slightest whiff of involvement, or effectively cut through BS when needed. Is she passionate? Heck yes. We need passion in the service of the project. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Great contributor to the project. Montanabw has been very helpful and civil whenever I've interacted with her. Clear net benefit by becoming an admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support I would add to Cullen328's statement, which I agree with wholeheartedly, that Montanabw is a steady and tireless mentor for new editors. It is difficult to learn WikiPolicies and procedures and she is supportive and proactive in teaching and guiding, with a huge measure of patience. At the same time, she is clearly passionate about the encyclopedia. Passion is not a bad thing, it is what keeps one involved and encourages others. However, I also know from personal experience that she can and does weigh situations and change course if evidence calls for it. SusunW (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support per nom statement. Rubbish computer 13:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - There is a tendency towards article ownership and battleground behavior over same, for sure, as a couple of the opposes have noted. Nevertheless, I have fundamental confidence in this long-term content person. I believe there is currently a need for something like 50 new administrators and I feel that Montanabw has every prospect of being a good one. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - While Montanabw has been involved in some drama, it's never been much (to my mind). And it's clearly and importantly counterbalanced by the immense amount of help she is willing to give to newbies and others just starting out at Wikipedia and those needing a boost in knowledge or just some emotional support. That's a huge issue for Wikipedia, and she embraces it and enjoys it. Her clear-eyed understanding of when to stay out of things (as an admin), and her commitment to using common sense and guidelines rather than personal views, weigh heavily in her favor for me. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Would be a net positive for the project; seems trustworthy. Spencer^T♦C 16:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Long-term experienced user; seems trustworthy and does not supplicate to troublesome users seeking to harm our project. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Agreed that she would make a good admin. Zugman (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Zugman, what is it about seeing this WP:RfA for Montanabw that made you step away from your two-year Wikibreak? Had you seen her around before and are familiar with her work because of that? Were you simply checking in to Wikipedia, saw this WP:RfA and briefly looked over the case? I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what motivated you to support, given that you edit Wikipedia very sparingly, unless you edit more so as an IP, and since your support vote doesn't give any insight into your point of view on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

82. Support. I never thought that this RfA was a good idea, and the nonsense in oppose #3 about the "cult of Corbett" goes some way to explaining why. It's rather puzzling why I need to be insulted in someone else's RfA, but for the record I've probably disagreed with Montanabw about as often as I've agreed with her. I have no doubt though that if she were granted the tools she'd perform the admin role with honesty and integrity, which is more than can be said for some of the present incumbents. Eric Corbett 22:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support There's more to admin that AfD: if there have been problems there, I'm sure Motanabw will have the wisdom to direct their energies elsewhere. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    
84. Support - I agree with all the supportive things said so far.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - There are some important and valid points made in the "opposes" below, but on balance I think that Montanabw would use the admin tools with restraint and for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, so I am supporting. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. Myself and Montana fought long and hard over the Pumkin Sky issue, so this was a difficult one to decide on. I think that basicaly I trust her now; there is no doubt that she is well intentioned and sincere, the olny question for me is that her judgement might be clouded by loyalty (not that i'm any better). I have been impressed several times and dissapointed once or twice since that spat (infoboxes), but willing to allow that the weight of adminship will act as a cooling agent. My main reason for supporting is that she cares about the project, I basically like her, and she is a workhorse. She will do the job, and we need admins with such energy. Great; good luck. Plus, the RO thing was a major thing, lets not understate the difficulty faced there. Ceoil (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Precious #27 - COI: the low number tells you that we have been friends for a long time. Normally I stop at this point. Looking at some opposes, a bit more:
    1. I am pleased with the thoughtful answer to my question!
    2. I look forward to another female admin.
    3. I look forward to another admin who knows Wikipedia inside out.
    4. I look forward to another admin with a sense of humour.
    5. I look forward to another admin who has been teaching.
    6. I look forward to an admin awarding prizes for merits.
    7. I look forward to another admin who is outspoken about her feelings.
    8. I look forward to another admin who comes to the rescue of someone she sees in need (one instance described by Folantin below) - even if I - for example - at times feel I am not in need.
    9. I look forward to another admin who shares some of the same ideas and values, as a friend put it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support although I don't know why she wants to...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Honestly, WP:Net positive and the RfA candidate has been able to answer user questions or concerns thoroughly and accurately. I feel as though the opposes of this RfA are generally over-critical and not substantive enough for an adequate oppose. The user seems to have a handful of editing experience under their belt, particularly content-wise, and appears to have specific uses for the tool. --JustBerry (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Moving to oppose. --JustBerry (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

89. Support I have never really interacted with her, but I have read numerous contributions by her and have obviously read the material above. Although I am not sure why she would want to be an admin, I have no doubt that she would be a far better admin than many who currently are, and, that being the case, I am happy to support here. In fact, she should have been made an admin a long time ago, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support I can support her. She stepped up to deal with the WP:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime at a time when it was needed and no-one else was willing to help, and she gained a lot of respect from me for doing that work. She understands the problems caused to the project from serial sockmasters such as ItsLassietime (seriously, do we AGF for users who post stuff like this (warning: not nice reading!), [13]?. A lot of the ANI threads posted originated from a single serial sockmaster. Furthermore, she fully understands the process of writing content according to the best sources (I've watched her and been impressed on this point). As for battleground behavior, often it goes both ways - the RO issue is case in point. I have stood across from Montanabw on some issues (infoboxes) yet, have no compunction supporting. She's honest and loyal, passionate about the project, she's a hard worker, and she doesn't get disillusioned. That, in my book, is important. Victoria (tk) 13:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
91. I didn't get here without effort, but ultimately I hope this turns around and passes. I do think there's a lot of partisanship in how MBW interacts with people who she perceives as enemies of her friends. I'm thinking in particular of the incident Bish describes in the oppose section, or the way she shows up kind of out of the blue in talk page discussions a friend starts about infoboxes. But I also think there's a similar amount of partisanship in about 1/2 the admins and 1/2 the politically active editors we have ("politically active" defined as the type of people who vote in RFA and comment at noticeboards). I fully trust her to avoid involving her admin tools in content disputes. The question in my mind is whether I trust her to never involve her admin tools, directly or indirectly, when a friend is in conflict with someone else. I'm not positive she will, but I'm reasonably confident she will. I wouldn't be willing to take the risk for everyone, but in this case the benefits of having a smart, active, serious content contributor who has a ton of experience and cluefulness leads me to want to take that risk. We need more clueful admins, and while I'd love a few dozen perfect people with no faults, I don't see many of those around. I think this would be a net positive, and I encourage people in the oppose section to consider if the benefits might outweigh the concerns they legitimately have. If this RFA squeaks thru (or even if it doesn't), MBW, please take the concerns expressed in the oppose setion into account; they are not baseless. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support, albeit somewhat conflictedly. My first instinct was positive - I'm in favor of tools for content people, and while I don't think we've interacted I've seen her around on women's issues and liked her work - but there was clearly a lot of history that I didn't know enough about for an early support. And a lot of the oppose comments really are troubling - especially Folantin's (where I agree with Montana on the merits) and Bishonen's (where I disagree, and where the problem resonates with concerns I had based on Montana's occasional comments on the current GMO dispute). But, all that said, she's intelligent and thoughtful and confident, she seems to be hearing the feedback she's getting, and we could surely use more admins with good judgment on women's issues. So I guess that's a whole lot of stream-of-consciousness in order to say basically "per Floquenbeam". Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum to note that Montanabw has been very calm and poised during this RfA despite some really lousy behavior by other participants, which speaks well to her ability to do the same as an admin. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

94. Support. I've read through the opposes and see a lot of old grudges and sour grapes. The AfD "hit rate" opposers should be discounted. Montanabw has a long history of sound decision making, many times as a leader of community consensus.[14]. Further, the hit rate metric is skewed and does not take into account that AfD consensus is often ephemeral and changes over time. Her numbers indicate someone who thinks critically about an issue and isn't easily swayed by groupthink, an important and desired trait in an admin. So opposing her based on her AfD hit rate is wrong, and I ask that the closer take this into account during the final analysis. Finally, I want to speak about my personal experience interacting with the candidate. I believe we first edited in the Silicon Valley topic area, where our interests randomly intersected on the Varian pages. I came away from that experience knowing that this candidate represented the true face and values of Wikipedia at its best, warts and all, and I continued to enjoy interacting with her in the animal topic area (where she was under attack for many years with little help), as well as DYK and other places. Looking back at the last decade, it would be difficult for me to find a more suitable candidate. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - On reputation as an excellent editor I have had the pleasure of working with, and trust implicitly. Go Phightins! 00:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support per Go Phightins! --John (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
97. Strong support - Excellent editor. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Having read through the opposes, I know what team I'm on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - Many years of experience and loads of high quality content, with a genuine passion for improving the encyclopedia. There's no doubt that MontanaBW has more than enough qualifications to be trusted with admin tools. The opposes merely demonstrate that any content contributor who's been around for any length of time will have accumulated sufficient detractors to make this broken process very difficult for them. --RexxS (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support: it's great to have many sysops here. 333-blue 14:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - I have seen Montanabw respond in a measured way when issues were raised during her RfA, a fact which shows that she can respond well under pressure. I am also impressed by her openness to the criticism of the community during her RfA. I believe that for intelligent and clueful people the RfA process can be transformative by making them take to heart the criticism of the community. Gaining access to the tools is not a one-way street to power. It also puts any new admin under community pressure to show that s/he is worthy of their trust. That too is a transformative process. I believe that, apart from being an excellent content editor, Montanabw is clueful and intelligent and will show herself to be worthy of my trust and that of the community. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support per Viritidas. AfD rate argument is unpersuasive, seems like an amply qualified candidate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support For others, especially Cullen328, Guy1890, Viriditas, and Dr.K. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support The oppose section is so messed up that the only thing a rational observer can do is to toss it all out and go back to first principles in evaluating this candidate. What I see is a passionate content focused editor ready and willing to gird for battle when they think it necessary. That, in my opinion, is not such a bad thing. On the contrary, we need more admins willing to fight what they think is the good fight and we have processes in place on the off-chance (frankly, a very tiny probability after this RfA) that the candidate ends up attacking the wrong windmills. Never having interacted with montanabw (or many of the various strong opposers below), I'm a mere observer and I urge other observers, rational or irrational, to focus on the big picture, what the addition of a strong content focused admin will do to strengthen our admin corps. The rest, and I suspect I'm quoting someone without attribution here, is noise. --regentspark (comment) 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support By this point everything has been said. All that I can really add is I would trust Montanabw with the mop and really, that is all it comes down to. Jbh^Talk 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support wholeheartedly. Smart, level-headed, kind, good sense of humor, critical thinking skills, trustworthy, knowledgeable, intuitive, uses common sense, acts continually in good faith, decent editor. I can't speak highly enough of her. Few are more qualified at the time of nomination. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
107. Guess I was asleep at the wheel while all this was going on. Yes, I support Montanabw for admin. They're a good content editor, their heart is in the right place, they know their Wikipedia policy, etc. I am not worried about suggestions of ownership; I have faith in their judgment, having known them for quite some time. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]