Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:45, 15 June 2007

CharlotteWebb

Voice your opinion (35/20/6); Scheduled to end 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs) - My fellow Wikipedians, I give you, CharlotteWebb, as a candidate for administratorship.

Since May 29th, 2006, CharlotteWebb has been continually improving the encyclopedia with her great work. In that time, she has amassed about 13,000 edits, and of those 13,000; she has over 8,500 to the Mainspace; over 1,300 to Project-space, with activity at AIV, AN, AN/I, and other RfA's; nearly 900 to the Category and Template spaces; and over 80 to Images. However, it should be noted that CharlotteWebb's edits are high in quality as well as quantity, as she helps reference articles and make sure they are up to the standards. When it comes to communicating, she is very honest and direct, but at the same time, CharlotteWebb is very civil, and she is also a very calm user, not one to get upset easily or anything like that. I personally think she will make an excellent administrator, hence my nomination for her. Acalamari 17:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Alright, let's do this thing. — CharlotteWebb 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: In addition to continuing to do what I have been doing, closing AFDs, CFDs, and RFDs here and there, as well as transferring free images (of credible origin) to the Wikimedia Commons, I would like to take an active role in deleting copyright infringements, protecting heavily vandalized pages, unprotecting pages which have been protected for too long, making edits to protected templates as needed, and blocking persistent and/or blatant vandals. I would also like to help maintain deletion review, which (more than any other wiki-process) I feel could benefit from a greater level of diversity.

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

A: I do not consider myself a great or prolific writer, though I do try. I'd say the article to which I have made the most significant contribution is that of the great Jewish-American Chief Justice Jay Rabinowitz of the Alaska Supreme Court (no longer a stub [1]). I have created countless disambiguation pages such as [2] [3] [4], but I have not bothered to maintain a complete list. Recently I got hooked watching NBA games this season and have developed a strange fascination with basketball, creating articles like [5], [6], and maybe others I've forgotten. I've also written a few a few album and film stubs here and there [7] [8], and helped keep current event articles current, such as [9].

However... my proudest contributions to Wikipedia have been the photography I have been able to locate and upload to the Wikimedia Commons to help illustrate articles. A small selection of articles containing my uploads: [10] [11] [12] [13]. While not my own (I'm not photographer) they have all been free to anyone to use under Creative Commons licenses, and have in many cases replaced previously standing "fair use" images, which by their nature should probably not have been uploaded in the first place [14] [15] [16].

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: Mmmm, conflicts. Well I do remember my slightly perturbed response to one user about his poor taste rhetoric/humor in an unfunny AFD nomination about an executed convict [17] [18], though he later apologized (to me for some reason). There was also a short little edit war on Dave Grohl where a user continued to put his "fair use" image back in the infobox even after I'd found a free replacement [19] [20] [21] [22] because he felt that the photo I uploaded was a "piece of garbage" [23]. In the end this was peacefully resolved when he himself found another free photo that he was happy with. I also had grievances with HagermanBot from time to time [24], and I also found myself in the middle of a WP:LAME edit war on Wikipedia:Be bold [25]. I have explained my reasoning both on the talk page and the mailing list. I think I've remained pretty calm through all of these issues, though not to the point where I would let anything unacceptable pass without comment.

4. (self-question actually) Do you have any comment on "the Phaedriel thing"?

I first became aware of the situation when I got this message from Phaedriel on my talk page. I had previously been participating in a mailing list thread where User:SPUI raised concerns about "fair use" of song lyrics for wiki-fun purposes. Specifically he was referring to a parody of Hotel California which can be found on meta [26]. I replied to SPUI's comment on May 4 saying that I had seen a similar Wikipedia-related parody of a classic rock song here, which I thought would also be of concern to SPUI due to his interest in roads and the way the song parody even mentions him by name. On May 8 I got the happy day message from Phaedriel and I honestly did not know what to think about it. So I looked more closely and saw that it too was part of a series of song lyrics and poetry, much of which is still protected by copyright, so I assumed that an implicit "fair use" claim was being made, and I posted a link to it in my second reply to the mailing list thread on May 9, because I felt it was a relevant example for the ongoing discussion.

The complete mailing list thread can be found at the following links (chronological order): [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. Only two of the postings are by me. One linking to the song parody by User:Rschen7754, the other linking to Phaedriel's collection.

I had no ulterior motive for doing posting these messages. I did not harass anyone or express any desire to have anybody blocked or anybody's userspace pages deleted, nor was I uncivil in handling this matter. I was just asking a couple of simple questions regarding examples very similar to the one originally given by SPUI. I have explained this to several people who led me to believe they were satisfied with my response, however I still do not see how or why this got blown so far out of proportion. — CharlotteWebb 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's my duty to comment on this as well, as I'm being mentioned here regarding an event that directly involves me. While at first I was taken aback for not being approached directly to solve this matter, CharlotteWeb thoroughly commented her decision with me and expressed her apologies, and even admitted openly her move wasn't the best approach. Such an act of contrition and the way in which she subsequently behaved, discussing the issue openly and friendly, speak volumes in my eyes; it shows a clear will to both admit her mistakes and to engage in dialog in order to solve disputes.

The whole matter is solved, forgotten and forgiven on my part, largely because neither Charlotte nor I wished to dwell on such a trivial subject, and we friendly agreed and learned from our mistakes (on my side, using fair use quotes until that moment; on her side, not approaching me directly after getting her gift) and chose to move on. Like MONGO perfectly put it back then, this was just a whole bunch of nothing, and we all mess up monumentally more often than we'd like - who doesn't? I consider this event completely closed, and tho I thank those who still remember it and holds concerns about it for me, I beg you to reconsider on my behalf. Love, Phaedriel - 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. (Optional Question) Do you believe vandalism fighting is more important, or page creation? RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well either activity would be pointless without the other, unless nobody ever vandalized anything. If everybody kept to their own articles the project would be unmaintainable, because nobody is active 24 hours a day, and some people are not even active more than a few times a month, so their articles would turn to crap due to lack of attention, unless everybody was an constructive good faith user (which is too much to ask for). On the other hand if everybody began to only patrol existing articles for vandalism, there would be no growth within the project, or even within articles. If we protect the articles extended periods of time, we will also shut out users who are trying to improve them, and very little progress can be made at all. So it's a delicate balance, and I've always tried to do a little bit of both. If I can't think of anything to write at the moment, I might try instead to keep the vandals from wrecking your articles, even if I know very little about the topics. Then when I'm busy writing articles or doing something in real life, somebody else will always be keeping an eye on the pages I've created or taken an interest in editing. It's really a supply and demand relationship between the two pastimes. And as good as "vandal-whacking" might be for cheap entertainment, we must not lose sight of our basic goal, which is to create a free encyclopedia, the sum of human knowledge. — CharlotteWebb 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Can you explain why you edit using TOR proxies? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but first, can explain why you have invaded my privacy twice, first by obtaining this information, and again by publicly revealing it? Have I anything to deserve that? — CharlotteWebb 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from an open proxy, including Tor, violates policy. If you are violating policy, how can you be expected as an admin to admonish and block users who violate policy? And how is attacking someone who wants to protect Wikipedia from a potential admin who circumvents policies a defense? Crum375 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to check lots of vandals and sockpuppets. Every time I discovered they were using TOR proxies, your userid showed up as well. I didn't bother mentioning it before, but adminship is a position of trust. Editing using proxies is against policy. Now I'd appreciate a response. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're advocating cutting off Wikipedia access to the thousands of users who have to use TOR now, are you. This stupid enforcement of TOR has only come about since it was revealed a TOR node was involved in an admin account being hijacked. The only problem is hardblocking TOR exit nodes doesn't stop hijacked admin accounts due to the IPexempt feature (if an admins IP is blocked, they aren't caught by the block unlike normal users) - I see nothing wrong with permitting registered users to continue using TOR until a more satisfactory solution can be found to circumvent censorship and privacy concerns for a large portion of our users. The ideal solution to keep TOR users under control would actually be to promote more administrators who can deal with TOR exit nodes, soft blocking IPs and hardblocking abusive accounts as necessary - over zealous enforcement of TOR isn't helping anybody. Nick 10:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone's advocating anything other than questioning why a potential administrator would violate an official policy and react in such a manner when asked to explain why. The Rambling Man 10:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine the frankly unacceptable behaviour of Jayjg might have something to do with it. If it bothers him so much, why hasn't he raised his concerns in private with the candidate instead of using it as a silver bullet to shoot down a perfectly decent candidate who looked like passing their RfA. NOP is a ridiculous policy - we've got idiots running around trying to discover identities of editors and admins, we've got countries censoring free speech and instead of trying to find a happy medium, we've gone all out against TOR. Again. This hard line stance of TOR is a useless knee-jerk reaction. Using TOR in no way impacts on this candidates ability to administer Wikipedia and to suggest otherwise is foolish. Nick 10:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there is unnecessary worry of another Runcorn incident. Majorly (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, my man, you are out of line. Open proxies, TOR or not, are blocked on sight by administrators. Just about every vandal IP I come across I do a proxy check. It is expected of administrators. This is not a witch hunt against CharlotteWebb. There are actual, valid reasons for prohibiting open proxies. If Jayg has seen the user's ID pop up while running a checkuser on an open proxy, that means we have no way of knowing if it was the user vandalizing or a million other people. Open proxies do not allow for accountability, which is necessary to enforce the GFDL. Get a breath of fresh air. Keegan^talk 19:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think "checkuser" is a greater position of trust, Jayjg, one which I feel you've betrayed. There's no basis on which to reveal anything about my editing other than what appears in the page history. My edits should speak for themselves, if you think they are of poor quality, you should say so, revert them if meeded, amd block me if I'm creating a problem. Aside from that you might as well be asking why I or for how long I have been smoking pot. That wouldn't be any more of an irrelevant character attack, coupled with the assumption that I'm guilty of other crimes too. If you sincerely believe I am (or anyone else is) an eminent threat to the project, you should say so, or present the matter for arbcom to decide. — CharlotteWebb 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CharlotteWebb before commenting.

Discussion

Comment Reagrding the opposes below. A fair while back I initiated this thread about User:Zoe (who has now regretfully left the project), who I felt was brusk to the point of incivilty in her dealings with me. The result of the discussion was pretty much overwhelming support for her, and In retrospect rightly so. At the time it was commented that she was considered "forceful" but that didn't stop her being an incredibly well respected and accomplished admin. I look back on raising the complaint with slightly red cheeks now, and my attitude has changed (or I've beome thicker skinned!). Although WP:CIVIL is vital, we shouldn't assume that shortness and brevity are the same as incivility. This is only a comment, and as I say slightly embarasing for me, but it does show that the community has accepted, indeed embraced, a brusque admin before now, and therefore I felt it right to mention it here; in light of the comments in oppose from editors I respect deeply. Pedro | Chat 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask Charlotte to be less tough on RfA candidates. Adminship is no big deal, and some of her opposition to various candidates has been very strong (and she sometimes doesn't give much or any reasoning) - these candidates end up passing and going on to be good admins, and she is often in a minority viewpoint. I've already told her, but I'll say it again: there's really nothing to worry about when supporting, and there is really no need to be so tough. Majorly (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Beat the Nom Support Charlotte knows what's she doing. She understands an admins tasks, and has a need for the tools. Therefore, I say give them to her. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second beat the nom Support Very well balanced contributions and I've seen here before around and I'm surprised she's at RfA... You know the cliche. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as the nominator and my reasoning. For once, I am not late to support a candidate I've nominated. :) Acalamari 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and answers. I entirely trust the candidate's judgement. Peacent 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Previous observation has left a positive impression. Remember, we're choosing sysops, not RFA voters.--Chaser - T 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn pending A6.--Chaser - T 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Demonstrates that tools will be used well - the diffs provided by User:Ryan Postlethwaite aren't all that convincing to me - saying oppose without much of an explanation might not be the most constructive, but I wouldn't call it uncivil, either. PGWG 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Maybe she comes across a little gruff in a few RfA's but I'm not sure I'd classify it as incivility. User has good contributions and seems to have a good understanding of policy. I can offer my support. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The incivility concerns are too small to particularly bother me - should be a great, active admin. GDonato (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)- TOR use means I indent my support until A6. GDonato (talk)[reply]
Good-faith user, has the experience. Not perfect, but then again no one is. The opposes are completely unconvincing (and in the case of The Sunshine Man, just vindictive), and I sometimes forget that not everyone reads the mailing list, as well. Not a bad user. This business of Phaedriel etc was blown sky-high out of proportion. She gave me a good going-over at my RfA, with reasoned argument instead of YOUREADELETIONISTBASTARD. That was impressive, and certainly not incivil. Moreschi ^Talk 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I not think she is incivil, or even brusque, but in all honesty, on some RfAs, what is there to say other than "No. Just, no."? Comments of this type should not be taken as evidence of incivility, or even of sharpness. Moreschi ^Talk 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Said, give yourself a pat on the back. That's two Tommy Points BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's always something to say beyond "No, just no." Even the worst RFA candidate deserves better than that. I'm not opposing CharlotteWebb for making those comments months ago, but it's not that cumbersome to take a few seconds to type out a reason for an oppose. --JayHenry 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom and Moreschi. JoshuaZ 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Posting a too brief or overzealous oppose, in the middle of a sea of opposes, is hardly gross incivility. I respect both editors posting oppose votes, but am going to support. User seems quite experienced and good faith, if not a bit brusque/overzealous. I doubt that user will be a problem admin or abuse the admin tools. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Civility is important, but I don't see a problematic pattern. I do see a user who's been helping all over the place for many months. Yechiel Man 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see nothing wrong with this user, and I've seen her around on RC patrol before and she's always seemed sensible. - Zeibura ^Talk 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itsy bitsy support. See my comment above. Love, Phaedriel - 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really don't see any major issues in the opposition. Charlotte does quite a bit of AIV reporting and page protection requests, so I believe that this user has the experience needed for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think I can trust Charlotte with admin tools. I've come to the conclusion that at least the first two opposers are just a bit... spiteful... that's my opinion, especially the Sunshine Man. Not sure what you were thinking there, mate. Majorly (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Opposes are unconvincing and a quick check of contribs shows lots of good work and plenty of use for the sysop bit. Eluchil404 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reconsidering my opinion in light of revelations about proxy use. Eluchil404 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support After thinking long and hard. But please can you try and up your use of edit summaries. Best wishes. Pedro | Chat 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks okay. --W.marsh 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems cool to me.—AL ^FOCUS! 22:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, excellent member of the community. Corvus cornix 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm a bit concerned about the mailing list thing about Phaedriel, but is she's forgiven her, I see no reason to oppose. Will ^(talk) 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Despite the concerns raised by the opposers, personally I've always found this user very civil and her work quite commendable.--Húsönd 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportFrequent interaction. A seriously competent editor with good, all-round knowledge of wiki-policy. I would be very comfortable with her as an admin.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with the nominater. He is ready. He is a good competent editor, and as stated above, knows wiki-policy!Politics rule 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, CharlotteWebb is actually a "she" and not a "he". :) Acalamari 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good user, and demonstrates a need for the tools with her tireless work. Regarding the oppose arguments, it looks like she can be blunt at times, but not incivil. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The oppose on Chacor's RfA is entirely understandable. Personally, I think he would once again make a great admin, but I can absolutly understand why someone would be strident in their comment. I'm finding the Oppose comments below exceptionally far fetched and a worrying development that threatens to damage RfA further. Editors should be judged on their merits, not on their opinions or the way they express these opinions on any RfA. RfA is sort of exempted from assume good faith and civility for a good reason, it prevents editors from providing good honest appraisals of candidates. It badly needs to stay that way, obviously being constructive, but if you just don't trust the user because of the very obvious issue then you simply don't trust them, no point in raising the same issue as the other x number of Opposers. I've seen nothing but excellent work from Charlotte and she's a user who would benefit from having the tools, and indeed the project would benefit from her promotion. As a quick comment in response to Neil, I don't generally warn users for vandalism the first few times I come across their accounts, I silently revert. This fanatical every vandalism revert should be accompanied by a warning idea is, for me anyway, greatly worrying, what if it's not vandalism, what if it's an edit gone wrong or someone just playing about. Revert and move on. If I think I'm going to have to block someone, I'll warn once and once only, but if I feel they're not going to keep making damaging edits, I'll not bother creating some work of art vandalism portfolio for school kids to brag about, so needless to say, I don't find a lack of vandalism warnings a bar to promotion either and it's something I look upon positively. I know I'm not at all alone on that either. Nick 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - devoted editors make good admins, also I am astonished by a few oppose votes: since then "Oppose per above" vote considered incivility that should be taken against the voter Alex Bakharev 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Neutral while the editing from Tor is not explained Alex Bakharev 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- She might look uncivil but I believe she knows whats right and will get the job done better if she was given the tools....--Comet styles 23:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per all. — $PЯINGrαgђ 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, will make a great admin.-gadfium 00:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Opposes are incredibly vacuous!~~ -- Y not? 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, that referred to Opposes 1-4 only. I am not sure how I feel about the TOR stuff. -- Y not? 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Oppose -- Y not? 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sometimes what appears to be incivility is actually quite the opposite. I trust this user to be responsible with the tools, and an asset to the project in other ways. Diversity in administrators is a positive thing.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on contributions. I found a ton of vandal fighting, some work in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: space to clarify WP policies, and some nice contributions of free images. One complaint: please use more edit summaries. (And I don't think you were entirely wrong to start that thread about Zoe -- though I can't find what you actually said there. It's important to question admins, particularly long-standing and well-respected ones, if you think they're losing sight of Wikipedia's pillars.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify it was me that started that thread back in January, not the RfA candidate. Pedro | Chat 08:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Support, per Acalamari (talk · contribs)'s points in the nomination, especially the last sentence of the nomination. Smee 05:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Support, I've seen nothing but good from her. Everyking 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an extremely ROUGE chick, who seems to be obsessed about me ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moral support. —AldeBaer 09:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak support Terence 12:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The TOR thing would disturb me a bit, and it would be serious if Charlotte was using it in an abusive manner (that is, in order to create harm and disruption). I see no evidence of that. Yes, it is a breach of policy, but not one done in bad faith, and if it were a really serious issue, it w(sh)ould have been brought up with her in private (user talk-page or even by e-mail) before the RFA, as there may be issues of privacy which explain this. Charlotte's contribution to the encyclopedia and community has on the whole been positive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - sorry Acalamari, but CharlotteWebb isn't polite and friendly. Users that make incivil comments in others RfA's such as this and this shouldn't be admins. Also, when you have to run to the WikiEN-l mailing list instead of approaching Phaedriel about her Wikipedian of the day, I sense an admin that would go behind others back. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan; your two RfA diffs were in March, a full three months ago. I doubt she'll do things like that if she became an admin. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civilities important to wikipedia, she'd had enough experience then to know what she was doing. Secondally, the Phaedriel thing was little over a month ago. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point out which part of the cited RfA comments is uncivil? Thanks Peacent 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the fact that she said "Absolutely not" and "Oppose" with no reason. Maybe. I, myself am not too sure either. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Evilclown says, at the top of each RfA it clearly states "Please keep criticism constructive and polite," how are comments such as "absolutely not" constructive and polite? Quite simply, they're not. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it's a too small reason to oppose, about a few bad comments in RfA's 3 months ago. But, I'll probably leave it at that. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well with all due respect, this is my comment, and I personally don't think it is, that's not all the incivil RfA comments, I just haven't got time to go fishing for the rest of them at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent for sanity purposes) Ryan, I respect your opinion very much. I hope you haven't taken me badly. Cheers! Evilclown93_(talk) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(edit conflict) Sorry but I completely agree with Ryan, Charlotte although a good editor is not friendly not polite, comments like this seem to show that you expect large amounts of experience for RfA candidates, many users have passed RfA with slighlty over or less than that amount of experience, for example Sr13, Majorly (under previous username). The Sunshine Man 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a comment on that diff. regarding incivility. Miranda 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that because she sets high standards of experience for other users when it comes to becoming an admin, she shouldn't be one. Shouldn't an admin be someone who respects the position enough to set high standards? BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshine Man; I'm concerned by your diff; CharloteWebb was opposing one of your RfA's (as Tellyaddict). Wouldn't that make you much more critical of here? Evilclown93_(talk) 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshine Man, opposing because she opposed your RfA (under a different name) falls under what I would consider conflict of interest. You should have disclosed that it was RfA when you voted. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it may affect me commenting but I've seen here on other RfA's being uncivil, however Miranda I didn't mention the user had been uncivil. The Sunshine Man 20:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfA is the only one you are explicity commenting on. That is why it's a COI. You don't like here high standrads in RfA's (you were involved directly) and now you are opposing her explicity for that aforementioned reason. --Evilclown93_(talk) 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshine Man, could you please explain why that is uncivil, and why exactly is it relevant to being an administrator? Nishkid64 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is borderline abusive sockpuppetry. You're using your new account in a way that is expressely prohibited by our WP:SOCK policy. Again. If you are going to continue using your new account, you need to make it abundantly clear that you also edited as Tellyaddict. I'm failing to understand why someone commenting that you've only been here 6 months is a reason to Oppose on their RfA and I wouldn't mind seeing diffs (other than Ryan's) which show a catalogue of incivility. I'm also failing to understand why you changed accounts. Is this incivil ? Nick 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Nick, this is not abusive sockpuppetry, if you're going to question my intentions then carry on, if you had taken them time to see my userpage as Tellyaddict it explains everything, I also previously had information on my userpage with this account saying that I edited as Tellyaddct, so I suggest you read WP:SOCK and think before you go jumping accusing others of having abusive sockpuppets, I dont like Charlottes attitude like this comment which is basically insulting every contributor to CfD, although not required she opposed a user up for RfA here without explaining which I find uncivil. I am extremely displeased with Charlottes attitude, normally I'd try to remain as polite as possible but this is just stupidity. The Sunshine Man 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I think both of you could use a moment to disengage and "chill out". Let's not escalate this to a level beyond what needs to be. - jc37 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jc37 and would request that you both step back, especially you, Nick. Tellyaddict had the Right to vanish. He can establish a new account with absolutely no transparency for the previous account. As long as it is not used abusively, that's just fine. The Sunshine Man has every right to voice an opinion; the comment was not "Oppose because the user opposed me". The Sunshine Man is perfectly withing his rights to comment on this RfA without mentioning the Tellyaddict account. Keegan^talk 19:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What Ryan and the guy above me said. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not, categorically not, what she did. She left a neutral comment on the mailing list, citing this as a potential problem. #::So, she forgot that not everyone reads the mailing list. Minor slip-up. Not a big deal. This is getting farcical. Moreschi ^Talk 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thats what happened. My bad. I still don't get it........... But ok! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runewiki777 (talk • contribs)
And for the record, the guy above you (sunshine man) voted with conflicted interest as the candidate had opposed his RfA while he was editing under another account name. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who was accusing who of what after what friendly comment? I get the feeling that there is a whole wikiworld of users on mailing lists and IRC chats sometimes...I'm confused why this oppose vote is here. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't get it, then why comment at all? If this is to remain an oppose, I hope the closing crat will discount it as blatantly faking the record. Oh, and the mailing list is official (IRC is not). Moreschi ^Talk 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Runewiki, please sign your comments. Also, please don't remove text from your message after you post. If you wish to retract, then ~~strike~~ it. Otherwise its hard to tell what people are talking about. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Nothing to do with the above reasons - I see a lot of automated non-vandalism reverts here (contribs), and not one subsequent edit made to the user's talk page to explain why their edit was reverted (or to warn if it was vandalism). I also see a lot of non vandalism reverts with no explanation (edit summary or elsewhere). I am not sure Charlotte could (at this time) be trusted not to bite newcomers. Neil ╦ 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't like the userbox with the sneaky link to WP:DICK. Neil ╦ 22:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now strong oppose following the snarky response to Jayjg's question. Note I wouldn't really care if you're editing from Tor, although using it will always hint at being a Trojan account (and given the nature of the account's editing history - solely reverts and category changes with virtually no real content added, you never know). Neil ╦ 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There appears to be an increase lately in Trojan admin and would-be admin accounts, which are gradually eroding the integrity of the project, and this candidate seems to fit the pattern. Using Tor to edit violates policy, and is strongly correlated to Trojan accounts. To stand for adminship after editing illegally is the height of hypocrisy, because as an admin this user will then be expected to admonish and block other users for violating policies. The sneaky link to WP:DICK in the user box, mentioned by User:Neil above, also does not sound like something a bona fide admin candidate, who is effectively sworn to uphold our guidelines and policies, including WP:CIVIL, would do. Crum375 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Crum375. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moral support and will change to support if you edit from a non-TOR for 2-4 weeks (unless you have a special reason, such as editing from the People's Republic of China or Zimbabwe or similar). TOR use is against policy, opposed by Jimbo Wales, and is subject to abuse. Last week, there was an RFA for a user who used TOR proxies. It failed. UTAFA 05:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not condone administrators using open proxies. There's nothing I can do about current administrators, but this is my sole steadfast criterion. Revealing the use of open proxies is not a privacy violation and does not violate CheckUser trust. I had typed out a whole support message despite my judgment of gruffness, but that spat at Jayg was distasteful to myself. Keegan^talk 05:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Sorry CW. I rarely if ever oppose anyone on RFA, but the TOR thing bothers me. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the use of open proxies, and for the response to the question about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Besides the other several concerning things I'm reading on this page, I was simply stunned at the tone used in response to User:Jayjg. A refresher of WP:EQ might be in order? - jc37 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per jc37, the tone of this discussion is concerning. The Rambling Man 07:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Slimvirgin and Crum above.AKAF 07:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for disturbing responses. It does not appear that this individual would be a tactful admin. Doczilla 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Slimvirgin and Crum. Вasil | talk 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Turn off the TOR node, and you'd get my support. (Unless there are some sort of extenuating circumstances, which can be e-mailed.) Sean William @ 15:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of use of open proxies. Corvus cornix 17:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Evilclown93, I've had experience as well. Gan fon 17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Evilclown93 is supporting ... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't know anything about open proxies but the response to Jayjg does not show good faith in a question bringing up a potential concern. Surely it could have been handled better. Rigadoun (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the TOR issue. -- Y not? 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - Normally, I would support, but the opposes bother me. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Per Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor. --wpktsfs (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Changed to support ~~- pending a response to Q0.~~--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Pending a response to Q6.--Danaman5 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until Tor editing is not explained Alex Bakharev 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Tor editing does not bother me, but is a little too brusque for my taste. Riana ⁂ 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My first, and really, only, interaction with CharlotteWeb was the Phaedriel incident (in which I think I could be considered involved a bit -- I replaced the questioned quotes with older ones). I admit that getting a much respected and heartfelt award, then reporting the award giver for fair use violations seemed a bit less than ideal to me, but I was quite glad that the issue was solved and Phaedriel and Charlotte made up. Being able to make up to the level that Phaedriel is supporting this RfA is important, and, frankly, just being eligible for one of her "days" is a very good sign. Editing from Tor proxies isn't inherently a disqualifier for me -- like, say, use of sock puppets, it can be used for good or for harm, and I don't see any allegations of abuse with it. There are so many areas of admin work, that no one can be perfect at all of them -- even Phaedriel herself, for example, the most supported admin of all time, and I suspect still one of the best loved, was even at the time of her RfA known to be weak on fair use issues. :-) However, I do worry about the response to Jayjg just now. It's an unnecessarily defensive answer to a good faith question. If Jayjg just wanted to scuttle the RfA he could have done it much more directly than this, for example by just blocking you; in fact he didn't even oppose your candidacy, so I believe it could well be a good faith question, asked as civilly as could be. It's deserving of a good faith answer, again as civilly as can be. This is a neutral vote, and can change to support or oppose based on further actions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While the whole trojan admin thing seems unlikely due to honest editing history (easy to fake with hollow edits, hard to fake with actually caring edits). Nevertheless the TOR thing being unresolved is kinda weird. --W.marsh 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 :::::::I expect there is unnecessary worry of another Runcorn incident. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'') 11:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 :::::::Nick, my man, you are out of line.  Open proxies, TOR or not, are blocked on sight by administrators.  Just about every vandal IP I come across I do a proxy check.  It is expected of administrators.  This is not a witch hunt against CharlotteWebb.  There are actual, valid reasons for prohibiting open proxies.  If Jayg has seen the user's ID pop up while running a checkuser on an open proxy, that means we have no way of knowing if it was the user vandalizing or a million other people.  Open proxies do not allow for accountability, which is necessary to enforce the GFDL.  Get a breath of fresh air.  [[User:Keegan|<font color="maroon">Keegan</font>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Teke|<font color="gray">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 19:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
+::::I'd think "checkuser" is a greater position of trust, Jayjg, one which I feel you've betrayed. There's no basis on which to reveal anything about my editing other than what appears in the page history. My edits should speak for themselves, if you think they are of poor quality, you should say so, revert them if meeded, amd block me if I'm creating a problem. Aside from that you might as well be asking why I or for how long I have been [[cannabis (drug)|smoking pot]]. That wouldn't be any more of an irrelevant character attack, coupled with the assumption that I'm guilty of other crimes too. If you sincerely believe I am (or anyone else is) an eminent threat to the project, you should say so, or present the matter for arbcom to decide. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 ====General comments====
 <!-- begin editcount box-->