Undid revision 642608194 by Irondome (talk) please don't remove a user's sig from their vote |
→Oppose: oppose - pledges to be open to recall. |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
#:I promised someone that I will not argue with anyone at RfA but I can't stop my fingers to address this particular !vote. Firstly '''ignore''' this baseless !vote. Andrew has been opposing candidates for similar awkward reasons for sometime. He recently did it at Tito's RfA. Only because of few !votes like this, people call RfA "a broken process". '''[[User talk:Jim Carter|<span style="color:#000000">Jim</span> <span style="color:#FF0000">Car</span><span style="color:#FFCC00">ter</span>]]''' 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
#:I promised someone that I will not argue with anyone at RfA but I can't stop my fingers to address this particular !vote. Firstly '''ignore''' this baseless !vote. Andrew has been opposing candidates for similar awkward reasons for sometime. He recently did it at Tito's RfA. Only because of few !votes like this, people call RfA "a broken process". '''[[User talk:Jim Carter|<span style="color:#000000">Jim</span> <span style="color:#FF0000">Car</span><span style="color:#FFCC00">ter</span>]]''' 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
#::I was just checking the copyright status of the askart.com source in that article before tagging as {{tl|db-copyvio}}, only I noticed somebody else has already deleted it. Even so, I see MelanieN assumed good faith somebody else could improve the article and requested the AfD remained open longer so they had more time to do so. That is a pretty rare quality, most people who !vote delete seem to want the article gone yesterday. PS: I wouldn't ignore this vote, I've opposed at other RfAs and Andrew's done good work with me on [[Denmark Street]] (and I met him for a drink just before Christmas), so I wouldn't write him off. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
#::I was just checking the copyright status of the askart.com source in that article before tagging as {{tl|db-copyvio}}, only I noticed somebody else has already deleted it. Even so, I see MelanieN assumed good faith somebody else could improve the article and requested the AfD remained open longer so they had more time to do so. That is a pretty rare quality, most people who !vote delete seem to want the article gone yesterday. PS: I wouldn't ignore this vote, I've opposed at other RfAs and Andrew's done good work with me on [[Denmark Street]] (and I met him for a drink just before Christmas), so I wouldn't write him off. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
# '''Oppose''' Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgaris and are unenforceable. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 16:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 16:07, 15 January 2015
(talk page) (77/2/0); Scheduled to end 15:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Nomination
Nomination from Kudpung:
MelanieN (talk · contribs) – As most of you know, or at least those who take an active interest in RfA, I very rarely make nominations, preferring to work in the background on adminship issues. To use a hackneyed phrase, I really did think she was already an admin. Probably because I‘ve !voted on so many RfA that I couldn’t remember if she was or not. Discovering by chance in December that she in fact is not, this nomination is one I simply could not resist making.
On nominating her for Editor of the Week in April 2014, user Jim Carter said ‘’An editor with more than 80 articles, 27 DYKs, 2 Good articles and more than 313 rescued articles. She deserves to become an Editor of the Week. Not only this, she has been on Wikipedia for more than 5 years and has 27000+ edits. A constructive editor with the patience of eternity; I have never seen her in any conflict. She has never refused to help anyone (One can see it on her talk page). […] She is a true wikipedian, yet her qualities are "behind the scene" so I want to nominate her because, again, she deserves it. Thank you. ’’
You’d think there’s nothing one could add to that, but this wouldn’t be an RfA nom without mentioning an extraordinary experience in almost all areas including CSD and AfD (over 3,500) with with one of the highest rates of accuracy I have ever come across (85.8%), 33 votes at RfA with 84.8% accuracy, four GAs, a raft of barnstars for all the right reasons from all the right people, and an edit count analysis that actually says it all anyway.
This is not a user who has been working towards adminship, this is a user who simply ‘’works’’ - and cares. Naturally, knowing that RfA can invite some unpleasant comments Melanie was at first reticent. Well, a) RfA isn’t any longer the totally ‘’Horrible and broken process’’ it was when Jimbo Wales made that comment nearly 4 years ago, and b) with a Wiki career like this we don’t owe it to Melanie to give her the bit, she owes it to us to be an admin, so I am asking the community to prove me right on both counts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Co-nomination from Harry Mitchell:
Kudpung's statement articulately summarises Melanie's experience, so I will endeavour to keep my co-nomination brief and to the point. There is a myth that has been circulating on Wikipedia for a long time that we do not need more admins. This is, in part, born out of the fact that administrators mostly operate behind the scenes, so most of their work goes unnoticed. What we need is more admins who quietly get on with keeping the place tidy and free from loonies who would do the encyclopaedia harm. Melanie would, I believe, be exactly that sort of admin. She's been around for a long time and has amply demonstrated her clue. Hers is a name I associate only with sensible things, an impression backed up by perusing her talk page—which shows nothing but friendly, productive collaboration—and further backed up by our most recent interaction (now archived), where Melanie spotted a coordinated spree of vandalism to a school article and quickly brought it to the attention of two admins (coincidentally Kudpung and I) who had each blocked one of the accounts involved and raised it at ANI. Melanie, of course, knew exactly what needed to be done but lacked the tools to do it. Given her experience and her obvious clue, I'd say there's no harm—and an awful lot of good—that could come from giving her those tools. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you, I think. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I've been contributing to AfD discussions for years. So for starters I would work on AfD, PROD, and CSD. I think I could also be helpful with technical moves (RM) and page protection (RPP). Later, as I gain more experience, I might help out at AIV and UAA. And there are times in the course of normal editing when I could find the tools useful - times when I know what needs to be done, but have to ask an admin or take it to a request board to make it happen.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best and favorite work is in article creation and improvement. I have especially worked on articles about San Diego, four of which have been brought to Good Article status. And I like biography; about half the articles I have created are biographies, often of scientists or doctors. I also enjoy article rescue - by which I mean, finding articles that are about notable subjects but are in poor shape or in danger of deletion, and bringing them up to Wikipedia standards by rewriting and better sourcing. I find these articles mostly by patrolling Unreferenced BLPs; sometimes while patrolling New Pages; and occasionally at AfD or the PROD categories. This doesn't mean I'm an "inclusionist"; I strongly believe in maintaining standards for inclusion here, and most of my AfD !votes are "delete". But it means I always have an eye out for a way to retain valuable material through improvement or merger.
- 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: About conflicts: I have twice been complained of at AN or ANI. Those discussions are here and here. I once took a complaint about someone to AN; that discussion is here. Other than that, I have not been in serious conflicts that I recall.
About stress: I don't tend to get stressed about Wikipedia, partly because I don't take things that are said here personally - even if they are meant that way. And partly because I rarely take part in the drama boards or contentious subject discussions. I know I will attract some flak if I become an administrator, since I may be doing things that upset people, but I believe I can respond to their upset with calmness and (when appropriate) kindness. I am generally pretty even-tempered. I have a tendency to get amused (rather than angry) when someone calls me names or accuses me of stuff, and that helps me keep my cool.
- A: About conflicts: I have twice been complained of at AN or ANI. Those discussions are here and here. I once took a complaint about someone to AN; that discussion is here. Other than that, I have not been in serious conflicts that I recall.
Additional optional questions from Addshore
- 4. What do you enjoy about being an editor on Wikipedia? Why?
- A: I am a former teacher and I loved teaching. And I have always loved writing, mostly for free or as a hobby, occasionally for money. Wikipedia gives me a chance to do both; it's a hobby that adds to the sum (or at least the availability) of human knowledge. I also enjoy the collaboration with people around the world that is possible here, where barriers like age, gender, profession, and even geography are irrelevant. (My two nominators and I are about as widely separated in time zones as it is possible to be.)
- I should add, since I see that my wording above leaves it open to question: I have never edited Wikipedia for money.
- A: I am a former teacher and I loved teaching. And I have always loved writing, mostly for free or as a hobby, occasionally for money. Wikipedia gives me a chance to do both; it's a hobby that adds to the sum (or at least the availability) of human knowledge. I also enjoy the collaboration with people around the world that is possible here, where barriers like age, gender, profession, and even geography are irrelevant. (My two nominators and I are about as widely separated in time zones as it is possible to be.)
- 6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
- A: I would say that only autoconfirmed users could create articles. Anyone who does New Pages Patrol knows that the most obviously unsuitable articles are almost always created by brand-new editors with brand-new user names. If the requirement was not merely to register, but to wait a few days and make a few edits, they might gain a bit of clue how this place works, where to get help, and basically what we are about. It might also create a partial barrier to spur-of-the-moment hoaxers and vandals. I also suspect that allowing brand-spanking-new users to create articles is bad for editor retention. My hunch is that someone who creates an article as their very first contribution very rarely stays to become a regular contributing editor. For one thing, there is a significant likelihood that their article will be deleted, a highly negative experience for them, after which they leave and never come back
- 7. If selected, would you add yourself to the Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If not, then why not, and if you would, then what would your criteria be?
- A: I had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the point of asking for a mop; do you think I am going to fight to retain it? 0;-D Seriously, I know that many people have laid out elaborate criteria and processes for their own recall; more power to them. My approach would be much less formalized: if two or three respected admins told me I should resign my tools, I would do so.
- Additional question from Iaritmioawp
- 8. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
- A: The question assumes that outcome B is the "correct" outcome (because it is based on policies, guidelines, and common sense). My preferred action would be to cast a !vote for outcome B in the discussion, rather than close it. Since my arguments will be strong and policy-based (of course), that will make it relatively easy for the next closer to make a decision in favor of outcome B. However, your question also assumes that the discussion MUST be closed, right then, by me. This is not a situation that occurs in real life, particularly not in a case like this where the discussion is clearly not ready to be closed. We are supposed to work by consensus, and it is hard to see any "consensus" in the situation you describe. But OK, let's assume that for some reason I MUST make the call, and that neither relisting nor !voting is an option: I would probably not be brave enough to close this as "B". I might go for "no consensus". I would certainly not close it as "A" despite its four-to-one numerical advantage.
General comments
- Links for MelanieN: MelanieN (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for MelanieN can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Notice to those who want to do research before !voting Please take a look here to know more details about this user. Thank you. Jim Carter 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Support
- Support, absolutely! ;) --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tutting passive-aggressively at Amaryllis for beating me to the top spot! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support; very strong candidate, clueful and competent. We need more like this. Antandrus (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support I don't recall any previous problems with this user; and if both Kudpung and HJ Mitchell have nominated, that's good enough for me. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm truly honored that my Editor of the Week nomination statement about Melanie is quoted here by one of the most respected admins on Wikipedia. I support her admin nomination for more reasons than I can say here, but you can read them here! Jim Carter 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Jim Carter: is here really the page you meant to link to? --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's most probably intended to be here, see immediately above this section. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Jim Carter: is here really the page you meant to link to? --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support A remarkable record of contributions, an ideal attitude and way of going about things. Adminship is a heavy burden so I feel almost feel guilty in supporting, but you can handle it! Regards Irondome (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Jianhui67 T★C 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Yep. Philg88 ♦talk 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong support I have recently come across MelanieN through collaborative work with Beer in San Diego County, California and Ika Hügel-Marshall and found her to be a strong and productive article collaborator full of patience and understanding. Her ability to rescue articles from AfD such as Emil Frei is excellent, and she has a good track record at AfD otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've deleted a number of this user's prod and speedy noms over the past few days, and have inspected a sample of her other deleted contribs. She interprets the speedy deletion criteria accurately and narrowly - most admins, including me, would have A3'd Alumni of Nalanda (Boys') Central College instead of prodding it, for example - and she's not afraid to improve marginal articles instead of slapping on a questionable deletion tag or just moving on to another target. She's ready for a delete button. —Cryptic 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Wow, two top-notch nominations in a row. I absolutely support Melanie and am happy to see such great editors requesting adminship recently. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support, great editor. Cavarrone 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support per noms. Trustworthy and prolific editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong support, oh yes! I've seen Melanie around quite often, and in fact watched the mentoring that Jim mentions in that sandbox. A very exceptional Wikipedian. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support I thought this editor was already a sysop... Mkdwtalk 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Great candidate for adminship - good luck! — sparklism hey! 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Per nom and Long Term User trustworthy with good temperament and policy knowledge.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic candidate for the mop.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Clueful candidate. gobonobo + c 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Of course! --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Absolutely no concerns; MelanieN is one of the best editors that I've ever seen here. She would use the administrative tools very well. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support – BethNaught (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I love it when the occasional nomination comes up that I don't even have to research because the contributor is well known over a long term, stable, and perfectly trustworthy. One of those "I thought this nominee was already an administrator"' moments... Carrite (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Have seen the user around doing good works, mostly helping out new users. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - excellent candidate, surprised this didn't happen years ago. Good luck --nonsense ferret 20:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. At some point I mentioned that MelanieN would easily pass an RFA, and I still stick to my opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I can't even imagine what a problem with this nom would look like. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't tempt me! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- ///EuroCarGT 21:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Extremely well-qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support This has to be one of the better RfA for a while. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. An easy decision. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. A very easy decision. Ca2james (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for volunteering to take on this extra role on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Seen her around, excellent to work with, and with these two nominators there's very little to worry about :) — MusikAnimal talk 22:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support, strong candidate. — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - This is a first-rate user, who has put so much hard work into the project. This is a straightforward YES for me. Orphan Wiki 22:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see that MelanieN has not already been granted the sysop flag. She should have gotten it quite some time ago. I can't imagine her being anything less than a benefit to this site as an administrator, and I'm pleased to support. Kurtis (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - honestly thought she already was. No concerns about formalising that impression. St★lwart111 22:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Trusted editor, trustworthy noms. Thought she had the mop already! Miniapolis 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Highly experienced, would be an even stronger asset to the encyclopedia as an admin. Altamel (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Have seen Melanie around at several RFAs and she always gave clueful and insightful comments that showed good knowledge of procedures. No hesitation in supporting. Valenciano (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Axios! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support I would trust Melanie as admin more than I trust myself. Wish I could have been around to nominate you, but I will certainly make the time to come back and support you. Thank you for volunteering, as Wikipedia needs more people exactly like you to accept the responsibility. Dennis - 2¢ 23:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Melanie seems like a great editor and is someone I would definitely trust with the tools. Both the nomination and Jim Carter's write up are very persuasive. Sam Walton (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jim Carter's testimony is enough reason all by itself. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 00:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Support ·addshore· talk to me! 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support For many of the reasons already noted. Gaff (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Late to the party, it's 08:30 a.m. here and all this was going on while I was in bed. Apologies for sleeping on the job. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (tlk) 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Of course. Connormah (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Should have run for rfa earlier given obvious aptitude for the job. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Perhaps as close to the ideal Wikipedian as one can get. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support No issues, great candidate. My interactions with this editor have been positive and constructive. BusterD (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Strong candidate. APerson (talk!) 02:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support without hesitation. All my interactions with MelanieN have been positive, and she is knowledgeable and helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen Melanie around, and always been highly impressed. A worthy addition to the janitorial corps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support I've seen this user around wiki and am very impressed. HalfGig talk 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Glrx (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rschen7754 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Always been very impressed with MelanieN's contributions and have no qualms whatsoever regarding her suitability for adminship. - Sitush (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support, no reservations whatsoever. Seems like a rather ideal admin, who will not comment on something without doing research. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Always been impressed by her editing and interactions. --NeilN talk to me 04:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support: Due diligence turns up no reasons not to support the candidate for the mop. Thoughtful, clueful, and rational editor. Best of luck,
Deadbeef
04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC) - Stephen 05:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - From what I've seen I'm actually surprised MelanieN wasn't already an admin, no concerns. PaleAqua (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Widr (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support, with little to no doubt. Having met the editor in person, and been on pages where we have edited together, the subject of this RfA has show impartiality, an ability to create superior content, and what is generally called around these parts, WP:CLUE.
While I would like to see more admins who were center or right of the U.S. center of the political spectrum overall, that is not an issue here.The editor has done great work in improving articles within the scope of WP:SAN, and would do well to have the mop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) - Support. Excellent candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,HJ Mitchell and Jim Carter have said all that is needed here. Donner60 (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - she recently collaborated with a new user to produce a viable article from something that was originally speedied. Amazing patience and would make a superb admin. Would be an asset to WP. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 09:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support The candidate handles disagreements with grace, and can hold her own in lengthy complex debates - like this AfD, facing arguments like "the statement that so-and-so isn't reliably sourced isn't reliably sourced"!: Noyster (talk), 11:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support – I honestly thought she had been made an admin years ago. Let's make it so now! Graham87 12:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support 31.224 edits with 90% using summary, although I find many of those summary came from twinkle but I have no problem with it. Based on Wikichecker you are also reasonably active.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 14:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support- From what I've seen, this candidate is an excellent editor with a more than adequate knowledge of policy. Reyk YO! 15:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose I like the sound of what's said above — that the candidate is prepared to rescue articles, for example. But when I go to check this for myself, the first case I find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen. The candidate commendably says that they searched for information about the subject but couldn't find anything much. But when I search myself, I have no difficulty finding entries in encyclopaedias of the time such as Britannica: "ALLEN, William Sullivant Vanderbilt, an American painter, and illustrator in black and white. He was born Oct. 8, 1860, in New York City; was a pupil, in France, of Gerome and Claude Monet, and adopted the style of the impressionist school, ..." I suppose that the candidate made an exact search on the article title, not realising that such a long name might be rendered in a variety of ways. This seems to be an elementary mistake and I expect better in an admin. And, given the nature of the topic, which seems quite respectable, why was it even being considered for deletion in the first place? The candidate didn't just nominate it once; they did so twice, starting with a PROD. This was a fresh article creation and so the use of PROD in this case was an abuse of process, as "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected". The effect of these repeated nominations, which placed hostile templates upon the new editor's talk page, seems to have been to drive them off. Such activity is quite contrary to our behavioural guidelines and so is unacceptable. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I promised someone that I will not argue with anyone at RfA but I can't stop my fingers to address this particular !vote. Firstly ignore this baseless !vote. Andrew has been opposing candidates for similar awkward reasons for sometime. He recently did it at Tito's RfA. Only because of few !votes like this, people call RfA "a broken process". Jim Carter 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was just checking the copyright status of the askart.com source in that article before tagging as {{db-copyvio}}, only I noticed somebody else has already deleted it. Even so, I see MelanieN assumed good faith somebody else could improve the article and requested the AfD remained open longer so they had more time to do so. That is a pretty rare quality, most people who !vote delete seem to want the article gone yesterday. PS: I wouldn't ignore this vote, I've opposed at other RfAs and Andrew's done good work with me on Denmark Street (and I met him for a drink just before Christmas), so I wouldn't write him off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I promised someone that I will not argue with anyone at RfA but I can't stop my fingers to address this particular !vote. Firstly ignore this baseless !vote. Andrew has been opposing candidates for similar awkward reasons for sometime. He recently did it at Tito's RfA. Only because of few !votes like this, people call RfA "a broken process". Jim Carter 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgaris and are unenforceable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Neutral