Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panyd

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

Panyd

Withdrawn by candidate at (19/32/9) 21:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Panyd (talk · contribs) – I am happy - and proud - to nominate Panyd for adminship. While I have been away from Wikipedia for the past several months, I have been mentoring Panyd. She joined Wikipedia in 2007, but has been a serious editor since November 2008, quickly learning the more complicated parts of the project. Several months ago, she expressed an interest in m:OTRS, something with which I am also involved, and subsequently became an OTRS volunteer, earning the respect of the OTRS team and being awarded a barnstar for her efforts in clearing the permissions queue. She has also become proficient in handling the more complex copyright emails that come through to us. The majority of her 'on-wiki' actions have involved working on non-content issues such as AfDs and other policy-related discussions, of which she has a solid grip. Although she may seem to have relatively few edits, I truly believe she would be a boon to the project if given the tools to act upon her always excellent judgement skills. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to Chase me ladies for his support. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. There appears to be a pretty clear WP:NOTNOW consensus. Thanks to everyone for their support and constructive criticisms. It means a lot that you took the time to give them. I'll get to work and hopefully see you all in a few months! 94.9.161.60 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Whoops Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note[1] at the candidate's talk page asking her to log-in from her registered account (rather than from an IP) and confirm the above post regarding withdrawing. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I would mostly be dealing with G12s or other cases where a work has been deleted due to copyright infringement. Often these people email the OTRS team after the article has been deleted and it needs to be restored, or the person working on the email needs to ask the closing admin to review what they've just deleted. It would help to be able to review and restore these cases myself.

I would also like to work with closing AfDs (something I feel I would be good at), dealing with CSDs and blocking persistent vandals, as well as working on any backlogs that may arise from other areas - for example, there is sometimes a backlog of PRODed articles which have passed their expiry date.

As most of my work up until now has been in the background, I feel I'd be the most useful if I continued this if I receive a bucket and mop.

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

A: I would say that MarHedge is an example of my best contribution to Wikipedia. I have access to tools and databases, such as LexisNexus, that other editors don't - when it comes to AfDs this is extremely useful for establishing notability. The MarHedge AfD and article is an example of the work I have done on numerous AfDs. Finding sources, adding them to the article in the proper fashion, and in later cases adding contextual quotes for other editors so that they can judge whether an article is a PR piece or not. I feel that this has added a lot not only to AfD discussions but also to the articles themselves.

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: Most of the work I do is in the background, but I have had a few conflicts both on- and off-wiki. One was involving the aformentioned MarHedge AfD. The article creator was upset that I had said the article was subpar, and took it as a personal insult. I assured the contributor that it was not a personal slight and then explained clearly why the article was subpar and what could/should be done to improve it. I feel that my conduct there was exactly what it should be on Wikipedia; assuming good faith, reassuring the person, but still being truthful about practical needs of the project.

Additional optional questions from decltype

4. Per your vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prohibited degree of kinship, which speedy deletion criterion, if any, do you feel that the article meets?

A: The article has been expanded significantly since I made my first vote on it. As it stands, the article doesn't meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Looking at the article originally, the information provided was already included in the Incest and Consanguinity which would meet the Speedy Deletion criteria A10.

5. Could you select one or two articles currently in CAT:SD and explain why they do not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion (and at your discretion, take the appropriate action)?

A: Brian Wilshire was not eligible for CAT:SD, as he has been mentioned in numerous newspapers with regards to the controversy surrounding his comments regarding Lebanese immigrants. He also appears to have a very successful radio show although I was unable to find the statistics to support this. He may be eligible for AfD re: BLP1E but he is definitely not a candidate for CAT:SD. I added sources to support this and removed any language which could have been interpreted as advertising.

Clive Hopewell also has a claim to notability as he has been mentioned in numerous high-circulating newspapers. Again, the article may be eligible for AfD under BLP1E, but he has received significant coverage and asserts weak notability outside of the one event.

While blatant articles can be speedily deleted, if there's any doubt, I think you should go to AfD. Wikipedia is about discussion and collaboration, and an editor or an administrator should look for the community's opinion when judging borderline CSDs - it never hurts to AfD.

Optional questions from Keepscases

6. How does schizotypal personality disorder affect your experience and/or editing on Wikipedia?

A:I actually find that Wikipedia actually helps me relax. Doing small, repetitive edits, such as welcoming or warning users or checking for vandalism, calms me down a lot - this is easily extended to the repetitive tasks that administrators often do. I find that the structured conversations on AfDs are also a good way of reaching out to the world when I'm having a tough week - even when there's controversy.

The only trouble I have with my condition and Wikipedia is that I occasionally have to edit less from time to time so that I can recuperate. It's annoying but it doesn't negatively impact my judgement. A few people express concerns about it - as you can see below - but as you can see from my edit history and the answers to these questions, my problem is a purely personal one, and does not affect my ability to make rational judgements any more than the next user.

7. What does "the muffin is not subtle" mean?

A:It's an allusion to The Fairly OddParents: Abra-Catastrophe!. I studied this for my degree and it's an excellent satire on modern media (at least for a kids cartoon!)

Questions from ArcAngel

8. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?

A.Although I am unable to find an example from the current list (although I am aware this is updated regularly and may have changed at the time of posting), the most frequent mistake made is when people accuse people of vandalism when a content dispute is in place. I feel it is extremely important that administrators look at the edit history of the user, and not simply rely on warnings given on the talk page, before coming to a descision with regards to WP:AIV.

Another example of inadequate reporting is when a shared IP address has vandalised Wikipedia. Although a block may be issued in some cases, mostly this can be dealt with by contacting the network's administrator (as in the case of a school), or leaving a better warning.

9. Could you please explain your inconsistent edit summary usage?

A.In my view edit summaries are there to help other editors when reviewing histories or attempting to revise an article, as well as leaving a clear path of accountability should anyone wish to speak to you. To that end I ensure that when I make a large edit, or an edit which otherwise has an impact on an article, I let other editors know what I have done by using summaries. I also - if it's a big edit - inform them via email or a talk page.

I didn't think that edit summaries for minor edits (e.g. removing a full stop) were as important, and I must admit I do tend to forget about the preview button. Having seen the feedback I've received here, I will in future ensure that I always submit edit summaries, even for my smallest edits. Thank you for pointing it out!

10. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A:Regarding administrator functions specifically, the blocking and deletion/inclusion policies are the most important policy for administrators to keep in mind. It helps to outline procedure and gives sysops a solid foundation as to how to move forward in potentially tricky situations.

However, other policies, such as WP:BITE and WP:AGF, are far more important for administrators than the 'purely administrative' ones. Newcomers, and even some experienced editors, look at administrators for advice and support, especially as Wikipedia can be overwhelming at first. It is important that administrators assume good faith in all editors when handling the additional responsibilities which come with adminship.

Question from Phantomsteve

11. Which CSD do you find the hardest to judge, and how would you ensure that you make a correct assessment for deletion under this criteria?

A. A. Notability is one of the hardest things to judge. A topic may be obscure, or it may be covered in another language or in an obscure field. A topic may also be covered in numerous journals/websites/newspapers which may not be able to assert notability themselves. I try to always ensure that I research a topic fully before voting delete. In some cases an article may assert notability but not be able to prove it, due to lack of sources, or may be written as an advert but still assert notability. In both cases the ideal solution is to insert more/better sources and clean up any other issues before proceeding. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Doc Quintana

12 What's your take on "cool down blocks" and the culture of Wikipedia in general towards those who feel passionate about their contributions?

AI do not agree with cool down blocks under nearly all circumstances, and feel that they are counter-productive, as they would be essentially silence one side of an argument - leading to further anger on both sides once the block elapses. Wikipedia is not censored, and I don't feel that censorship should be encouraged at any level on the project.

It is wonderful that Wikipedia has so many passionate editors. I believe that if it were not for passion, half of the content on the site would not be here. However, there are some dangers when you feel passionate about your work - this is an excellent way of putting it. Administrators should put passion aside when dealing with topics and making decisions, and instead make the entire project - Wikimedia as a whole - their passion.

Question from Valley2city

13 What would be your general criteria for granting rollback?

A: Although I do not feel that there should be any bar set for granting tools to users as a general rule I would say a few months of solid contributions and a proven record of dealing with vandalism in a mature and amicable manner, would qualify a user for rollback priviledges. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

14. Where (in general) are you right now? Earlier today, when it wasn't yet "tonight" in the United States, Chase Me (whose profile indicates he's in the UK) mentioned that you and he were already together "tonight" to have a drink and watch television. However, you just recently stated that you are at one of the top universities in the US, and planning to head over to Oxford on exchange.

A: Right this second I'm in Coventry in the UK but I attend Sarah Lawrence College and I will be going back there on Monday. I'm just visiting family and friends in the UK over the break. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Another one

15. Would you agree to an immediate checkuser to verify the whereabouts of yourself and Chase Me over the last few months? I find that there is evidence--the "laptop" incident, implying you're at SLC now when you're not, similarities in typing including the way you use dashes--that suggests you and Chase Me are the same person. If this isn't the case, I offer my sincere apologies, but in my opinion this should be investigated immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs)

A: Yes of course if the checkusers are ok with it. I've been in the UK since the 18th of December so you'll want to check from before then as well. We can post a picture if you'd like! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved discussion to the talk page.smithers - talk 00:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A link to the removed part of the discussion. Question 15 discussion. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up question to Question 11 from Phantomsteve

16a. Your answer to Q11 mentions notability. CSD clearly says that notability is not by itself sufficient to justify speedy deletion, so I assume that you are confusing CSD with AfD (especially since you also mentioned 'voting'). Let me re-phrase the question: Out of all the CSD listed at WP:CSD, which criteria is the one which you think is hardest to understand, and why?

A: Note before answering: - I was thinking of speedy delete criteria A7. I didn't make this clear. My apologies. I will choose something else for this reply Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that G11 is the hardest to understand - or rather the least clear - as what does 'fundamentally re-written' mean? At what point does an article become 'fundamentally rewritten'? If you can re-write an article - even turning it into a stub, and be left with something which asserts notability and is encyclopedic, then you should. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

16b. If you were admin, how would you ensure that you didn't mistakenly delete an article which had been incorrectly tagged under the criteria you gave in Q16a? (In other words, how would you judge if it was correctly tagged or not?)

A:I would attempt to re-write the article first, as well as researching it to see if there was anything not mentioned in the article as it stood which may be notable (see for example Clive Hopewell. Even if there was nothing in the original article which could be saved, if anything came up during my research I would rewrite a few sentences to make a stub which asserted notability. This could still be deleted at an AfD but it would stop the article being speedily deleted.

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Panyd before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to talk. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• I see questions coming up about the user having a userbox identifying her as having schizotypal personality disorder. If it is not a joke, which I suspect that it is not, iIt should not be held against the user unless there is evidence that her condition has affected her contributions to Wikipedia. Mental health conditions can be adequately controlled to allow patients to function normally. If it is a joke, I would strongly oppose this candidate. J04n(talk page) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Struck out speculation that user denied and will reiterate that this should not effect her nomination. J04n(talk page) 21:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Seconded. To hold someone's acknowledged disability against them - especially when there is absolutely no reason over 3,000 edits to suggest the disability would have any impact on their use of admin tools - is frankly unfathomable. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Personally, I do find the tone of some of the opposes invoking the candidate's mental illness disturbing, and I myself tried to disregard that issue in making my !vote. However, I think that, once disclosed voluntarily, a serious mental illness may in fact be validly brought up by those who find this issue to be a significant concern. The medical condition in question is very serious and it does directly affect judgement and higher executive functions. Personally, I would have much preferred not knowing at all about the candidate's illness and this case illustrates well why it is not a good idea to disclose sensitive personal information at one's userpage. Nsk92 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. IMHO the opposes based upon treated medical conditions with no evidence that the medical conditions effect the users ability to serve here should be discounted or discarded. They are the product of the opposers own paranoia and baises.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, although I don't feel able to support, I have to say that opposing on the grounds of a medical condition is absurd. People should !vote according to how they would before they knew about the condition, unless, of course, there is evidence that it has affected her editing and, as yet, nobody has produced any... HJMitchell You rang? 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• To be honest, I find that any questioning related to any disability to be offensive and should not only be struck, but removed. If you asked it in any job interview in Canada, you would likely be sued (and we're not big on suing around here usually). I know this is not a job interview, but the candidate's abilities should be judged based on their actual activity, and not what some consider to be a potential. So what if the candidate self-identifies: they do not do so in order to gives excuses. If I had a userbox stating that I support Autism, would I be questioned about whether or not I was autistic, and if I was, would it affect my editing? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• If a disability can directly affect the requirements of the job, then it should be considered, I doubt you have many blind or epileptic pilots or bus drivers in Canada, and I doubt your law would require someone to hire such. My vote is based on my lack of ability to trust the candidate with the tools. As the disorder in question here is one that can fluctuate in intensity and get suddenly worse, I don't feel confident only looking at past history. You may disagree with this, but I ask you to respect my opinion and those similar to mine, as they are not arbitrary or malicious. Gigs (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are a mental health professional who personally diagnosed the candidate, please refrain from making wild guesses about this individual's state of well-being. Warrah (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support longterm 14 months of contributions, civil editor, clean block log, deleted contributions show a nicely varied mix of CSD Prod and AFD - all looks good to me. ϢereSpielChequers 12:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Weak Support per OTRS work and AfD participation. I'd like to see more noticeboard participation / interactions on-wiki though. Aditya Ex Machina 13:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Bar the unlikely case something comes up.  GARDEN  14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Support, having just randomly come across you fixing up Clive Hopewell (still not-notable in my view, but a good fix nonetheless and was clearly ineligible for speedy deletion), and having earlier looked back through your rescue efforts on articles slated for deletion. That's quality work and it makes me confident that you'll be appropriately careful to pull the deletion trigger. AfD contributions are well-reasoned and always seem to look at how to improve the article as a first step. Switched to oppose, see below. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Withdrawing support due to concerns about the account. Everyking (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Weak support (switch to oppose) Seems to be a clueful editor who knows her policies and guidelines. I like their answer to question #5. In situations like in the AFD in question #4, remember to specify why exactly you think something can be speedy deleted. The candidate has not many edits to judge them by though and their use of edit summaries is less than good with only 67% on minor edits - an admin needs to be able to clearly communicate what they are doing and as such, you should really remember to not edit without summaries at all (use the reminder in the preferences if you simply forget). Regards SoWhy 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Good point SoWhy - that said, it's easily fixable - I had the same problem on my RfA! I should also note that I just made this same comment on Panyd's account - we were meeting for drinks and I accidentally picked up her laptop. Won't happen again! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   I assume you are referring to this? I actually find this slightly concerning, and may need some further elaboration before I offer my support. decltype (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   You accidentally picked up her laptop? There were just two laptops sitting around, and you accidentally picked up hers? While she's at one of the major universities in the US and you being in the Royal Navy stationed at this major university or on leave and visiting this major university? I'm becoming concerned about Chase me being an admin all of a sudden. And now you've sysop-protected your talk page due to one funny vandal edit? Are you, Chase me, and your candidate, the same human being? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Ask away - I'm happy to clear up any misunderstanding. Basically, we're close friends, and I got her interested in Wikipedia in the first place. I mentored her by phone and email, but for a long time she's been on her own with regards to Wikipedia. We met for coffee and a bit of red wine tonight to discuss her RfA and watch Babylon 5. We're close, but separate entities; as can be seen by our interests and editing histories. There are no rules against editors being friends, and given our differing ideals, we rarely agree on things! OTRS are already aware of our friendship and there have been no problems. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Okay, that sounds reasonable enough. There's nothing wrong with editors being friends, of course. decltype (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Still, you must be very careful, forgetting your account logged in on someone else's computer with the sysop bit is a recipe for disaster. This time it didn't matter. Next time might be worse. Gigs (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   You sly dog you... "acceidentally" picking up her laptop... yeah, we believe that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)I misread the situation, I thought he had picked up her laptop when he left, thereby forcing another get together ;-) Not that they were together when he grabbed the wrong computer.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Support Weak SupportMoral Support Good answers to questions. Hoping to see some edit summary improvement, though. decltype (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Clearly, I didn't research the basis for my own question (Q4) well enough. I didn't realize the article wasn't recently created. I'll retain my support, as it would be hypocritical to hold the candidate to a higher standard than myself, but weakly, mainly because of IP69's comment below. A10 is a relatively new criterion, though, so its intended scope is not as well-established as the others. Per above, I'm willing to overlook the "laptop incident" as an honest mistake. decltype (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, but A11 leads me to believe that you are not quite ready yet. Will be happy to support at a later date. decltype (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

5. There are a few editors who deserve the tools even with a low edit count - it takes lots of clue, intelligence, and a chipper attitude - and I feel this user meets that bar. ceranthor 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support I find opposition based mainly on a mental health condition unpersuasive. There's an option in your preferences to force you to use an edit summary, even an automated one. I recommend you turn it on. There's a lot of concerns here, a couple concerning, but in the end analysis I believe anyone who can handle OTRS without blowing a gasket can intelligently wield a mop. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
8. To help outweigh the very thoughtless opposes based on their medical condition. This user is obviously competent as shown by their OTRS work, and is able to function perfectly well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Support partly per Juliancolton, but primarily because the candidate is extremely experienced in an underpopulated area of the project. WFCforLife (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Support No concerns with this user. Good OTRS work, satisfactory edits. Will make a nice admin if promoted.  IShadowed  ✰  02:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support moved from neutral, my spidey sense was wrong and the laptop incident was nothing (see conversation in neutral below with explanation from Baloonman), I have no problems with this editor. RP459 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Strong support. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Weak support, qualified user. Experience is good, and the questions are not too far off. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Strong support Give it up people. Opposing because of metal illness only serves the purpose of showing us how naive we are as a species.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Strong Support. Support per selfless OTRS work, strong support per trash in the oppose section. "Unfortunately, every one of the symptoms is the opposite of what I would want..." That sort of thing certainly is unfortunate, but not for the reasons Gigs et al. intended. Şłџğģő 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Strong Support per nom. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Last minute support before the withdrawal above is confirmed. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Weak Support I don't see any reason for notnow, the user exhibits commons sense. The user should however work more with edit summaries. I wish you luck in the future. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Weak Support - Just because he only has 2929 edits is not enough reason for a notnow. Good candidate, and it's a shame that this won't pass due to him not having the magic 3000 edit count...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. A good editor and OTRS work is very much appreciated, but too early for adminship as the overall contrib record here at en-wiki is too limited for now. With <3K total edits, I would want to see at least one area of clearly pronounced excellence, and this does not appear to be the case here yet. In particular, I would really like to see a more substantial mainspace contrib record, including at least a few articles created from scratch. For now the most number of edits you made to any individual article is 7 and the most number of edits to an article talk page is 3. You mention MarHedge as example of your best contributions to Wikipedia. The article itself is basically a stub and you have made 2 edits to it. You did make good arguments in the AfD for this article and it was kept; but still I would want to see something more impressive in terms of best contributions. The projectspace contribution record is also fairly limited, judging from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Panyd. There are no edits listed there to policy talk pages, wikiprojects, ANI, AIV, UAA, etc. While I do not mean to suggest that you should be spending too much time there, I would like to see something. Overall, as I said, a good editor and an asset for the project, but a bit too early for adminship, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per answer to number 4. The article as it stood,[2] when you stated it should be speedy deleted,[3] was not a speedy A10. It is not the same as "incest" and "consanguinity," but rather a specific look at the legal aspects of consanguinity in the face of the law. Even as a stub, it seemed to me that it stood as an article that needed expanded, not deleted. I'm concerned that you would delete an article that is obviously, to me, an important topic, but also to a quick google search an important topic.[4] However, a strong oppose is you mention expansion as a reason for no speedy, and you changed your vote due to the expansion, but you clearly did not look at the article history before you voted in the AfD, and you might not do so as an administrator. User:Khin2718 deleted or moved most of the article before nominating it for deletion. Here's the article before he started working on it. Note that he nominates the article for deletion based upon, "This doesn't appear notable (WP:N). Incest is notable, but I can't find any direct coverage of this as stated." Did you do a google search to confirm his nomination before deciding the article should be speedy deleted?[5] User:Khin2718's user page indicates a possible WP:OR agenda account, and you missed this, particularly the state of the article before it was AfD'ed. In my opinion, you lack a primary skill for being an administrator: you're not considering your actions before you take them, and you're not basing them on the evidence readily available, and you're going to miss vandalism of articles and just speedy them according to a nomination when checking the evidence should have stopped you. Not now, in my opinion. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose For starters, the editor says their best work is these two edits to MarHedge [6] which included the creation of the following obscure sentence "After leaving the magazine, former managing editor Michael Ocrant said that he and the magazine's staff were misled by industry insiders regarding many accounts, including Bernie Madoff's." No article creation whatsoever, so the candidate can't have much knowledge about what goes in to that. Only 79 deleted edits from someone who says they're interested in AFD. This recent keep vote [7] that shows she didn't understand what she'd read in the article. No evidence of sustained work on any topic, anywhere. Her single greatest number of edits to any article is 7 edits made to MTV Cribs according to this. [8]. (The edits included the creation of a "controversy" section that, leaving the issue of such sections aside, demonstrated a limited grasp on what a controversy really is, per [9]. Also, the discolosure of a schizotypal personality disorder diganosis on their userpage gives me pause. If wikipedia's article on this malady is to be believed, symptoms include "Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations); Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)." While that's a good description of many of wikipedia's admins, i don't think we need one more. To sum up, no real demonstration of strong researching and article writing skills, which leads me to doubt good judgement and understanding will be shown in a wide variety of areas relevant to this website.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Looks like a classic example of Not Now to me. Much of what I see is fine, but there's not that much to see. Under 1300 edits to content. Wikignoming is fine (I hope, I do a lot) but I expect to see substantially more edits in that case. Almost no involvement at ANI.--SPhilbrickT 19:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose administrators should be of sound mind. Delusions and paranoia are the opposite of what we need. Gigs (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   You don't think this is a joke user box? Possibly in exceedingly poor taste, if it is. It seems to me, to be meant to be funny. Maybe Panyd can comment upon this. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's not a joke userbox. I exhibit some of the symptoms listed in the article, but not delusions and only mild paranoia. I also take medication for it, and lead a perfectly normal life. In any case, it hasn't affected my editing whatsoever, and I'm at one of the top universities in the US, due to go to Oxford University on an exchange next year. I urge you to judge me by my answers and contributions, not by my userboxes. Statistically, there are already 30-40 administrators with my condition - 3% of the population have it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, every one of the symptoms is the opposite of what I would want to see in an administrator. If it were easier to remove adminship if something goes wrong, then I might be more inclined to support. As it stands the risk is too high. A medical condition that's directly relevant to the job in question should not be ignored. We don't let the vision impaired fly passenger jets, after all. This isn't a statement on your value as an editor, as it's obvious that you are a very valuable asset to the project, and I hope that if this RfA fails it does not discourage you from continued editing. Gigs (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose - User does not manifest the thoughtfulness and experience I like to see in admin candidates. In particular, I am put off by your "speedy delete" !vote from question 4. At this time I do not believe I can trust you to use the delete button properly. Maybe in a few months I'd reconsider. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Parking here, but I could be swayed after the candidate answers the questions. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sticking with oppose per Q11. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

8. Sorry, but your userpage says that you have Schizotypal personality disorder, which according to its Wikipedia article may manifest as "inappropriate or constricted affect (the individual appears cold and aloof); behaviour or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar; poor rapport with others and a tendency to social withdrawal" and so forth. These are not characteristics that administrators should exhibit, and I'd rather not run the risk that they may appear in the future even if they have not so far.  Sandstein  21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sandstein, I appreciate your well-thought out and polite comment - however, as above, I'd ask you not to judge me on my disability, but on my conduct. My behaviour is occasionally eccentric, but no more than every other administrator on here. There are likely other administrators with my condition who have never disclosed it, and I know for a fact that there are several with other disabilities, such as Asperger's or PTSD. You can see by my edits that I'm always calm and rational, and although I can't force you to support me, I respectfully ask that you reconsider the reasons for your opposing. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   I have to agree... while I am opposing, I find the opposes per treated medical conditions to be off base. It would be one thing if the opposes could point to cases where her medical condition has impacted her ability to work, but otherwise, I'm of the opinion that they are based on paranoia of the !voters. Treated medical conditions should not be the basis for an oppose.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose Sorry, I have to oppose. When I first saw you up for Adminship, I was excited, OTRS is always an area where volunteers are needed. But you have fewer than 3K edits. While counting edits isn't the key, the primary focus of most of your article work has been to add TV Boxes to articles... an issue which you received a warning about 2 months ago for using IMBD and TV.COM as sources. There isn't a single article where you've made more than 7 edits, and there are only nine articles where you've even made 4 edits. This indicates a complete lack of experience in the primary focus of this project. You have very little to no experience with CSD outside of OTRS work. Now this would normally not be a problem, except you explicitly mention it as something you want to do. You've only made 5 edits to your own talk page and only have more than 3 edits to 3 other people's pages. As indicated on your Editor Review, almost all of your talk page edits are mechanical in nature. There is little to see interpersonal dispute resolution. In short, there isn't enough here to let me see how you think. I do think you are on the right path your AFD work may be limited but it is solid I liked how your rationalized your reasoning. At this point I cannot support.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Also per Q4. There is no way that article should be speedily deleted. Even under A10---A10, which is new crieria, is only for recently created articles. EG articles that were created in error or as an attempt to create a content fork. This article has been around for years.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose for now Every time I start to actually become confident that nominator and candidate really are two different people, another red flag comes up. I'll support, or at least move to neutral, and offer my apologies if their story happens to check out. Keepscases (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    To what purpose would an administrator have in creating another admin account? I have no doubt that they are two different people. My wife and I both have accounts---we're both admins. A CheckUser would likely show us to be the same person. A CU request on the two of them will probably come back as "possibly" the same person as undoubtably they've edited from common locations. Plus CU cannot be used to prove innocence.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    I don't know, but I've seen plenty of behavior on Wikipedia that I can't explain. Their story just doesn't seem to stay straight. Chase Me first said he mentored her "by phone and email", but then a more recent comment seemed to suggest that they were traveling the world together or something. If she's at Sarah Lawrence, and he's in the Royal Navy, there should be plenty of days during which they were editing thousands of miles away from each other. If that's shown to be the case, I'd be satisfied. Keepscases (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Do we know if we can get a Check User yet? I assure you that will be the case, but if it's not possible then what can we do? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

11. Oppose I cannot accurately judge this candidate's knowledge of admin functions at this time, though I will say that A9 does not match to the question, and A8 clearly demonstrates candidates unfamiliarity/inexperience with AIV.and A8 remains unanswered(?!?). ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose There are a few concerns I have about policy here, primarily that the candidate may not have a full understanding of policy in certain areas yet. Primarily, the answer to question #11 concerns me. It is not an administrator's job to judge notability. I assume the referenced CSD criterion is A7, which does not ask for notability. What it asks for is a claim of notability. This is a much stricter requirement than WP:GNG and a non-notable topic can still pass A7 if it makes a claim (but an insufficient claim) of notability. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose I have concerns with the lack of answers to some of the answers to your questions. I am sorry, I cannot support you at this time. Rymich13 (talk) 3:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
14. 'Oppose responses to questions do not reflect depth of admin skills and knowledge at this time. Racepacket (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and answers to questions. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Too deletionist for me trust with the delete button. Pcap ping 09:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I find it strange the editor's being called "deletionist", but even without that, too low of an edit count, and too low of a page patrol count (2). If you're going to do CSD work you have to have seen what new page patrol looks like. I find it a little strange that the user misspelled Lexis Nexis, although that is the phonetic spelling of it (in the U.S. at least). I imagine this is a lexis universe user, not legal or journalism user. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose- A good civil editor but not good enough to be an admin.i personally did not like the responses.try again next year panyd is what i would say.Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose- A bit early, yet. Not seasoned enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose for two reasons. First, I'm concerned about the edit another user made on your computer during this nomination; the explanation sounded odd. Secondly, I would oppose because of the lack of content contributions alone. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Getting tired of this sort of thing. Gimme a break. --JayHenry (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose It looks like this candidate doesn't understand the criteria for speedy deletion. In the answer to Q4, she explains that she voted to speedily delete Prohibited degree of kinship per WP:CSD#A10 when it was clearly not eligible. Another editor had gutted the article before nominating for deletion, and apparently the candidate never bothered to check before recommending an A10 speedy deletion. A10 is explicitly only applicable to "recently created article[s] with no relevant page history." The answer to Q11 and the candidate's note at Q16a also make me unsure that the candidate understands the difference between the lack of an indication of notability, which is A7-able, and the lack of notability, which is not. As documented by IP69 and Bali ultimate above, there have been instances where the candidate was nothing short of careless. Moreover, I agree with Bali's concern that the candidate has little to no experience with article creation and improvement; I'm surprised that the candidate cited two edits to MarHedge as their best work. For all these reasons, I don't trust Panyd with the delete button, nor (more broadly) with adminship. A few months of good OTRS work cannot overcome her general lack of experience and her tendency towards carelessness. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose I do not believe admins should use pseudonyms GTD 22:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose (switched from support) I must admit that my first review of the candidate did not find the same problems that others have noticed but I have to agree that the candidate's approach to a number of questions answered after my initial !vote, while maybe not bad at the first glance, reveals a lack of understanding of policy. The answer to Q11 explains A7 wrong, it does not require notability at all, neither indicated nor demonstrated. I also second Balloonman's concerns above. I don't like to see my !vote in this section because I think the candidate has potential and could be a good admin but after thinking about it, I feel it's for the best in this case. Regards SoWhy 22:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

    I know the feeling... I think she has potential down the road... but just not right now. I *WANT* to support as I firmly disagree with some of the other opposes, but I can't bring myself to overlook the other deficeincies of supporting this candidate *at this time*---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

25. Oppose per Q11 and Q16a, which were answered after my initial support vote. The answers to those questions together suggest to me that the candidate does not understand the important distinction between A7, and notability generally. For a candidate who states an intention to work on CSDs, this is concerning enough for me to switch support as A7 is probably the most widely tagged CSD criterion, where admins need to exercise restraint and properly understand the difference between a credible claim of notability, and actual notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Strong Oppose This candidate lacks experience, has a very low edit count, little activity in general admin-related areas, a complete lack of contributions to content and user talk pages, not enough knowledge of policy, and poor answers to multiple questions (particularly questions 4, 11, and 16a). Laurinavicius (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose per lack of significant content work. Tan | 39 00:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience and content work. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose, the laptop incident and other questions aside, I don't feel that the user displays a thorough enough knowledge of policy at this time. Maybe after getting a bit more experience I would support. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC).
30. Oppose Contra Balloonman, I do think a declared personality disorder is a perfectly fine reason to oppose you. 1) You declared it, no one outed you; 2) vandals and trolls will be able to use that against you, casting doubt (legitimate or not) and pushing buttons (effectively or not) on that basis. It's not because you have a chink in your armor, but that you decided to point a neon sign at it. Aside from that, I share the concerns of several other opposers. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Weak oppose due to low edit-count. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Agree with Balloonman. If MarHedge is you best contrib, then likely you are disconnected from article writers. I don't really care about disorders, but respect OTRS work, and hope with time and experience you will someday be a fine admin. Ceoil ^sláinte 16:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. "The laptop incident" concerns me, but the foolishness of the nominator is not a reason to oppose the candidate. However, what I think is probably more important is your experience or lack thereof. I have no problem in principle with an editor with 3k (or even 2k) edits getting the tools, but, as other editors have pointed out above me, I cannot see any substantive editing of anything. I would like to see some work with articles that actually substantially builds content and/or perhaps some participation in ANI or some of the other noticeboards so the community can gain an insight into your dispute resolution. My gut (and it's rarely wrong) tells me that, at worst, you'd do no harm and you have the potential to do great good with the tools, but given that they're so hard to remove, my gut would be a lot happier in 3-6 months time, when you've clearly distinguished yourself in a given area. As an aside, I hope Chase Me will be a little more careful in his editing after a glass or two of wine. HJMitchell You rang? 22:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral veering to oppose I'm not impressed with the answer to my first question (Q11), and I was going to !vote 'Oppose'. However, I will await the reply to my follow-up question (Q16a/b) in the hopes that it will show that the candidate misread my original question. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   I'm remaining neutral. I have no concerns about the medical issues, or the Panyd/Chase Me laptop issue. My reason for not supporting is that I do not feel sufficiently encouraged by the answers to my questions. I feel that this is not the right time for you to be an admin, as I am not totally confident in your knowledge of the policies. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning oppose I have a bad feeling about this one. Something interesting is going on here with the laptop that I do not fully understand with Chase me. As such I am sitting at neutral until the full details come out. RP459 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   RP, I think it is fairly basic. Chase Me and Pany got together for the evening to watch Babylon5 and have a wine. They both had their laptops on while watching the show. The laptops were put down. Chase Me picked up his laptop and started working on it, but didn't realize until after he made a post that he had picked up Panyd's laptop and not his. Assuming they have the same or similar laptops, this is an entirely feasible scenario. We are not talking about one of them leaving their account logged on with a computer unattended, but rather an innocent mistake wherein both parties were at the same place watching TV/surfing the web/etc together.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the quick response Baloonman, that answers my question. RP459 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   That's how I interpret it the events as described... I might be wrong, but I get the sense that the two of them MIGHT be dating (or more)... the events described would be EXTREMELY consistent with two people who are involved in a long distance relationship. They would also be consistent with two good friends. But based on what I've seen written I see people trying to write more into this than is necessary. The mistake was fixed and owned up to immediately.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   I like you, Balloonman, but have we learned nothing from Pastor Theo? I for one will not support this candidate, nor trust the nominator, until a checkuser is performed and discussed. Assuming good faith is great and everything, but there are a LOT of red flags here. Just look at - how they both use - dashes like this. Keepscases (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral. You are another editor that I believe was put up on RfA far too soon, and the edit summary thing doesn't exactly thrill me, but there's some good work on OTRS and a good editing track record. The laptop incident doesn't concern me in the slightest. I would very strongly suggest you come back with a few more edits under your belt and assuming the calibre of your edits remains constant I promise you my full support. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral As Per 3. Around 1500 edits probably isn't enough to Wikipedia, but at least her contributions are quite good. In my opinion I think the quality of the edits are more important than the quantity, so I might be able to support Panyd if she keeps it up. Minimac94 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral Seems generally ok, but 4 makes me wonder. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Avoiding a pile-on Neutral I have no concerns about medical abilities, and in fact I appreciate honesty. I have more concerns about WP:NOTNOW based on edit counts, and the responses to a number of the answers provided. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral A good editor, but 1,500 edits is on the low side. Warrah (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Just wanted to point out, her edit count is around 2,900, not 1,500. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks. It is still on the low side. Warrah (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   lol RP459 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

8. Neutral You're a good editor, but the experience isn't wholy there. Try again in a few months and this will likely be different. I think the year suggestion is a bit extreme though as you could end up sitting around being fully qualified for a long time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral - I feel like a rope in tug-o-war in this one. I see some good reasons to oppose this editor (and I could seriously care less about edit counts) but I also see good reasons to support. I think I'll just stay right here... smithers - talk 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.