Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Liz

Edit stats

Extended content

Edit stats from here: Liz • en.wikipedia.org Block log · Global user contributions · Global Account Manager · SUL Info · Pageviews in userspace · General statistics [hide] User ID: 19404073 User groups: autoreviewer, massmessage-sender, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed First edit: Jul 25, 2013, 5:02 PM Latest edit: Jul 28, 2015, 1:14 PM Live edits: 44,229 Deleted edits: 1,580 Total edits: 45,809 Edits in the past 24 hours: 37 Edits in the past 7 days: 499 Edits in the past 30 days: 8,489 Edits in the past 365 days: 19,467 Ø number of edits per day: 62.6 Live edits: Unique pages edited: 24,161 Pages created: 1,846 Pages moved: 229 Ø edits per page: 1.8 Ø change per page (bytes): extended Files uploaded: 0 Files uploaded (Commons): 0 (Semi-)automated edits: 1,529 Reverted edits: 237 Edits with summary: 43,834 Number of minor edits (tagged): 1,380 Number of edits (<20 bytes): extended Number of edits (>1000 bytes): extended Actions: Thank: 124 x Approve: 60 x Patrol: 815 x Admin actions Block: 0 x Protect: 0 x Delete: 0 x Import: 0 x 过错: (Re)blocked: 0 x Longest block: – Current block: – SUL editcounter (approximate): latest ► enwiki 45,390 +2 hours metawiki 71 +4 days commonswiki 42 +23 days wikidatawiki 40 > 30 days mediawikiwiki 24 > 30 days enwikinews 6 > 30 days enwikisource 4 > 30 days enwikibooks 3 > 30 days wikimania2015wiki 2 > 30 days wikimania2014wiki 2 > 30 days svwiki 1 > 30 days 43 others 7 > 30 days Total edits 45,592 bla bla Namespace Totals [hide] 일반 문서 12,364 28% Talk 1,245 2.8% User 809 1.8% User talk 4,841 10.9% Wikipedia 16,112 36.4% Wikipedia talk 1,366 3.1% File 35 0.1% File talk 2 0% MediaWiki talk 9 0% Template 176 0.4% Template talk 107 0.2% Help 7 0% Help talk 7 0% Category 7,054 15.9% Category talk 41 0.1% Portal 16 0% Portal talk 15 0% Book 1 0% Draft 16 0% Draft talk 4 0% Education Program talk 2 0% Year counts [hide] 2013 14,477 2014 10,297 2015 19,455 Time card [hide] Timecard Latest edit (global) - Edits in the past 30 days, max. 10 / Wiki [hide] Date ↓ Wiki ↓ Links ↓ Page title ↓ Comment ↓ 2015-07-28, 13:14 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Articles for deletion/2015 Cirrus SR-20 Crash Amending comment 2015-07-28, 13:12 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Articles for deletion/2015 Cirrus SR-20 Crash /* 2015 Cirrus SR-20 Crash */ Delete 2015-07-28, 12:45 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Meetup/NYC /* Possible attendees */ Adding my name to the list 2015-07-28, 12:15 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Thegleaminureyes /* Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! */ new s... 2015-07-28, 12:15 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Thegleaminureyes Welcome to Wikipedia! ([[WP:TW|TW]]) 2015-07-28, 12:12 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision Enforcing section warning 2015-07-28, 10:41 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Liz Posting RfA notice 2015-07-28, 10:30 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Requests for adminship/Liz RfA/Liz goes live 2015-07-28, 10:20 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision /* General comments */ Removing TRM header for pre-PD tim... 2015-07-28, 00:35 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Articles for deletion/PartStore.com Delete 2015-07-24, 14:25 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Association of Categorist Wikipedians/Members 2015-07-04, 17:23 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) :Wikimedia organizational and user rights hierarchy.svg Comment Month counts [hide] 2013-07 300 2013-08 1,363 2013-09 3,869 2013-10 4,281 2013-11 3,041 2013-12 1,623 2014-01 2,252 2014-02 2,034 2014-03 3,858 2014-04 678 2014-05 1,412 2014-06 51 2014-11 9 2014-12 3 2015-01 59 2015-02 1,662 2015-03 672 2015-04 3,213 2015-05 2,794 2015-06 2,935 2015-07 8,120 Top edited pages [hide] 일반 문서 29 List of redheads log · page history · topedits 15 Usher (singer) log · page history · topedits 15 Darius McCrary log · page history · topedits 14 Laurence Fishburne log · page history · topedits 13 Gary Coleman log · page history · topedits 12 Keith David log · page history · topedits 12 List of fictional supercouples log · page history · topedits 12 Judith Sargent Murray log · page history · topedits 12 Wayne Brady log · page history · topedits 12 Ranjana Khanna log · page history · topedits 11 Tahj Mowry log · page history · topedits 11 Gamergate controversy log · page history · topedits 11 Alfonso Ribeiro log · page history · topedits 10 Carlon Jeffery log · page history · topedits 10 Deaths in 2013 log · page history · topedits -More- Talk 91 Talk:Gamergate controversy log · page history · topedits 37 Talk:Hapa/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 37 Talk:Hapa log · page history · topedits 18 Talk:Ashkenazi Jews log · page history · topedits 15 Talk:Brianna Wu log · page history · topedits 13 Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe) log · page history · topedits 12 Talk:Leo Frank log · page history · topedits 12 Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 5 log · page history · topedits 10 Talk:Raul Julia-Levy log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Irom Chanu Sharmila log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Ave Maria University/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:David Ray Griffin log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Ave Maria University log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state log · page history · topedits -More- User 269 User:Liz/CSD log log · page history · topedits 136 User:Liz log · page history · topedits 23 User:Liz/PROD log log · page history · topedits 17 User:Liz/Whiteboard3 log · page history · topedits 15 User:Liz/common.js log · page history · topedits 14 User:Liz/Whiteboard log · page history · topedits 7 User:Liz/Whiteboard2 log · page history · topedits 7 User:Liz/Whiteboard4 log · page history · topedits 6 User:Liz/Pej Vahdat log · page history · topedits 6 User:Liz/Whiteboard5 log · page history · topedits 5 User:Liz/monobook.js log · page history · topedits 5 User:Wik log · page history · topedits 5 User:Liz/Wikicountitis log · page history · topedits 5 User:Ruud Koot/Feed log · page history · topedits 5 User:Liz/Whiteboard8 log · page history · topedits -More- User talk 813 User talk:Liz log · page history · topedits 153 User talk:Jimbo Wales log · page history · topedits 60 User talk:Drmies log · page history · topedits 38 User talk:Callanecc log · page history · topedits 35 User talk:Gamaliel log · page history · topedits 34 User talk:BrownHairedGirl log · page history · topedits 34 User talk:Bishonen log · page history · topedits 32 User talk:Flyer22 log · page history · topedits 31 User talk:Ignocrates log · page history · topedits 28 User talk:Zad68 log · page history · topedits 25 User talk:Good Olfactory log · page history · topedits 24 User talk:Kim Dent-Brown log · page history · topedits 24 User talk:Obiwankenobi log · page history · topedits 23 User talk:Bbb23 log · page history · topedits 23 User talk:HJ Mitchell log · page history · topedits -More- Wikipedia 1107 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents log · page history · topedits 245 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard log · page history · topedits 133 Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions log · page history · topedits 72 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard log · page history · topedits 70 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement log · page history · topedits 46 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion log · page history · topedits 36 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case log · page history · topedits 33 Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians log · page history · topedits 30 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection log · page history · topedits 29 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard log · page history · topedits 28 Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention log · page history · topedits 28 Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions log · page history · topedits 28 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop log · page history · topedits 24 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 193 log · page history · topedits 23 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence log · page history · topedits -More- Wikipedia talk 61 Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship log · page history · topedits 58 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests log · page history · topedits 42 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard log · page history · topedits 31 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee log · page history · topedits 31 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism log · page history · topedits 21 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention log · page history · topedits 21 Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost log · page history · topedits 19 Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report log · page history · topedits 18 Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians log · page history · topedits 17 Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people log · page history · topedits 16 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop log · page history · topedits 16 Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion log · page history · topedits 15 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 log · page history · topedits 14 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council log · page history · topedits 14 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks log · page history · topedits -More- File 2 File:Tom Selleck - publicity - 1980-1.jpg log · page history · topedits 2 File:Irolas.jpg log · page history · topedits 2 File:Graph of active admins, edits, and ratio of active admins to edits for each September, 2002-2013.png log · page history · topedits 2 File:Graph of active admins and edit for each September, 2002-2013.png log · page history · topedits 1 File:Saint Maron.JPG log · page history · topedits 1 File:LudlowPostVandal1.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:American Dream (film).jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:World-Fit-logo-childhood obesity programs - kids fitness programs - school fitness programs.png log · page history · topedits 1 File:LudlowPostVandal3.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:Admin-monthly.png log · page history · topedits 1 File:Justin Bieber Signature.svg log · page history · topedits 1 File:LudlowPostVandal4.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:Ludlow-miliitia.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:LudlowPostVandal5.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:Molly coffinnotice.gif log · page history · topedits -More- File talk 1 File talk:Edvard Munch, Loving Woman (Madonna), 1895–1902, lithograph. Munch Museum, Oslo.gif log · page history · topedits 1 File talk:Self Portrait with Skeleton Arm.jpg log · page history · topedits MediaWiki talk 4 MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist log · page history · topedits 4 MediaWiki talk:Bad image list log · page history · topedits 1 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist log · page history · topedits Template 17 Template:ArbComOpenTasks/CaseRequests log · page history · topedits 15 Template:Casenav/data log · page history · topedits 10 Template:Gestures log · page history · topedits 10 Template:ArbComOpenTasks/ClarificationAmendment log · page history · topedits 6 Template:Jews by country log · page history · topedits 4 Template:User Canon Law log · page history · topedits 3 Template:Ds/topics log · page history · topedits 3 Template:ArbComOpenTasks/Cases log · page history · topedits 3 Template:Retired Australian cyclones log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Religious Colleges and Schools in New Jersey log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Arbitration talk archive navbox log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Qual é o Seu Talento? log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Uw-cfd4 log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Demi Lovato log · page history · topedits 2 Template:User WikiProject Glee log · page history · topedits -More- Template talk 22 Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks log · page history · topedits 21 Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 19 Template talk:Religion topics log · page history · topedits 19 Template talk:Religion topics/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 5 Template talk:Infobox royalty log · page history · topedits 3 Template talk:WikiProject status log · page history · topedits 3 Template talk:Infobox person log · page history · topedits 2 Template talk:Copyviocore log · page history · topedits 2 Template talk:Stock characters log · page history · topedits 2 Template talk:Modernism log · page history · topedits 2 Template talk:Infobox comedian log · page history · topedits 1 Template talk:Torchwood Task Force userbox log · page history · topedits 1 Template talk:Shades of color log · page history · topedits 1 Template talk:Torchwood fan userbox log · page history · topedits 1 Template talk:User torchwood fan log · page history · topedits -More- Help 2 Help:User style log · page history · topedits 2 Help:Userspace draft log · page history · topedits 2 Help:Userspace draft/sandbox log · page history · topedits 1 Help:Using colours log · page history · topedits Help talk 4 Help talk:Wiki markup log · page history · topedits 1 Help talk:Preferences log · page history · topedits 1 Help talk:Special page log · page history · topedits 1 Help talk:Cheatsheet log · page history · topedits Category 11 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Interview archives log · page history · topedits 11 Category:American people of Jewish descent log · page history · topedits 11 Category:Ashkenazi Jews log · page history · topedits 10 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Digital media archives log · page history · topedits 10 Category:Wikipedia Signpost coverage of women log · page history · topedits 9 Category:Wikipedia Signpost April Fools Day log · page history · topedits 8 Category:South American people of Jewish descent log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Education archives log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Library and Museum archives log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Wikipedia Signpost China archives log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Paid editing archives log · page history · topedits 7 Category:Argentine people of Oceanian descent log · page history · topedits 7 Category:People of Arab descent log · page history · topedits 7 Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent log · page history · topedits -More- Category talk 6 Category talk:People of Jewish descent log · page history · topedits 3 Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion log · page history · topedits 3 Category talk:Wikipedians log · page history · topedits 3 Category talk:Advocates of pseudoscience/Move discussion notes log · page history · topedits 2 Category talk:Philosophers log · page history · topedits 2 Category talk:Wikipedia adminship log · page history · topedits 2 Category talk:People of Arab descent log · page history · topedits 2 Category talk:Wikipedia archives log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:African-American players of American football log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Tibetan philosophy log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Wikipedia template categories log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Roman Catholic clergy in Argentina log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Defunct buildings and structures in Manhattan log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Jinn in popular culture log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Pivot original programming log · page history · topedits -More- Portal 4 Portal:Syriac Christianity log · page history · topedits 2 Portal:Narnia log · page history · topedits 2 Portal:Christmas/Calendar log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Television log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Music/Featured articles/Suggest log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Ohio log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Baptist log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Anabaptism log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:South Sudan log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Religion log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Christianity/Related portals log · page history · topedits Portal talk 5 Portal talk:Current events log · page history · topedits 3 Portal talk:Dogs log · page history · topedits 2 Portal talk:Judaism log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:LGBT log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:Transgender log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:Asian Americans log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:Mathematics log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:Ireland log · page history · topedits Book 1 Book:Wikipedia Manual of Style log · page history · topedits Draft 3 Draft:Location map Houston Downtown log · page history · topedits 3 Draft:Chairman (President) of the People's Republic of Bulgaria log · page history · topedits 2 Draft:Valerie Sutton log · page history · topedits 2 Draft:Sandbox log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Paola Bacchetta log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Jane Peterson log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Keystone Symposia log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Jem Jem Italia log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Roopesh Kumar log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Uttarakhand Judicial and legal Academy (UJALA) log · page history · topedits Draft talk 2 Draft talk:List of churches in New York City log · page history · topedits 1 Draft talk:Cultural Marxism log · page history · topedits 1 Draft talk:STOP Bang Questionnaire log · page history · topedits Education Program talk 2 Education Program talk:University of Cincinnati/Philosophy and Women (Summer 2013)/Timeline log · page history · topedits (Semi-)automated edits (approximate) [hide] 1,228 Twinkle 273 STiki 28 Huggle 0 NPWatcher 0 HotCat 0 FurMe 0 Igloo 0 AutoWikiBrowser 0 Popups 0 Articles For Creation tool 0 WPCleaner

Worried

I gave glowing support. Now, after reading User:Iridescent's oppose, I am worried. I respect Iridescent enourmously. Before supporting, I spot-checked many of Liz's talk posts and found good manners. Maybe I was unlucky. Sometimes, it is necessary to read big discussions very thoroughly to know if someone is helping to diffuse and resolve rather than stir the pot and pick fights. I do not want to support an admin who has even a smidgen of those last characteristics. If anyone can provide diffs that conclusively show those, I will move to oppose at once. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure Iridescent's oppose can be taken that way, Anna. If you're working in contentious areas, it's pretty easy for those on the opposing side to pick diffs and say, "See! They were stirring the pot here!" or "Everything would have been okay if they just gave up and stopped arguing". I think you need to judge what they were fighting for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anna Frodesiak, I posted that oppose as a token gesture when this looked certain to finish well above 90%, and will freely admit to not doing a full contribution history check. In light of your comments, and the fact that this could theoretically end up in the discretionary zone, I'm going to go more thoroughly through her contributions and see if I've just happened to only encounter her on bad days. (It won't be until tomorrow, though, it's 1:30 am here.) I can't imagine I'll be moving to support—I'm not one of those who expects admins to have written FAs or GAs but I do expect to see some interest in what Wikipedia is actually about, and 7% mainspace edits, almost all minor, makes Newyorkbrad look like Diderot—but I'll be more than willing to strike the oppose if I feel I've been unfair. (When an RFA candidate can't give a single example in their "best work" section, it isn't a good sign; writing adequate-quality articles really isn't difficult for anyone who understands the basics of essay-writing, sourcing and wiki markup. To put that in perspective, tomorrow's TFA took about eight hours start-to-finish to write from a redlink.)

It is possible that because of the somewhat unusual combination of pages on my watchlist, which by definition includes a disproportionate number of high-drama pages, I'm only seeing her in environments where people are unusually combative. (I don't automatically assume a tendency to get into fights is an automatic fail—I was one of the co-noms on Malleus's RFA—but it needs to be outweighed by positives elsewhere, and my impression of this candidate has been of someone whose history consists solely of a mix of unnecessary stirring of other peoples' disputes, and hyper-minor edits.) What I will say, just doing a quick skim of recent article talk edits (generally the best way to get a feel for an editor's interests), is that her edit count in that particular namespace is massively inflated through the pointless but edit-count-inflating job of manually archiving threads one-by-one which were about to be archived by the bot anyway.

I'll update here tomorrow with either a retraction or an affirmation. – iridescent 00:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm impressed. There is no way I could write a Featured article in just eight hours. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: 20+ sources were carefully researched, winnowed out, found, read, and synthesized; 7 images were researched, found, uploaded (some of them), and captioned; and 23,000 bytes of deathless prose, with 44 footnotes, were written, formatted, edited, and refined, all within eight hours? That is impressive. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm impressed too. A good article, sure, but to write it to FA? Wow. I could never do that. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Iri is scarily quick, but, so not to dishearten others, he has been doing a lot of Etty articles, & was I expect already very familiar with all the sources, & some sections like the bio are largely repeats from his other articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That bio section does change between the Etty articles depending on which point of his career is being discussed, even if it's not always obvious. The time-saver here was having most of the bibliography already formatted and ready-to-go from The Wrestlers a couple of days earlier. A rough rule of thumb for how long something will take to write, assuming you have all the sources lined up and aren't going to spend time travelling to libraries, is 90 minutes per section excluding the lead for the prose, 30 minutes per image, plus one hour for writing the lead, formatting and a read-through for glaring errors. Obviously if you need to make a special trip to a reference library, or need to persuade someone to take a particular photo, the time shoots up. – iridescent 16:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Eight hours? That's it? How I wish I could do that; it took me days to write a 700-word GA... --Biblioworm 02:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) Aside from agreeing with that whole 8 hours thing, I did look through some of Liz's AN/ANI contributions and did not notice a pattern of making problems worse (or even one off incidents), which is part of why I didn't consider that. If this helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've just lost an hour of my life going through Liz's April–June contributions. (Going back further isn't usually worthwhile unless there's a specific concern, as people change; looking at the edits in the month running up to an RFA is also a pointless exercise, as candidates are generally posing for the cameras by then and avoiding anything contentious.) I'm going to strike that oppose, as aside from her baiting of Eric Corbett* I'm not seeing any major recent issues.

*The "content creators" diff everyone is raising can be discounted as a badly misfiring attempt at comedy, but I see no way to interpret her unsolicited comment here, which essentially translates as "we are discussing you in a publicly viewable forum but I order you not to read the discussion" as anything other than either intentional baiting to try to provoke a backlash, or spectacular cluelessness.

For the record, the (relatively minor) issues I did find are:

1. Removing a film's cover image from the article on the film, explicitly on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds that "I didn't feel like the image enhanced the article";
2. Making an edit which negatively impacted a BLP by downplaying the subject's importance (a feature dancer is a famous name, usually from porn or modelling, who makes one-off appearances in strip clubs as a highly-paid headline draw; a stripper is someone gyrates on stage while drunk businessmen stuff banknotes into their garter), with the somewhat odd edit summary of "ME";
3. This comment, which I'm sure is in the best of faith but shows a worrying eagerness to reach for the oversight button;
4. This rather odd commentary, which I can only translate as "I want someone else to write about this because I can't be bothered to check the sources";
5. This edit which can only be described as pot-stirring ("I know nothing about the subject of this article, but I'm sure it's wrong to list this many women"); five seconds background research would have shown that the notable figures in this field are disproportionately female.

None of these are any worse than I would expect to find if I went through the contributions of any editor with a fine-tooth comb. I won't be supporting for reasons outlined above—without the content Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people, and I don't consider it appropriate for people with no apparent interest in Wikipedia/Wikimedia's mission to be sitting in judgement over the people who actually do the work—but I won't actively oppose.

(Brief PS; that "eight hours" comment wasn't intended as the "hey, look how fast I am!" which some above seem to have taken it as, but as pointing out that "content writers" aren't some kind of supremely gifted elite. Anyone, working primarily from print sources on a topic with which they're familiar enough to judge reliability and relevance of sourcing, and where the topic is specialised enough that the article won't be a 10,000-word behemoth, can do the same.) – iridescent 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"with the somewhat odd edit summary of "ME"" — I found the edit summary "ME" confusing the first time I saw it but after a few occurrences I worked out it meant "minor edit". (If you knew that already but were trying to say that it was strange to mark the edit as minor, or to comment "ME" when it's fairly obvious that the edit was marked minor, apologies.) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• iridescent, the way you've withdrawn your Oppose, without striking it but instead indenting it, makes your "I can't support this" a reply to M.Altenmann -- which is confusing at best, insulting to him/her at worst (if read per the indenting). Best to actually strike, rather than indenting.... Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point, forgot that MediaWiki screws with the indenting and double-indents when you indent a comment to take it out of the count. Fixed. – iridescent 10:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I'm not a perfect candidate. There are areas where I don't have experience that some editors think is essential. There are times when I should have refrained from sarcasm but that is not my typical style of interacting with other editors. If you scrutinize my edits, you'll find I've done a ton of work recently in project space which I know isn't valued as highly as main space.
I still think I can do good work in the areas I've outlined in my answer to the first question. I decided to have an RfA in part because of the continued encouragement of other editors and admins to do so and I'm grateful for their faith in me and support. I take each oppose vote to heart as areas where I need to improve. Whether or not this RfA passes, this is valuable, albeit sometimes painful, feedback. I know that every editor who is participating in this process is basing their vote on what they think is best for the project and I can't fault that. Now, I will stay out of your discussion unless I see there are specific questions for me to address. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

O-kay, I'd be happy to see some work in an area you have expertise in. Not FA-writing but maybe GA review, RfC, FA support/oppose. Surely there are some articles out there that you have more than a lay-person's expertise in and can give some expert opinion in. This RfA still has four days to run. Your time starts now......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: I am sure you can find some area within sociology of race, gender and/or religion where you could do something to show your expertise, especially by providing quality sources pronto, which would not result in some armwrestle. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If I may just offer a counter-point here, I don't think the purpose of an RfA is to make people jump through hoops. I don't think this would serve anybody, or any purpose. Samsara 14:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You have your opinion and I have mine. My mind is open to be changed based on new evidence either way. If yours isn't then that is your issue not mine. I am sitting in the 'oppose' column as of now so telling her to ignore is not helping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It is too late to jump thru the hoops during the RfA. This remark shows Samsara don't quite understand the procedure. -M.Altenmann >t 15:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I do. ;) Samsara 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't 2006 any more. For better or worse, the bar is a bit higher now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Look Samsara, I'll spell it out - If Liz won't edit in her field after specifically being asked by me on the promise of passing this RfA, then it means to me she can't. If she can't then she is lying about her field of expertise. If that is the case, then I think her persona is made up. If that is the case, then I think this needs to be exposed. I hope I am wrong. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoa...I have an undergrad in Psych and a grad in Stats, and I edit mostly food. I don't think I've edited ANY psych or stats articles. This is a really serious accusation. valereee (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Cas, I'm an attorney with two law degrees, and licensed in two states, but I've hardly touched law-related articles in my 6+ years on-wiki. I don't find it particularly relaxing to spend time editing legal topics after a contentious week of work. That said, is there anything specific that makes you think that the candidate's online persona, including academic credentials, is somehow inauthentic? That's a fairly serious question to raise . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A salient point that echoes my opinion. Wikipedia is for many, like myself, an off-duty volunteer project. There's no requirement that anybody tell you anything about themselves. Liz could have gone the "I'd rather remain anonymous route" (like myself) and an could still make a great admin. Why must she edit in her field of expertise to take up the mop? That's not reasonable. Casliber's argument is a false dichotomy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay there is context and there is context. If I'd seen Liz do some other content-work or given me some other reason to make me trust her (i.e anything that didn't appear as if it were carefully scripted to pass RFA and get to arbcom), then I wouldn't be here. I am also not influencing your vote. You can comment/vote however you like, it's a free 'pedia. I am clarifying what would satisfy me. e.g. @Dirtlawyer1: you made Fatima Island (New South Wales) (I keep meaning to take a photo of the thing each time I drive past :P) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Casliber, I'm really disheartened by the comment above. You have every right to oppose, but the accusation of lying about her area of expertise is bad faith exemplified. The Interior (Talk) 22:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not accusing Liz of anything, just wondering as I can't imagine editing like that myself. And will be more than happy if my concerns are proven groundless. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate supporters who were annoyed by Liz's editing, dug through a chunk of her internet activity and personal info looking for dirt. If she was in anyway even remotely lying about anything on Wikipedia, they would be blaring at all over the internet. Your concerns are groundless. Brustopher (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, what do you mean by "internet activity and personal info"? You mean her user contributions and user page info? Or do you mean more personal stuff? If the latter, where would they get the more personal stuff? By just knowing her previous IPs? Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: I mean the latter. The accusations of her being Essjay number 2 are incorrect. Perhaps you shouldn't be inquiring into how to pry into the personal identity of another editor though. Brustopher (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, and that is not what I was doing. I am well aware of the WP:Outing policy. I asked you a simple question (more than one) that does not require any reveal of personal information. And since you chose to attack me, including with your "shameful" edit summary, I will take your "internet activity and personal info" and "they would be blaring at all over the internet" claims with a grain of salt. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Noting here that I now completely understand where Brustopher was coming from, and we've made apologizes on this matter (on my talk page). Again, sorry for causing any trouble. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that at RfA, there is no requirement to assume good faith and take things at face value (keyword Essjay, nuff said). However, I also don't think that her adding some references really proves anything. Added to that, I have concerns about the notion that RfA gives us an opportunity to force people to do things they wouldn't normally do. Smacks of a lot of things that I think we should avoid (playground mentality, old boys' club). If the concern is that this is an editor who has artfully crafted a wiki-career in order to ascend to ArbCom, then that's an entirely different concern imo, and a valid one. However, I don't yet find myself able to pick a side in that particular debate. Samsara 23:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Samsara: I have obviously left it open as I am concerned by not totally convinced and could still be proven wrong, which I hope I will. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by this whole thread, Casliber, because I'd normally associate your username with good sense. You cannot lay out the chain of reasoning in this post above and then go on to say "but I'm not accusing her of anything!". You directly implied that it is reasonable to conclude that a fellow volunteer must be lying if they choose not to spend their hobby time as you would prefer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: So I'm not allowed to query anything at all even if I find an editor's overall pattern of edits something I feel uncomfortable or not-quite-right with? Am I just supposed to keep quiet then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

False dichotomy. There are options other than saying nothing, or posting a long, weird, baseless conspiracy theory implicitly accusing someone of dishonesty. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: it's not that hard to remain anonymous if one is careful.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not thrilled with this either. Implies "if you get doxxed, you must not have been careful enough." Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: What the flying baloney was the point of this comment? I mean seriously? Why did you make this comment? What does it have to do with any of the supposed issues you've raised, even remotely? Your concerns are proven to be wrong, and instead of saying something like: "Well ok then, sorry about the false accusations Liz. I was barking up the wrong tree. Still not voting for you though, because you don't write content," you're making petty comments about how she doesn't hide her personal info well enough. I can only hope you're acting like this because of a bad hair day or something, because otherwise you're proving your own unsuitability to be an admin instead of Liz's. Brustopher (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(Sigh) that didn't come out right. Of course no-one deserves to get doxxed like that. So consider that stricken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above that one doesn't don't find it particularly relaxing to spend time editing on topics with one works with after a contentious week of work, as Dirtlawyer1 said. I am landscape architect and I almost never edit those topics. However I do edit topics that are INSPIRING to my work, if you understand how I think. Arts, about colours, stuff like that. However I find this discussion a bit confusing, things were so clear from the beginning. Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

From the candidate

Hey, folks. I have stayed away from this talk page because, frankly, it's uncomfortable to watch editors scrutinize ones edits, experience, background and character, even though I know it is part of this whole process. I also think that editors who take the time to participate in an RfA should have a place to talk about the process that isn't a rebuttal of other editor's votes which can lead to long and unwieldy discussion threads.

All I want to say is that you have any questions about me, please just ask me, either here or in the question section.

To answer a question that has come up, yes, I was doxxed in December on a Gamergate message board called 8Chan and last year on Wikipediocracy after I made a statement about WikiConUSA that a member there took issue with. I think the first is what Brustopher is referring to. When I started editing the Gamergate article on Wikipedia around February, I removed all personal identifying information on my user page. I then put some of it back in anticipation of this RfA because I don't want to have anything to hide from fellow Wikipedian editors. I didn't get threats of violence from the doxxing but it's not pleasant to read through a message board, reading people going through ones LinkedIn profile and discussing contacting the places you worked. But, lucky for me, the Gamergate crew had more appealing targets than boring old me and they moved on. That was it, it happened, I consider myself fairly lucky and this is more of an explanation that an attempt to get anyone's sympathy. Bad stuff happens on the internet every day and hopefully little of it happens here.

I'll leave you here to discuss whatever you want and I'll just check by Saturday morning and Sunday morning to see if you have any questions for me that you don't want to post on the main page. Thanks for taking some of your precious editing time to consider my candidacy. Have a good weekend, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Liz. I'm sorry you had to endure all that. You were involved in some matters with Lightbreather, correct? I mainly stayed away from all that. Dealing with similar attitudes at the Sexism article, and all the other contentious areas I work in, is enough for me. What I wanted to know from Brustopher above is whether the harassers used information you shared on Wikipedia to try to cause you harm or whether they went some extra effort. Again, I'm sorry you went through all that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Flyer22, I only had casual interaction with Lightbreather, I might have posted once or twice at the Gender Gap Task Force page but I don't remember doing so. I am primarily aware of Lightbreather because I was an arbitration clerk on her ArbCom case. Through reading through the evidence and workshop phases, I'm aware of a little of what she had to face but most of the evidence was submitted privately to the committee.

As for me, I now am rethinking sharing this doxing information on an RfA talk page but even if I remove it, it'll be in the page history. So, it is what it is...it was posted in response to comments (above) and the 8Chan dox didn't have anything to do with my activity on Wikipedia. It mainly made me realize that if someone wants to find out your personal information, it just takes time and determination to do so. And that applies to anyone online. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions to Liz

I am trying to add the following questions to the RFA, but I cannot see the template:

• How important is it to contribute to wp:Categories on wikipedia? What can be done to improve the process at wp:CfD?
• Any ideas on how to improve partipation in wp:WikiProjects
• It appears that fewer editors are reading and commenting on the wp:Signpost. Should we care? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Those look like questions that could only be answered properly after a good deal of research and analysis. What makes you think the candidate should spend her wiki-time over the next couple of days (before the RFA closes) writing essays on subjects you've chosen? DexDor ^(talk) 21:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech! It's nice to see you back on Wikipedia. I'm sorry for the delay but I took a suggestion to take a break from this RfA. Let me see if I can address your questions.

I think categories are enormously important on Wikipedia but I know there are some editors who think differently. Categories, along with internal links, are a way to find related articles in the same topic area.

The big problem I see at CfD is one that is common to many areas on Wikipedia and it is that there is a small number of people who regularly participate in discussions. And often editors who know a lot about the categorization system on Wikipedia are not experts in the subjects involved. When I nominate a category for discussion, I notify the relevant WikiProject so that editors who focus their editing in the specific field can participate in the discussion. But there is often little response because of the varying levels of activity on WikiProjects. If we could get more subject experts to participate in discussions, I think that the results would be improved. The one advantage of CfD over AfD, for example, is that the discussions normally stay open longer than 7 days. Unless there is an obvious keep or delete result, they can be open for several weeks. Since people who, for instance, write about royalty or historical monuments, may not visit the category page very regularly, this allows more time for editors to see the CfD notice and can then weigh in on the discussion.

As for WikiProjects, I think activity promotes activity. Meaning, if pages at the WikiProject and its talk page are being edited, they will show up in ones Watchlist and this attracts more participation. When I was evaluating WikiProjects, I found one can get the best idea of how active a WikiProject is by whether questions or notices posted on to the main talk page are getting responses by members of the WikiProject. You can visit some WikiProjects and see two years worth of messages people have posted that have gone unanswered. To keep a WikiProject alive, there has to be at least one member who is willing to answer questions that come up about existing articles or articles that new editors think should be created. Conversely, if this minimum level of activity can't be sustained, it's a sign of a lack of interest and the WikiProject has probably come to the end of its productive life.

As for the Signpost, I don't think readership is proportional to comments posted. Stories that come up in News and Notes, which is about the workings of Wikipedia and the WMF, often elicit comments as people have opinions about what is occurring on the project. But you look at a beautiful page like Featured Content and usually the only comments are from editors who wonder why a particular FA or FP is missing from the page. It's the nature of online commenting that people are more likely to leave a comment if they see a problem than to say, "Beautiful pictures, you did a great job with the page this week." As you see with editing on Wikipedia, a lot more people will read than edit or comment. The only reason the good folks at the Signpost should be concerned about commenting levels is if it a sign that there are other subjects of interest to readers which are not being covered at the Signpost. But I know that is not an issue with the Signpost as they are incredibly open to suggestions from readers about other stories that should be covered and any editor can propose a new story and get feedback on whether it could be published in the Signpost and how that article could be developed.

Thank you for your questions. Let me know if you have any others. And, again, it's nice to see you back from your wikibreak. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

In past few weeks, I never got any answer from Liz in teahouse as the nominator mentioned. Still, the way people are declaring her participation in ANI as ANI drama is a bit harsh. She is an arbitration clerk (her Userpage states). I disagree that Liz's contribution to ANI is bad. And to all those arguing about content creation,.. no one is master of all trades. --Aero Slicer 17:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't for content creators there would be no website and, as such, no admin's. This isn't a chicken and egg scenario; the answer in terms of importance is evident. Cassianto^Talk 18:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay we get the idea......Now can you create a content as Gamma ray and let Kudpung create an article as Cell biology and then take it to featured article. Those who can create articles like that, i will challenge them to create an article like Microeconomics and develop it.

A Hospital needs doctor, but a doctor can't work without Nurse. A Nurse can't work without the ward boys. There are sweepers who clean the floor and remove medical garbages. There are physiotherapists and Hospital security along with the clerk who keeps tab on bill payment. Now I will ask you and Kudpung, to run a Hospital with only Doctors (you will not have any nurse, Wardboy, Cleaners, pharmacists, electrician, gatekeeper, janitor, management). --Aero Slicer 18:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't got a fucking clue what your on about, but thanks for coming. Cassianto^Talk 18:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

He wants to say that you can't run a wiki on article writers alone; you need administrators to kick out vandals, mediators to solve disputes etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You do, yes, but it is essential they know how content creation works in order to police it. Cassianto^Talk 18:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. And Liz chided me on some civility schtick while completely missing the real point, perhaps because she has so little experience of content work - the discussion spread across several pages eventually but the nub of it is here. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And its exchanges like that Sitush which makes me think further that Liz and people like her shouldn't be anywhere near a mop. I bet 100% of the supporters don't even know about that exchange. Will the last one out please turn off the light! Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Aero is saying that janitors perform an important role in hospitals, so hospitals should be run by janitors instead of doctors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got it in the end and feel desperately sad that that kind of thinking exists. His stupid analogy suggests that although we would all be working in beautifully clean conditions, death and disease among the community would be rife. Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, Hawkeye7. I am speaking as a guy who started out working as a janitor in a hospital in 1972, and ended up ten years later as the telecommunications department manager. Hospitals are run by hospital administrators, who are usually not physicians. The "janitor" analogy on Wikipedia has its weaknesses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am baffled why a simple comment like the one I made has stuck with you, Sitush. In the areas you have edited in, you have fought so many battles with disruptive editors and have dealt with your share of vandalism and abuse. But a simple remark like "Has it fuck?" Not an ideal response to a question from another user about your edit, for some reason, has gotten under your skin because you have never let me forget it and you have brought it up repeatedly and made fun of me for posting it.

You have edited for over 8 years and have over 150,000 edits. Why would a comment from me, about WP:5P4 and editors treating each other with civility and respect, even make an impression on you? I respect the work you do, Sitush, and I am not your enemy.

As for your question, Aero Slicer, if you spend any time at the Teahouse, you know that there is a large pool of editors who answer questions and rotate in and out as their time and interest allows. If you had pinged me, I'm sure I would have answered a question from you. But it is likely that I didn't visit the Teahouse on the day you posted your question or that I had found another editor had already answered your question as that often happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)