Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EvergreenFir

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

EvergreenFir

Final (252/42/5); Closed as successful by Maxim_(talk) at 23:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) – EvergreenFir has been diligently contributing to the project for the past six years. She has written a couple of respectable articles, fights vandalism quietly and without fuss, and makes sure the encyclopedia is kept in a hassle-free condition. She doesn't get involved in drama (with one very old and minor exception, which I'll let her talk about) and just wants to get on with the job.

As some of you are probably aware, EvergreenFir has filed two polls at WP:ORCP. She has taken all feedback on board in good grace, and at the most recent poll a few weeks ago, there was a general feeling that she should give RfA a go. I'm now confident that she'll be able to use the tools in a trustworthy and responsible manner, and won't be anyone we need to complain about. That's exactly what we want administrators to be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

It’s been a little while since I nominated someone at RfA but when I heard EvergreenFir was going for it three years after I first suggested running I had to jump in and write a co-nomination. EvergreenFir is, in my opinion, precisely the kind of editor we should feel sure about trusting with the administrator toolkit. I have found her to be consistently civil, level headed, and communicative, while having a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies and practices. I’d particularly like to highlight RfC closes like this one which speak to her ability to assess consensus based on Wikipedia policy. Despite working in some contentious areas of the encyclopedia, I've always found Evergreen to be level headed and helpful.

EvergreenFir is active throughout the areas she highlights as those she would be interested in helping out in, and from my checks makes reliable and accurate reports. I can’t imagine her being anything but a significant net positive in those areas and beyond. I see more than sufficient levels of content creation to satisfy me that she understands that side of our work. Overall, I see no good reasons not to trust EvergreenFir with the tools, and a multitude of reasons to do so. Sam Walton (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

EvergreenFir has been a diligent and steady vandal fighter for a long time. Over six years she has accumulated more than a thousand edits to AIV, more than five hundred to RFPP, and more than 2500 to UAA; I recall being favorably struck by her reports to AIV and RFPP a couple of years ago. During this prolific activity, EvergreenFir has also kept in touch with content, creating a couple of respectable articles, and doing sterling work in maintaining articles in difficult socio-political topics. Through all of this, she has consistently been civil and communicative, and willing to explain policy where necessary. Since the suggestion was first made that EvergreenFir seek access to the sysop bit she has sought feedback on her suitability twice at ORCP, and has responded positively to the feedback she received: she has avoided drama, rounded out her contributions in certain areas, and continued to plug away in her areas of comfort. I am confident that she will be a net positive with the administrator toolset. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I greatly appreciate and accept the nomination. To comply with policy let me state not that (1) I have never edited for pay and (2) I have only edited with this account and the tagged alt account User:EvergreenFir(mobile) (used twice in 2014 because my phone was having trouble staying logged in on my main account). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2019 (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: My current editing focuses mostly on countering vandalism edits, long-term disruptive editing, and sniffing for socks. I also find myself in the WP:REVDEL chat asking for REVDEL#2 on BLPs. In the past, I monitored the User Creation Log and the New Pages looking for spam and inappropriate names and pages. I find myself adding to the workload in these areas by reporting often (e.g., rangeblock requests in ANI, or SPIs for WP:DUCK accounts), and I hope that I can stop adding to the workload of other admins and take care of these issues myself.

I expect I will start in these areas and expand to others (AfD, AN3, BLPN?) as I become more comfortable and knowledgeable. When in doubt, I have no problem seeking outside input or asking for double checks.

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

A: I am rather proud of some of the articles I've created. Shooting of Joseph Mann, Murray A. Straus, and Ronnie Shelton are some of the BLPs I've worked on. I've also done work on some other topics like notable non-human organisms such as Shawshank tree and Claude (alligator).

Overall, though, I think my most important contributions would be the janitorial work. No single revert, sock identification, or CSD nomination can compare to content creation, but when put together over time it amounts to a lot. Wikipedia needs both; construction needs maintenance to survive for any meaningful amount of time and maintenance is meaningless without construction. Aside from addressing the typical minor vandalism, keeping things such as pornography and defamatory content out of articles is essential to the project.

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 notably to many, 4.5 years ago I was involved in a conflict involving Eric Corbett and the WP:GGTF. This caused hard feeling that still linger today. Since that time, I have tried to keep away from the dramaboards and disengage from some of the more heated debates. Perhaps more articulately said here, my relationship to Wikipedia has evolved. I've learned to take it a bit less seriously, a lot less personally, and treat it like the volunteering/hobby that it is.

I'm sure I've had some conflicts or contentious encounters with others who will be !voting here, and I fully understand that they may have reservations. I know I would. I am not shy about editing on political and contentious topics, voicing my opinions, and I acknowledge my POV on these topics. Dissent can be healthy in the pursuit of NPOV and is rarely personal. Simultaneously, I know that admin tools have no place when I am involved or when their use can be viewed as non-neutral. When I am too close to a topic or when I know my POV is strong, I would only act on the most blatant of cases (e.g., use of slurs or other WP:ZT cases). For all other instances, I will do what I would expect of any other admin; I will recuse myself and seek input, review, or action from other admins as I often see done on WP:AN/WP:ANI.

I know actions speak louder than words and, if successful in this RfA, I would encourage those with reservations to watch me, question me if you think I am crossing any lines, and report me if needed. I expect that for any admin. Wikipedia works because of collaboration and that includes accountability.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Reyk

4. What do you consider to be the most important of Wikipedia's policies and why?

A: Assuming we do not count WP:COPO as it is a collection of policies, the most foundational would be WP:Verifiability but the most qualitatively important would be WP:NPOV in my view. Without verification, we cannot include material on Wikipedia as it's a tertiary source reliant entirely on secondary and primary sources. Without verifiability we have nothing to present, neutrally or otherwise. In that sense, NPOV is in the execution of V.

But, in practice, it's how we present information that is the most important. Blogs and memes can present verifiable info, but in a POV manner. It's that POV manner that makes them lower quality information sources. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, and that can only happen effectively and with any quality if done neutrally. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from John M Wolfson

5. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: As most websites for schools are "all rights reserved" copyright, WP:G12 applies most clearly. Despite being an elementary school, which my personal inclination is to think it is likely not notable, WP:A7 does not automatically apply per the school exemption. In this particular scenario being entirely copy-paste, I doubt WP:G11 would come into play unless the material was also intentionally copy-pasted to create a promotional article. But G11 would more of a note in the deletion reason than the primary justification. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from John M Wolfson

6. Your edit summary usage is currently at 86.9%, which isn't awful, but for only three of the months in 2019 has your usage been greater than 90%. Will you pledge to use edit summaries more often?

A: Yes. It is best practice during regular editing and something I try to do by default (even if just "rvv" or other shorthand). For any admin actions, it is required. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from AnUnnamedUser

7. A user is a member of a fringe political group and is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia. He disagrees with the provisions in WP:FRINGE, believing that they are unfair to fringe viewpoints, and has written alternative versions of WP:FRINGE and more policies that might impact how Wikipedia describes fringe viewpoints. The editor welcomes new users and provides them with links to his own versions of policy rather than the actual policy pages. However, in discussions, he prefers to cite the actual policy pages, only rarely citing his own versions. What do you do?

A: The user is entitled their own thoughts on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and may initiate conversations on WP:VPIL/WP:VPP to see if community consensus has changed. And that user can (within reason and without WP:POLEMICs) write essays or userpage missives if they wish, lamenting the unfairness against Thelemists or whatever. But that the user is welcoming new users with references to their own versions of FRINGE is not acceptable. That they are doing it in lieu of actual policy and guidelines is deceitful and clearly an attempt to WP:POVPUSH. Policies and guidelines represent the consensus of users, and no user can assert their own views as "correct".

Absent any previous warnings or sanctions, and with the assumption that "prolific" implies constructive edits, the user should be warned to stop (only warning), the deceitful welcomes should be replaced with accurate ones, and if the behavior continues be brought to WP:ANI for community review. If this is occurring in the context of other disruption or strong (or "final") warnings, a short block is appropriate. Personally, I would seek input from other admins in this case prior to blocking unless the welcomes were being done rapidly and needed immediate intervention. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

8. Your AfD stats are good, but is there a reason that you only have a single non delete/keep !vote (1 redirect, no merges), well below the usual breakdown of final AfD results? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A: It is not something I was aware of, but I'd venture to guess it is because I typically participate in AfD when I have a solid opinion with reasoning to support it. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable suggesting a merge or redirect on the article's talk page before any AfD. I do think it is appropriate to !vote merge/redirect in cases where clearly appropriate and a parent/sibling article exists and the topic is "borderline" for independent notability. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from starship.paint

9. In your answer to question 3, you stated that 4.5 years ago I was involved in a conflict involving Eric Corbett and the WP:GGTF. This caused hard feeling that still linger today. You offered no other elaboration. Can you elaborate by describing your past actions and how you today view your past actions? Not all of us are aware of Wiki-history. starship.paint (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A: The Wiki-history on that time period involved a number of editors and I found myself in the fray. Pudeo's diffs mentioned below are the primary parts of my involvement with that history. I've done some digging in the archives to see if there was anything major I was missing. Here is a brief explanation on the events re: my involvement with EC and the GGTF:

In mid 2014, I had reported Eric Corbett to ANI for what I viewed at the time as incivility. I had also commented on an ANI report about EC made by another editor. I had been on Wikipedia about a year and a some months at that time. During this time, I was rather involved with gender-related topics and projects on Wikipedia. Further, I was quite sensitive to incivilities, often taking them too personally, and was overly keen to report it. Later, Eric Corbett was a party to the late 2014 WP:ARBGGTF case where he had been topic banned from the "gender gap topic" and prohibited from uncollegial behavior. EC later in 2015 made an edit which I felt had violated his topic ban. I filed an AE report which led to EC being blocked.

To the best of my recollection, that is about it. Some of the "hard feelings" would be related to this and some of the "conflicts or contentious encounters I mentioned. I was somewhat involved in the Gamergate issue, commenting on the article's talk page a fair amount, though I was not a party to the ARBCOM case. I wasn't involved in any of the off-wiki activity either. Other areas would include Chelsey Manning and some of the race/racism articles. I was, and am, a member of the WP:GGTF. There is mention below of a mailing list, but I was never on any such list (I checked both my email and the mailing list archives for all 2014 and 2015 just to make sure I wasn't forgetting anything).

Today, I view my past actions and mindset as somewhat embarrassing and, for lack of a better word, the Wiki equivalent to arguing with strangers in the comments on Facebook. As I mentioned, I was too emotionally invested in Wikipedia and that led to engaging with these larger dramas. In retrospect, I should have listened to folks advice and just left it alone. While I still think many of the actions and comments by EC, Carol, and others were inappropriate, I was foolish to think it was remotely helpful (to myself or Wikipedia) to get involved in it. I should have left it to those who were already involved to handle themselves. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Muboshgu

10. Hi. Your Ph.D. in sociology gives you a significant level of expertise in your subject area, which you identify on your user page as gender and criminology. As much as I'd love to ask about your dissertation topic and current work, I don't want you to out yourself. I will ask though how WP:INVOLVED you may feel at baseline regarding issues that may come up on contentious topics, such as some of the gun violence articles that you have worked on, and how you might go about determining whether it's okay for you to act as an admin on those pages, applying discretionary sanctions or whatnot, and when you feel too involved to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A: My dissertation and other research are feminist criminology studies on sexual violence, child sexual abuse, and intimate partner violence. But I would consider myself "too close" to topics I've been an active editor on in the past (e.g., black lives matter topics). I would act in an admin capacity when the vandalism was unambiguous or zero tolerance situations. I would not do any DS. If I truly felt a situation needed admin attention, I would use ANI to request non- involved admins and editors to review the situation. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Nick Moyes

11. Hi. Thank you for putting yourself forward as an administrator. Could I ask you to comment on the purpose of the current contents of this sandbox page, in particular, why you've felt the need to keep it visible after so long (i.e. since 2015), and whether, as an admin, you intend to record and keep tabs on other editors' activities in the same on-wiki manner?

A: I had no idea that was still there and had forgotten about it - I have tagged it {{db-g7}}. I have no intent to do such as an admin. Please accept my apologies. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Insertcleverphrasehere

12. Well hello there. Not usually one to ask questions here, but I'd like a bit more clarification on your answer to Question 10. When you say "topics I've been an active editor on in the past" is this narrowly construed to pages that you have previously edited, or broadly construed to any page or edit that is related to a topic that you have been an active editor on in the past? If the latter, specifically what broad topics would you consider yourself to be WP:INVOLVED in? Finally, could you please provide some examples of unambiguous or zero tolerance situations which you would act on, even if you considered yourself WP:INVOLVED? Thanks for your time.

A: More broadly construed than just "pages I've edited". For example, I've not really edited on Me Too movement (just one revert for MOS issue), but I'd consider that related to feminism and thus something I am too close to. But, a topic like motherhood seems beyond the "broadly construed" part as a whole, but if the edit was about gender politics or feminism or something like on the motherhood article, that I would say is "too close". Specific topics where I feel I would be "too close" or perhaps perceived to be so include feminism(s), gender studies, race politics, alt-right ideologies, and any contemporary US politics pages. I am open to outside suggestions for including other topics if I am not recalling a particular area, especially if I am perceived to be biased or too involved by others and I just don't realize it yet. I would not apply any DS sanctions to any of those topics and would only act as an admin in cases of unambiguous vandalism (keyboard mashing, meme-of-the-day edits like "deez nuts" a few years back, this edit, etc.) or zero tolerance cases. I would consider any use of unambiguous slurs, egregious BLP violations, and promotion of Nazism (e.g., 1488 vandalism), pedophilia, genocide, etc. all to be zero tolerance cases. If you'd like very specific examples, I am willing to give them, but I don't think listing out racist or sexist epithets here is a great idea. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Fayenatic london

13. Thanks for applying, and for stating your intentions to recuse yourself from admin work on your hot topics. For what it's worth, would you add yourself to CAT:RECALL?

A: Absolutely! Admins are accountable to the community. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Banedon

14. Any response to Ched's oppose rationale? (As of time of writing the 22nd oppose)

A: I have no specific response. I believe many of my answers above and below address many of the points brought in the !votes. All editors are of course free to express their opinion and state their interpretations of evidence, and I respect those views. I am happy to respond to any specific inquiries about any points made by !voters, like in Question #15 below. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from DBigXrayᗙ

15. With regard to a section on your userpage User:EvergreenFir#Accolades (permalink) Please explain, what benefits and/or losses does glorifying such harassment/Personal Attacks, on your userpage (that would otherwise be buried deep in your contributions history), bring to Wikipedia. Would you continue keeping this on your userpage after you become an admin?

A: My view on this matches many of the comments and !votes below. It is my display of Rule 26. I do not wish to "glorify" them, but rather remove the satisfaction the people who made those comments may get in thinking they have caused me distress or rustled my jimmies. Basically, WP:DFTT. Further, I find it amusing and a sign of adhering to NPOV that I've been accused of being "opposite" things (Jewish and Muslim, Nazi and Communist, KKK/pro-white and racist/anti-white, etc.) I would not plan on removing them if I become an admin. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Piotrus

16. It's nice to see another sociologist around. Have you considered joining WP:SOCIO? Why or why not? Also, are you teaching classes? Have you ever considered assigning your students to work on Wikipedia in the spirit of WP:SUP, and activity endorsed by ASA? Why or why not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A: I would be happy to join WP:SOCIO. The main reason I've shied away from that project, and the reason I don't have students work on Wikipedia (yet), is because of WP:OUTING. I try to keep my professional life separate from my online one. I have given a webinar do ASC members about how to edit on Wikipedia (basics like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and just trying to overcome that initial proficiency barrier new editors face). The other consideration re: students is that many are not very computer savvy and some do not have easy computer access; my institution serves many first generation and low SES students who have a number of other education barriers to overcome. For example, I occasionally find myself teaching basics of Excel and even Word. I am open to the idea, but at the moment, SUPs are a bit too much for me. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support, I do not have issues with this candidate--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Yes to this excellent candidate. El_C 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
3. As nom, and because nobody has answered Girth Summit's question at the bottom of the page and produced any recent proof of anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
4. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Meets all my criteria and then some. User page and talk page comments show them to be competent and polite. Plenty of experience in all the right places for an administrator - AfD and other deletion venues, UAA, AIV, RFP, etc. Should be able to hit the ground running as an administrator. No concerns. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
6. I see this candidate around in administrative areas of the project fairly frequently, and my instinct whenever I see their username is to trust. For the reasons expressed in the nomination, this is a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
7. Trust the candidate will use the tools well. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
8. Support no doubts for me. Net positive. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
9. Up for some of this. ——SN54129 22:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
10. Support. No issues. Britishfinance (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
11. Support I have had only a few interactions with EvergreenFir but have seen more evidence in article histories, all of which seemed sensible, appropriate and drama free. We need a few more steady hands and I am happy to offer my support.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
12. Support - I'd already given a positive consideration towards Evergreen during her recent ORCP, and any issues have been plenty of time in the past. Happy to see have a mop. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    This definitely still stands despite the opposes as they currently stand - I've not seen any evidence provided for an ongoing set of issues, and won't consider switching unless/until they do. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

13. Support Well well well, about dang time! Sro23 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
14. Level headed, plenty of experience. Willing to take onboard feedback. Noms who I trust. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
15. Support per co-nom. Sam Walton (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
16. Support - Trusted and clueful editor, I see no red flags here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
17. Support Expect applicant to perform as well as their nominator. →StaniStani 22:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
18. Support has been around since 2013 has created 16 articles with 91k edits as Vanamonde rightly points out the editor is a clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
19. Support Good editor and no red flags I have seen. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
20. Support Seems to be ok so far. Lots of anti-vandalism work, not a lot of content, which he will likely get crucified for. Decent I think. scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
21. Support. Solid candidate. Pichpich (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
22. Support. Excellent countervandalism work. — Newslinger talk 23:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
23. Support. Really hope nothing emerges to change my mind as looks like would be a great asset with the MOP. Good luck on RfA.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
24. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    ...And for the record, I am unfazed by the "oppose" section, specifically in regards to the nominee possibly having "partisan" views/edits. An administrator can have partisan viewpoints in regards to certain topics, but can still be a nonpartisan in their administrative actions (considering that almost all editors are partisan in some capacity.) I am confident that this nominee is capable of making unbiased decisions and actions when performing administrative actions (though I would recommend to the nominee to stay clear of any areas which they may have been accused of "partisanship" for a while if/when they get the mop to avoid a bunch of finger-pointing claiming that they are making actions based on bias.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

25. I guess I fall into the category of an editor with some reservations. Some of our interactions have been frustrating, but nothing more than that. To be fair the reverse is probably true and that will naturally come about when editing controversial subjects. You seem very level headed and no one can doubt your commitment to Wikipedia. We need more admins that have had experience at the coal face of controversial articles and understand how things can escalate quickly. This should hold you in good stead when dealing with disputes you are not involve in, if you choose to go down that admin path. AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    Since a bit of opposition has come in I just want to reiterate that I still support this. I am in no way concerned by Evergreens editing of controversial topics, they tend to be one of the more reasonable participants in the ones that I frequent. Involved prevents them from taking much action in the capacity of adminship there anyway and I trust them to know when that will be appropriate. If anything passing this will just increase the attention on their edits. I also dislike that our RFA system encourages a sanitised version of adminship. I would much rather have someone who has got their hands dirty at some of our more difficult topics and come away without too much damage (and in this case a few lessons learned) than someone who has avoided conflict their whole editing career (not to say they won't make an alright admin either). I do agree with Ched about the Accolades section though. While you may attract more than most, it is not uncommon to receive these types of responses editing here and collecting them may give the impression that you enjoy conflict, which in light of the battleground claims might not be a good idea. AIRcorn (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

26. Support I've seen the editor around reverting vandalism, and I have also seen them on a few more contentious discussions where I thought they did well at keeping a level head and making comments that were to the point and useful. The editor also seems to back away from discussions when needed to allow others to provide input. I am encouraged by their willingness to ask for criticism and try to improve, and I think their temperament and dedication to fighting vandalism are what we need in our administrators. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
27. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
28. Support – per their user page and Rule 26, this anti-American liar who should be investigated by the FBI, Muslim Conservative Leftist Jewish North Korean ISIS sympathizer/supporter gender studies major KKK garbage ducking (sic) Nazi tranny cultural Marxist sexual pervert bugger who shamelessly and cockily removes edits with a pro-racism, pro-white agenda and a bigoted, hypocritical, anti-intellectual failure of a human being, an embarrassment to academia, an editor with a long history of malicious intent, and a fascist bigot, and a frankly creepy stalker who belongs in a freak show has my full support. – Levivich 23:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
29. Support Appreciate the answer to #2. Seen her around and believe she will make a great admin. S0091 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
30. Support Great work in countering vandalism and disruption. Funcrunch (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
31. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. (Redacted: Im grateful and humbled by the excellent Q9 answer as it suggests Id miss read the GGTF arb case. So removed my original rationale as it likely included some incorrect assumptions, which many might think don't matter anyway as it's all historical. Towards the end of this RfA I might put it & some additional thoughts re gender wars onto the talk page. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
32. Support Trusted user whose anti-vandalism work has been impressive. Very happy to support. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
33. Support Generally suitable in temperament, knowledge and output to be an admin. Brustopher (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
34. Support Not a jerk, has clue. GAB^gab 00:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
35. Support – No-brainer. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    Just noting that I've read the opposes. I'd like them to provide evidence that there is an ongoing pattern of aggressiveness displayed by EvergreenFir. Until then, I'll remain here in the support column. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

36. Support Good in my book, my interactions have been positive. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
37. Support. She demonstrated a sufficently good judgement in a few cases I know about. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
38. Support Why not? -FASTILY 01:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
39. Enthusiastic Support - EvergreenFir is a very industrious and reasonable editor who, in my experience, has always exemplified what's best of Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 01:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
40. Support Would be more than pleased to have EvergreenFir be a project administrator. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
41. Support - I have no concerns and believe that EvergreenFir will be a net positive. -- Dane ^talk 02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
42. Support happy to support.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    Regarding the opposes, they seem to be exclusively concerned with something that happened four years ago, which equates to 50,000 or so edits for the candidate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

43. Support I have always found this editor to be knowledgeable, fair and polite. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
44. Support – I like what I've seen from this one, and I don't have any concerns. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
45. Strong support: an exceptional amount of experience and strong use for the tools. Seeing absolutely no behavioral concerns here—a little bit of spot checking shows that the nominators' glowing praise on temperament is justified—and I'll be particularly unconvinced by years-old GGTF vendettas. — Bilorv (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
46. Support - You can observe a lot by just watching. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
47. Support. As usual, this is not someone I'm always in agreement with or never had some heated argument with. This is someone whose general judgement I trust. I also find the rationale for the tools and the answers to the questions so far to be sensible. I'm satisfied also with content contributions (I'm not an FA-thumper or a new-articles-from-scratch fetishist. :-) I sure don't agree with the opposes I see. The GamerGate case (a big site-wide drama festival that netted a lot of input from a lot of people) was too long ago to hold over someone now, this candidate was not a party anyway, and one can't reasonably "retro-fantasize" about making them a party. Most to the point of all, it's completely inappropriate to try to castigate someone for calmly, concisely, and with-diffs using WP:AE for enforcement of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban, then AE doing exactly that because that's the venue for it and there was in fact a T-ban breach. That's exactly what an admin would have done, it's why that venue exists, and it's what T-bans are for. I mean, gimme a break. It's like saying someone should not graduate from the police academy because they're too law-abiding and they follow police procedure too well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    PS: I'm given further reassurance by answers to later-posted question; while this candidate clearly has a viewpoint on some feminism/gender topics, the self-declaration of being too WP:INVOLVED in any of them to act as an admin within their ambit resolves any concern I would have had on that account.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
48. Support It's been a while since I've had regular dealings with this user, but once I did, and they all left me with a positive impression. I'm surprised it's taken this long. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
49. Support - easy candidate to support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
50. Support - with the caveat that they approach gender related issues with great caution. Otherwise, more than sufficiently knowledgeable about policies and guidelines and can be trusted with the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
51. Skilled at dealing with sock puppets and vandals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
52. Support. There's been too many high quality noms recently. It has always been a pleasure to work with EvergreenFir, and I cannot be more behind this nomination. Also, I echo what Levivich said (lol). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
53. Support - will make a good admin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
54. Support - Solid candidate whom I've crossed paths with often, and who never fails to impress me with their measured, careful approach to editing and resolving conflicts. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
55. I was approached about this RfA a while ago and had a vague inclining it would be controversial but my feedback was roughly the same as this vote here: EvergreenFir is a good editor who understands why we are here, has a clear understanding of policy, and while they may have been involved in disputes, I see absolutely nothing that would suggest they would abuse the tools. Controversial editors do not necessarily make bad admins. Heck, controversial admins can be some of our best. We need people who are willing to fight for what they think is right, but also respect others and who will defer to the community even when they disagree with consensus. The last bit is the true test of people who will ge great admins. I think EvergreenFir passes it with flying colours. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    We don't need controversial users to be admins and we don't need controversial admins either. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    I'm afraid you have that exactly backwards. An uncontroversial admin probably isn't doing much with the bit besides protecting pages, blocking vandals, and implementing ANI consensuses; that's axiomatic at Wikipedia. I can think of a few like that without much effort; conversely the few admins I see trying to use their admin rights to achieve significant change are loudly opposed by those who don't want change, thereby making them "controversial". Abe Lincoln was quite controversial but I'm glad we Americans elected him anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    Govindaharihari, if you think carefully about what Mandruss just said, I think you'll concede that he is 100% right. I'm controversial. I've racked up a lot of enemies by doing the right thing in the front lines and taking a lot of flak from indignant newbies and admin haters, but I've never made any serious errors of judgement, and I don't believe Evergreen would either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Thanks for the endorsement, Kudpung. After some further thought I decided that I was only about 80% right, but also decided not to correct myself at that time. The flip side of the coin is that being controversial is not by itself a Good Thing, either. It is neither Bad nor Good by itself, so it should not be a reason to Oppose or Support an RfA candidate. Thus the word "controversial" should not be seen in RfAs. I guess I wrote my comment the way I did because I've never seen anybody Support an RfA candidate with the reason: "Because they are controversial." Nor have I seen a comment like: "We don't need uncontroversial users to be admins and we don't need uncontroversial admins either." ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

56. Support - An excellent editor who will make for an excellent admin. Parabolist (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
57. Per TonyBallioni and others. In my experience with EF they have exhibited the traits I require in an editor to start on-the-job admin training. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
58. Seems good to me. Blessings. ~ Josephine W. ☮ Talk to Me ☮ Email Me 08:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
59. support - ticks all the boxes for me. I haven't seen a credible or fair reason to support. Issues stem from 4 or so years ago; which is ridiculous to hold over someone's head. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
60. Support Seen her around, no concerns,happy to support. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
61. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
62. Support I was NOT going to opine in such matters as RfA, as my contributions are sparodic and my involvement in WP minimal these days - however, reading the opposes has lead me to stating my support for this candidate; being 'posterierly sensitive' over events of some time ago and ignoring the qualities present that indicates a good understanding of policy and its application is... at best counterproductive. It speaks more of the opposers battle mentality, and overall makes the opposing arguments weaker. I had been gently impressed by the stats (as long as the edit summary percentage is maintained) and the way the !vote seemed to be going not to be bothered to make my mark in this RfA. The opposes did that, which is something that they might wish to consider. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
63. Support - While I remain worried about the warriorism of five years ago, I am convinced that this is a hardcore vandal-fighter that logically needs tools to do the job properly. Whatever nervousness remains (and there is quite a little, make no mistake) is more than offset by the needs of The Project. Carrite (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
64. Support She has demonstrated herself to be a good editor, and should make a good admin. Unless it can be shown that there is any recent issue with her rather than something from years ago, then unquestionably a support. Hzh (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
65. Support. Thank you for volunteering to take on additional responsibilities. I wish you all the best. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
66. I'm supporting until I see any actual evidence of continuing problems. I've gone over several months of EF's talk page and the worst I found was a slightly snarky comeback in an edit summary. At least one of the opposes is clearly pointy, and the rest have yet to provide anything that shows current issues. --valereee (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
67. Support - no current concerns, no battleground issues recently. GiantSnowman 15:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
68. Support I've always had a positive impression about EGF. While I understand that she had a somewhat tumultuous past, I don't see recent conflict. In fact, I see a longstanding effort to learn from her past. Combined with 3 co-noms, I think shes worthy. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
69. Support - I'm satisfied. Deb (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
70. An excellent candidate for the mop, in whom I have full confidence. Neutrality^talk 16:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
71. Support: a dedicated contributor and a pleasure to interact with. Thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
72. Support: promising admin asset. - DVdm (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
73. Support. I agree with the nominators, and my own interactions, insofar as I recall, have always been positive. I think she has plenty of experience, and the project's best interests at heart. I'm actually a bit surprised at the opposes, and they have not changed my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    Coming back to say that I've considered the reasons given by the editors who oppose, and that I still support. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

74. Support- satisfied with the answer to most of the questions, and the battleground stuff is far enough in the past that I don't care. Reyk _YO! 18:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
75. Support level-headed, knowledgeable, and thoughtful in every interaction we've had. EF seems like an ideal candidate. Nblund ^talk 18:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
76. Support - A strong editor. I'm particularly convinced by the second co-nomination and the candidates answer to question #3, both of which suggest a level of maturity and self-reflection needed in admins. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
77. Support – Will be a net benefit to the project. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
78. Support Seems versed in the three areas I always check, no reason to oppose. Collect (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
79. Support because not seeing a sound reason to oppose.Mccapra (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
80. Support candidate has demonstrated that they are competent and trustworthy. Vexations (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
81. OpPoSe Took too long to show up, the train has left…what am I talking about? About time, EGF! :) Net gain. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    @L3X1: It's clear enough you meant Support, but you might want to fix that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

82. Support An impressive candidate. Neljack (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
83. Support, as nom. Let me also add that I am quite perplexed by the argument that controversy makes for bad admins. Editors on Wikipedia become controversial not because of the quality of their edits, but because of the difficult of the topics they edit. What matters is their conduct within the topic, and EF's ability to keep her cool and stick to policy in difficult areas would an asset in an administrator. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
84. Support The editor has great strengths in both content and policy. Immensely beneficial to Wikipedia. Also wp:nobigdeal. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
85. Support for a candidate who is, IMO, a definite net positive. The issue posed by the opposers (who of us is truly unbiased?) is not a concern for me; the candidate will be an asset with the mop. Miniapolis 01:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
86. Support Opposers rationale has not changed my mind on the candidate, I think they will do a fine job. Kees08 (Talk) 01:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
87. Support After review. Meets my criteria. ZettaComposer (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
88. Support - Has a clue, understands BLP, net benefit to the project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
89. Support Experience with controversy is not a bad thing in an admin candidate. EF has shown a detailed understanding of policy and procedure. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
90. Support. I have no concerns about this candidate. bd2412 T 02:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
91. Support pointing out that the candidate has had conflict with one of the most tendentious editors ever to "grace" this project over 4 years ago is hardly disqualifying by any reasonable measure. There are, on the other hand, very good evidences of contributions, judgment, and helpfulness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
92. Support- IMO the candidate has shown the qualities required to be given the mop. I have no doubt said mop will be used for good rather than evil.   Aloha27  talk  03:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
93. Support, definitely a benefit to the project. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
94. Weak support the content creation is a bit light on for me, but the warring appears in the past and seems to have a clue these days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
95. Suppprt keep up the good work. Masum Reza^📞 09:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
96. Support The ayes have it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
97. Suppprt I'm not seeing any reason to oppose. Appears to be sufficiently self aware of her own mistakes to have a reasonable chance of not repeating them, particularly answer to Q9 which is notably & refreshingly missing self justification. --Find bruce (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
98. Support I'd prefer a somewhat stronger record in article development (at least a few GAs, for instance), but EvergreenFir is very much in my "I thought they already were an admin" club. My interactions with them over the years have been positive and the answers to the above questions are sensible. I don't find the arguments made by those opposing the nomination to be sufficiently strong to lead me to agree with them, but I would encourage EvergreenFir to remember to steer clear of using the admin tools in any areas in which they are likely to be seen as WP:INVOLVED - remember that there's no obligation to ever use the tools and other admins are always available to step in. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
99. Per nom and the answer to Q9. 2015 is a while ago..... ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
100. Support The 2015 dramafest is largely irrelevant to how EvergreenFir will be as an admin in 2019. No concerns. P-K3 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
101. Support - count me among the users surprised that EvergreenFir did not seek the bit earlier. Also, any editor who gets Eric Corbett socking in retaliation to their RfA gets a support from me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
102. Support for meeting my minimum criteria. I have seen nothing but pleasant interactions with this editor and the oppose pile-ons refer to behaviour almost half a decade old. There's nothing specific about recent (say, a year) concerns that I see. How long should we hold onto events like this? People learn, people grow. And we only do so by making mistakes. Ifnord (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
103. Support I've known this editor for a long time and agree that any earlier problems are too long ago to be relevant. I am very pleased to see that they have cast their hat into the ring and think they will make a good Admin. Nomination by three trusted Administrators and support from a number of editors and Admins I admire, I strongly support this nomination. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
104. Support as a strong candidate with no reason to oppose. Ralbegen (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
105. Support strong candidate, and I consider it an advantage that the candidate knows what it is like to be passionate about a topic and has learned to move away from old behaviour. That can set an example for people who currently need some motivation to move away from battlefield behaviour. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
106. Support. Competent editor. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
107. Support. See no issues here. -- Visviva (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
108. Support, excellent candidate. As far as the opposes, I believe we're all (all of us editors) pretty much partisan, being human. As admins we hopefully check our partisanship at the door, and I have no doubt EF will do just that. Thank you, Levivich for the very fine link collection in your !vote above, which demonstrates that EF is as much slurred and badmouthed by vandals as if she was already an admin. (Not actually Levivich's own research, but lifted from EF's own userpage here.) That's got to count for something. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC).
109. Support Having run across EvergreenFir numerous times over recent years, I found their edits on point. I am unconvinced by issue raised by the opposers. The incident is more than four years old. And it is not unexpected that any editor at some point during their Wikipedia career has fallen into the persistent drama sink surrounding EC. I believe EvergreenFir will be fine as an admin. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
110. Support. Very capable and experienced candidate. I've examined the opposes, and yes, EvergreenFir perhaps got a bit too involved in the GG thing. But it was some time ago, it was with honourable intent, I don't doubt her sincerity when she says she recognises her mistake, and I'm sure none of that will spill over into her admin work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

     One thing worth adding, which someone else has mentioned, is that the GG mailing list was not some great secret (as other mailing lists have been) but was above board. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

111. Support I can't remember having a negative interaction with EvergreenFir and what I have seen of them shows her to be a very capable editor. I see no problem with giving her the mop and bucket. (Also, hi from WikiCon NA!) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
112. Support I'm only seeing a few recent diffs being presented by the opposers here, and those aren't convincing me. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
113. Support - The candidate has only ever left me with a good impression. To say the opposers are unconvincing is an understatement. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
114. Support With slight hesitation, due to what seems to be a rather contentious history of drama and bias (perceived or real - I'm not certain). Regardless, I feel this candidate has learned from their past mistakes and is willing to admit to previous shortcomings that might have precluded them from adminship. Overall, I find the support rationales decidedly more convincing than the oppose rationales, and the candidate's answers to questions seem adequate and honest, if lacking in detail. Good luck! Demetrius Tremens (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
115. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
116. Support This editor is a significant positive for the project and I believe that the best editors make the best admins. The opposition votes are unconvincing to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
117. Support I see good faith and self awarness in the answer to question 9, one of the most polarizing issues in wiki history, so am swayed. Per Boing! basically. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
118. Support - My first interactions with EvergreenFir, years ago, actually involved us being on opposite sides in a discussion, in one of the contentious areas EvergreenFir and I both edit in. However, while so many other editors in these areas can become horrorshows (and we often have to block people who want to edit those articles), I've instead seen EvergreenFir prioritize the good of the 'pedia. I quickly came to welcome her input as a stable, calm Wikipedian, who helped resolve the inevitable conflicts that arise on these articles. I decided then that she would make a good admin and I would support her if she ever ran. Even if we sometimes disagree on content. I am not convinced by the "opposes" here, and suggest they might want to consider that established editors who take on contentious topics, and all admins who wade into those waters, have to deal with passionate, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:RGW driveby users who come here with agendas. It's part of doing the job. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
119. Support - I see lots of well-reasoned and careful argument against, but I strongly believe that the past is the past and that what we will have here and in the future is another good and conscientious admin – something we need more of. DBaK (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
120. Support The candidate's clear answers to Question 12 thoroughly alleviate any concerns that I had with regards to acting in WP:INVOLVED areas. I have generally been impressed with her knowledge of WP policy and I believe that she will be a net-positive as an admin. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
121. Support - No real concerns, the oppose rationales are unconvincing. It's been 4 years, people change. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
122. Support per TonyBallioni and per the whole 4 years ago thing. originalmess^{busta rhyme} 23:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
123. Support. I see no outstanding concerns that lead me to believe the candidate would abuse the tools. A net positive. ƏXPLICIT 00:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
124. Support, per the flawed oppose by Ched, and the sensible rationale by TonyBallioni. Whilst I'm not wowed by this editor's limited content creation, I am sufficiently impressed by their other work to feel they'd not make a bad admin at all. The evidence I've found of their interactions with others in recent years all seems to have been reasonable, and I'm willing to offset that against any earlier, more challenging behaviour four + years ago, highlighted by others. I am impressed by any editor or admin - whether male or female - who is willing to showcase that they've been called names and given offensive labels by other sad or misguided individuals, yet are quite happy to rise above it, dismiss it, and continue with their work in a fair and reasonable manner on controversial topics. We need admins like that; they have my respect for that, and thus they have my support. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
125. Support, per the nomination. = paul2520 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
126. Support, my experiences with this editor have been nothing but positive; good responses to questions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
127. Support Experienced editor that has done some impressive anti-vandalism work. --Frmorrison (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
128. Looking over my past interactions with this user, I see only cluefulness and good work. --JBL (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
129. Support. Good contribution record and no obvious indications that their strong opinions are necessarily wrong opinions. Loopy30 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
130. Support per Puedo and Ched. If this is the best the opposers can come up with (a 4.5-year old effort to fight incivility, a list of abuse and harassment they've received, linked to an off-wiki canvassing campaign, and a single snide comment in response to a personal attack), it's likely that this candidate would be a net positive to the project. --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 01:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
131. Support EvergreenFir looks like a good candidate for an admin based on my browsing of the record. I browsed the strongest concerns against her and found the linked online Wikipedia evidence overwhelmingly in her favour. Boud (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
132. Support. I have been impressed with my interactions with EvergreenFir in the past, and think they would make a positive addition to the administrator group. I read through the reasons to oppose and none is particularly convincing—if examples of a candidate's troubling behavior are things like a years-old dispute or participation in a completely above-board WikiProject mailing list, I think that's probably a good sign. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
133. Support I believe EvergreenFir will make an excellent administrator. I've always had a good impression of her contributions, and her responses to the questions (particularly q9) show a clear communicator with a level-headed and reflective attitude. Certain subject areas invite more controversy than others, and EvergreenFir has navigated them admirably. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 02:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
134. Support. (edit conflict × 2) Comments by EvergreenFir have consistently struck me as sensible, and as those of a person worthy of the tools and good to have around. This candidate has my respect and support. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 03:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
135. Support As per others-- BoothSift 04:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
136. Support per Ched's oppose; did you see the referenced "If a vandal insults you, it is a reliable indicator that you are doing something right."? The Accolades section is fine as examples of abuse admins face, and agreeing to run anyway is fortifying. The abuse elsewhere here is not as heartening. Shenme (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
137. Support. EF's claim to have grown and moved on since the long-past contentious episode is credible and consistent, and she has given very satisfactory undertakings to recuse herself where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
138. Support More than deserving and way overdue, imo. Experience in a few controversial areas and disputes is actually a plus. Too many admins have no idea what it's like "in the trenches", and EvergreenFir has always managed to handle it well and with civility. Volunteer Marek 09:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
139. Support Net positive and will make a fine Admin. JMHamo (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
140. Support. Everyone can make a few snide comments or such in the years here. Not seeing any major problems in the past few years. PhD in sociology? Awesome :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
141. Support per their user page first image (anyone displaying that image can administrate this place like a pro), and per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
142. Support after reading most comments, I think this candidate will still be a net positive despite some past problems. I also am under the impression that the candidate has shown willingness and ability to take into account valid criticism and learn from it. Regards SoWhy 12:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
143. Support I have seen good things from this candidate, on who is experienced in controversial areas, and I find the opposes are unconvincing. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
144. Support per Ceoil, thoughtful answers to the questions and will make a good admin. --Laser brain (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
145. Support. Obviously a very competent editor who has answered the questions very well. I'm not convinced that anything in the oppose section demonstrates an unsuitability to be an admin so I'm happy to support. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
146. Support No problematic recent behavior, and dredging up heated arguments from 4 years ago that the editor is aware of and has since not repeated nor given any indication they will repeat is unhelpful in my opinion. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
147. Support, will be fine. If the strongest reason to oppose you can find is "was a bit argumentative back in 2015" then I think she'll be ok. Fish+Karate 14:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
148. Support -- Impressive answers. Well-argued endorsements from trusted editors. Weak oppose rationales. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
149. Support Good answers. I read through the opposes and whilst most of the them are good faith I found them unconvincing, whilst a few frankly veer towards the incoherent. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
150. Support Per Black Kite (talk), maybe without the end of the sentence.--!nnovativ (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
151. Support has been involved in drama in the past, but the thoughtful answers to the questions make it clear EvergreenFir has learned from those experiences and will try to wield the mop with a cooler head. Easy support for me. Ajpolino (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
152. Support I've been generally impressed by what I've seen of EvergreenFir through the years, and the ability to work productively in controversial topics (and deal with the associated nonsense that often comes with that) is a plus in my book. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
153. Support - Candidate looks like they know where they can get heated and knows how to cool off, but also knows when to keep pressing. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
154. Support ~ per SMcCandlish. The only issue of any value i see in the opposes will be completely avoided if the candidate steers well clear of gender-related areas for admin actions; a broad reading of INVOLVED, at least at first, will probably result in that being her choice. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
155. Support - I have known EvergreenFir on-wiki for several years and have always found her very easy to work with and to communicate with. She clearly has a passion for the encyclopedia, she is a warrior against vandalism and I have always thought of her as someone eager to learn. Since adminship is a trust position, I trust her to use the tools wisely and to take the community's concerns to heart. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
156. Support - I'll admit my first impressions of this candidate, some years back, were not positive because, well, battleground. Their continued contributions have caused me to change my mind and I now look forward to their input into a discussion. I believe EvergreenFir now has the temperament, skillset, and knowledge base to make further positive contributions as an administrator. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
157. Support. The prevalent argument in the oppose section seems to be (sorry for my bad paraphrasing) "This candidate has strong views and is unafraid to express them, so I don't trust that they can be a neutral arbiter". This argument misses the mark of RfA by a wide margin. We all have our opinions and admins only need to be neutral when they act as the arbiter at the end of a long debate. On the very contrary to the main opposition argument, this candidate holds a strong view that is under-represented on Wikipedia and ought to be represented more, so I would welcome this candidate to join the admin corps. Deryck C. 19:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
158. Support – [1]. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
159. Support - there's some slightly spicy history detailed in the opposes which I've had a good look at, but I ultimately don't think it reaches any levels of concern beyond the inevitable splatter that seems to occur where certain topics appear online. I'm overall very reassured by EvergreenFir's overall level of competence and clue. She has the potential to do an awful lot of good work as an admin, and we need more in these areas. ~ mazca ^talk 19:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
160. Support - no concerns. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
161. Support. Good answers to questions, nominated by folks with good judgment, and what interactions I've had have been positive. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
162. Support Strong candidate, seems to have learned from past mistakes.--agr (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
163. support per nominator and other reasons already stated. About time.-- Deepfriedokra 23:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
164. Support The Wikipedia:GGTF affair is far enough in the past and the candidate has learned from it. If User:Ritchie333, who is best mates with Eric Corbett, acts as co-nominator, then all is good in my opinion. Schwede66 00:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
165. Support per answers to questions. While battleground behavior may have been an issue for the candidate in the past, she gives every indication of having moved beyond this and her answers to questions show both a great deal of self-awareness regarding her editing habits and a clear intent to not use admin tools in instances that could be contentious. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
166. Support - per Rosguill as having similar sentiments. Looking back at EF’s contributions in 2014, I was indeed concerned about her POV as exhibited then. However, her answers to questions 9, 10, 12 and 13 enable me to give the benefit of the doubt that the EF of 2019 she will not use her tools in involved in contentious areas, and that she will be open to recall if others inform her she is out of line. starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
167. Support EvergreenFir, like a great many of us, made some cringeworthy decisions during their early career on Wikipedia. However, the editor has clearly learned from their mistakes and expressed embarrassment (see answer 9). I don’t require perfection to vote support, but merely an ability to learn and improve. This has been met. Additionally, while the editor is involved in some controversial areas, their response to question 12 shows they have a clear understanding of WP:INVOLVED. Finally, I think the “accolades” section amounts to a whole lot of nothing. If anything, EvergreenFire’s attempt to deal with these truly vile personal attacks in a humorous manner reinforces their answer to Question 9. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
168. Support I have no concerns about EvergreenFir. I suspect EvergreenFir will make a fine administrator and - at the very least - be a net positive in the role. Should this pass and if you have any questions about the tools, EvergreenFir, please don't hesitate to reach out to myself or another administrator whom you trust/are comfortable with. At my RfA is was said to learn to walk before you run or drive. That has rung true in my experience. Take it slow to start/get used to the tools and don't be afraid to ask questions. We're here to help . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
169. Support An excellent editor of whom I have nothing but good impressions. Opposes by Pudeo (and others) are incredibly unpersuasive and in fact only strengthen my support. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
170. Support An excellent canditate. I find opposing arguments based on four-year-old behavior that has not been repeated extremely weak. Loved the answer to Q#15. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
171. Support I have read the oppose !votes and followed through to diffs of old discussions, but I cannot share any concerns about EF's ability to act impartially and sensibly as an administrator. I like her responses to the questions, in particular 10, 12, and 15. Nothing I have ever seen in EF's behaviour has raised any red flags, and I think giving her the mop would be a good thing for Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
172. Support. I'm passingly familiar with the candidate and recall her involvement in the 2015 EC/GGTF issues, which left me rather unimpressed (but then, there were worse actors around). However, her reply to #9 got me un-unimpressed and it matches my impression that she has matured since, and her talk page interactions I've seen lately have been universally clueful and helpful. To quote SMcCandlish above, this is someone whose general judgement I trust. No such user (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
173. Support. After a review of the comments/links/arguments by supports, by opposes, and reflecting on the best, longer term interests of the project. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
174. Support per Sarah. ∯WBG^converse 12:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
175. Support No problems here. EPIC (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
176. Support Has clue, net positive. shoy (reactions) 16:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
177. Support Have seen them around and they have been fine. A conflict with Eric Corbett from four years ago does not seem to me to be a disqualifying factor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
178. Support I have seen this user do a pretty great job countering vandalism. Per what she said, I think she will do a great job of handling the mop against vandalism. Any "incidents" involving her happened a long time ago and should not lower her chances now. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 17:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
179. Support based on their overall qualifications and the deafening silence in response to Girth Summit's question in the general comments section below. If the issues being cited by the vast majority of the opposition had occured anytime recently, I'd be there with them. But four years(!)? C'mon. I trust that EvergreenFir will take note of the concerns raised by so many editors, and assuming they pass, will take exceptional care to avoid any action that might raise eyebrows. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
180. Support - I like the answer to question 9 and am unconvinced by the "oppose" arguments. In fact the answers to the questions in general make me think EF will be a level-headed and useful administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
181. Support. I think Wikipedia will benefit from this person added to the admin corps. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
182. Support Not particularly concerned about behavior from 4 years ago. They'll do good work with the mop. W42 21:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
183. Support - good candidate for admin. JohnThorne (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
184. I don't always agree with them, but they seem to have a good head on their shoulders, and seem to take constructive feedback well. Bemused to see that about 1/2 to 2/3 of the opposes based on being "too partisan" are by ... really really partisan editors. The other 1/3 to 1/2 of these opposes seem honest, but don't persuade me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
185. Support - as per Floquenbeam, and the other 183. Except that I do nearly always agree with them. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
186. Support Fundamentally, the question is whether I trust the candidate with the tools. After consideration of their responses to questions, their receptiveness to feedback, and a clear understanding of where they're involved, they have my confidence as a positive addition to the corps. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
187. Support Of course! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
188. Support Impressed by their answers to questions, seems to have a clue and has the awareness not to misuse admin tools. Froswo (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
189. Support per Floquenbeam. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
190. Support -- experienced, clueful, capable. Antandrus (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
191. Sure --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
192. Support - In looking over the Oppose arguments, the opponents have made a case, which is that she took controversial positions on a few matters such as GGTF where she was right. That illustrates courage. Sometimes we need that, even in administrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
193. Support I looked to Pudeo and Ched's statements first and foremost, as those were the two many opposing editors seemed to cite. In looking at those comments, Pudeo's seemed to urge editors to oppose based on a history of involved — however, when asked a follow-up question about the redemptive nature of a 4-year gap in being involved, they didn't reply — which kinda sucks, since it's a good question. Ched's comments were more helpful, in that they pointed to editors investing more than 15 minutes researching the candidate as perhaps having greater faculty to choose either side, which — having plenty of time to spare myself — I naturally agreed with. Investing close to 45 minutes now, I feel that the support section is where I ultimately belong, anfd I thank those two others for helping me get there.  Spintendo  06:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
194. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
195. I agree with Floquenbeam's assessment of this RfA and strongly support the candidate. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
196. Support Likely to be a net positive. Nigej (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
197. Support. Long line of positive contributions. Regarding the Arbitration Enforcement request that led to the subsequent case, I see absolutely nothing that can reasonably hold this candidate at fault. Indeed, the finding of the committee was: "[the] comment was a violation of [the reported person's] restriction and was not minor in nature". So the complaint was clearly valid, and we cannot require witnesses to wrongdoing to look the other way and shut up. There was a lot of blame to go around in that case. EvergreenFir was not among those who deserved any. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
198. Support per GorillaWarfare, Captain Eek, et. al. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
199. Support --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
200. Support Why not. Conlinp (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
201. Support, extremely qualified. Regarding the concerns raised below, I'll note that for recent (ie. more recent than four years) things, all anyone seems to be saying is that EvergreenFir edits a controversial topic area and has discernable opinions; no one has raised any more recent or specific problems. If anything the fact that an editor has managed to edit a controversial topic area for so long without problems is a point in their favor. --Aquillion (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
202. Support I don't remember coming across this candidate in my short time as an active editor. I find other supporting editors' comments about her temperament and knowledge, and the candidate's answers, convincing. Some of the opposing comments (particularly #22), and responses to them, also convinced me to support. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
203. Support Can be trusted with the mop. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 14:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
204. EF just wants to get on with the job? Get on with it, then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
205. Support, mostly per TonyBallioni. Thanks for stepping up. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
206. Support Please take what the oppose voters have to say though seriously. Nobody can be perfect but it is best to try and resolve any lingering issues going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
207. Support per User:Aircorn's comments; although I was also didn't enjoy the Accolades section, the history of editing is of course the most important thing and we do need admins with experience in controversial areas. Mvolz (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
208. Support. I've never seen anything but good from EF. I also agree with others that having an admin who is knowledgeable about a controversial area of Wikipedia is a plus.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
209. Support I trust EvergreenFir to use the tools wisely and to benefit Wikipedia as a whole.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
210. Support. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
211. Support Taewangkorea (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
212. Support I was a bit on the fence as I get a fair bit of "my views are truth" vibe wrt certain issues (fairly common with PhDs in their area, including me), but answers to Q10, Q12, and Q16 make me comfortable with the candidate. You don't have to be unbiased about everything. You do need to know when you might be biased however. And Q16 is just a good answer :-). Hobit (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
213. I think EvergreenFir is well-qualified and will be an excellent admin; and I also endorse Black Kite's and Floquenbeam's comments. Some of the oppose rationales are embarrassingly lazy and silly. It's bizarre that people are opposing based on an entirely reasonable AE request filed 5 years ago (!), or on EvergreenFir's participation in efforts to address Wikipedia's gender gap. I also see several opposers complaining that EvergreenFir is active on political topics, without bothering to post any actual evidence that his work there has been problematic in any way. The mere fact that EvergreenFir may not share one's political views, or may fail one's made-up political litmus test, is not a valid grounds for opposition here, and frankly does a lot more to discredit the !voters in question than to discredit EvergreenFir. MastCell ^Talk 01:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
214. Support. Working to reduce the gender gap: a good thing. Not taking personal attacks (as in her Accolades section) seriously: a good thing. And these are the opposes? Looked at some edits, seems cool, calm and collected (could you expect any less from an evergreen?). --GRuban (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
215. Support. Gamaliel (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
216. Support I have held off, to get the chance to weigh up the opposes. But I find Girth Summit's unanswered question very convincing. Even admin's are allowed to have had a misspent or even uproarious youth; they still often mature into upstanding pillars of the community. I see nothing remotely current to distract from the clear evidence that Evergreen will be a net benefit. So I am supporting per MastCell Gog the Mild (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
217. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
218. Support All major concerns happened several years ago. That is more then enough time for me to disregard them entirely and support this excellent candidate. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
219. Support The answers and EvergreenFir's evolution within the project as well as her stated willingness to be accountable for her future actions convinced me that there is no danger that the tools will be misused and that she will be able to continue helping even more effectively with them. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
220. Support, will be a positive addition to the team of mopsters. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
221. ‑Scottywong| [babble] || 15:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
222. Support -- Looks fine from my vantage point. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
223. Support Candidate has a doctorate & will exercise good judgement. Also, the opposes are a mess. Per ThatMontrealIP, being a feminist is a good thing. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
224. Support Should make a good admin. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
225. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
226. support Per answers to questions, especially #9. That shows great reflection on past issues they have been involved in and that they would listen if other people say they did something wrong. Has a clue, and does not have issues with incivility. All things that I look for in an admin. Valeince (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
227. Support Strong candidate with solid answers to the questions. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
228. Support I hold the view that editors who have opinions but also know when to recuse themselves or back off have the chops to become excellent administrators precisely because they understand the feelings of dedicated editors and will not respond with a milquetoast “everyone gets detention” solution to thorny situations. I am not concerned that this user would abuse their administrative privileges specifically because they are able to acknowledge their potential biases and know to avoid using the toolkit in those areas. Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
229. S Why the heck not. Re: opposes, is this an aggressive support?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
230. Support: No concerns. Will be a good addition to the administrators' corps. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

     I just want to add that I am not the kind of editor who would collect "Accolades" like that. I'm the kind of editor who would probably curl up into a ball and quit the project. I'm really glad that there are editors like EvergreenFir who are different from me and can rise to the occasion when needed. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

231. Support Strong candidate. Attempts to relitigate the gamergate arbcom case in the oppose section are ultimately unconvincing. ST47 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
232. tentative support - some of the interactions give me some pause, but these areas can be minefields. I do feel there is a good chance EF will be a net positive and I suspect any potentially problematic editing or tool use will be scrutinised or reviewed anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
233. Support - Of course. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
234. Support. Per others, this is the one person who should be best trusted with such great powers. ミラP 04:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
235. Support. No concerns – net positive – no brainer. Oppose rationales slay me. Bag 'em and tag 'em. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
236. Support Meets my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 08:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
237. Support - net positive. -- Begoon 08:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
238. Support (moved from Neutral) - on a closer look, the objections stem from content disputes, some dating as far back as 2015, and the perception that the nominee is "too opinionated". Well, we have quite a few opinionated admins which doesn't stop them from doing their work well, does it. I don't know the details of the story, but the complaint about participating in an off-wiki mailing list feels misplaced - admins themselves use IRC to co-ordinate off-wiki and that's been entirely acceptable for ages. Ched's complaints that the nominee keeps track of the abuse she received is as absurd as it goes, and calling abuse, a "disagreement" disqualifies Ched from being an admin in the future. I like the nominee's responses to questions, although I wonder why she did not mention stubifying in her response to Q5 as an alternative to deleting. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

     @Kashmiri: calling abuse, a "disagreement" disqualifies Ched from being an admin in the future But not in the present [2]. This is not meant to have any effect on your vote, just FYI. --JBL (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

     I don't see a problem with Ched giving his opinion, particularly when he's politely said that others are welcome to disagree with it if they want to. An administrator opposing an RfA candidate who is subsequently successful is not a crime. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

     @Joel B. Lewis: True, didn't spot this. @Ritchie333: It's not about an admin opposing a nom but about an admin arguing that extremely aggresive personal attacks that are normally blockable at sight are a (perfectly acceptable) content dispute. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

239. Support Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
240. Support: Definitly a woman of strong convictions; but that can be good for Wikipedia. She will make a great admin. Going forward I hope she will be sensitive to the concerns raised by those opposing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
241. Support I read the opposing arguments Dreamwoven (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
242. Support Have interacted with the candidate at AIV and her reports have consistently been actionable; trustworthy and well-rounded. I am not concerned about the candidate's temperament and I believe that the candidate has shown growth over time in this area. Spencer^T•C 16:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
243. Moved to support It won't matter at this point, but the opposition's arguments have been answered well and I agree with the support people. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 16:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
244. Support It is unfortunate and reactionary that editors who work on improving articles in the subject of gender are considered "controversial". Looking through some of the oppose votes, I don't see anything that outweighs the good work this editor has done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
245. Support, after having read all the opposes, diffs included, I don't expect any abuse of tools, or strutting with the badge, or throwing her weight around because she's now an admin. Good candidate, in my view. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
246. Support as per BoothSift. --BEANS X2 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
247. of course. — 🦊 20:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
248. Support per nom as well as their answer to Q9. – Aranya (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
249. Support I came here to oppose or just sit this out mainly because of the EC incident but the answer to question 9 is more than enough to put that concern to rest. If that's the main concern of the oppose !voters, then there is no reason not to support. --regentspark (comment) 21:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
250. Support. I think bilorv did a good job of rebutting the most common oppose rationales. And did I really just see "too much feminism" in one of them? Yuck. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
251. Support Per Liz. Haven't seenm such an unconvincing list of oppose votes in quite some time, and that's really saying something. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
252. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The answers to questions 10 and 12 address the main concern raised by the opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as having been involved in too many battleground scenarios. EvergreenFir's June 2015 AE report stirred the whole situation around Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) to blow up into Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Eric Corbett's situation was related to the WP:ARBGGTF case(which EvergreenFir participated in), and EvergreenFir has history of picking a side in that topic area: she should really had been named a party in the GamerGate ArbCom case and she was also a part of the Gender Gap mailing list (GG-l) which had a lot of rather problematic on-wiki coordination with Kevin Gorman and Gamaliel. The history around this is just massive. I don't have much faith in them being a good admin in contentious topic areas. --Pudeo (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

   Being concerned about battleground mentality in an admin candidate is legitimate. I notice that the incident you link to is from 4 years ago and that EvergreenFir explicitly states she has learned and grown from that incident. Has her behavior since then showed that this is not the case? Wug·a·po·des​ 01:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

   Pudeo, I'm with Wug, here -- battleground concerns would be legitimate, but is there anything in the past four years that would lead us to think that's still an issue? A lot of otherwise sane editors got caught up in that whole thing. --valereee (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

   Take a look at Jazz Jennings. This editor is determined to make sure that the subject's legal name never gets mentioned in the article despite the subject using it themselves. 99.39.171.70 (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

   EvergreenFir's last edit to Jazz Jennings was on April 10, 2018, well over a year ago, to revert the charmingly-named, and now-blocked BigDwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was trying to dox a teenager. "Jennings" is the stage name of a child performer whose family desires anonymity due to death threats and stalking. Up until last year the kid was a minor. Keeping their real name out of the article, when the BLP subject never uses their real name in public, is not exactly controversial. Rather, it's the sort of call admins have to make, IP user. Additionally, EF's edit was supported by the Oversight team which hid the doxxed teen's private info. (And with two edits under this IP, I'd think you might have some sympathy for a person who wants some degree of privacy. :) ) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

   Well, looks like the angry IP was the return of angry "BigD" themselves, socking to evade a block. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigDwiki. I've struck their comment per WP:LOUTSOCK. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

   Another day, another pile of fabricated allegations about me from Puedo. I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to be about, and following the links does not illuminate. And I must say it's really tacky to drag the late Kevin Gorman into your attempt to sabotage this nomination. Gamaliel (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per Pudeo. Too much partisanship in this nominee to take them seriously. --MONGO (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose I think EvergreenFir's content contributions leave something to be desired, and looking through their last dozen or so AfD contributions, I could not find what I considered quality inputs that gave me a clear understanding of how they would close AfDs. Working in other administrative categories is great, but I'm focused on content, and I find the candidate lacking in those respects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Pudeo. I'm aware that this stuff is several years old, but time doesn't heal all wounds. Lepricavark (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Mostly per Pudeo. I've also personally found the candidate to be combative and belligerent in the few times we've interacted, but that's all subjective, and therefore incidental. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

   I'm a bit surprised at you joining in this chorus, Juliancolton. I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but the diffs Pudeo brings up, whether concerning or not, are more than four years old. We've had multiple editors become admins who hadn't even registered yet. I don't think it's unfair to ask if you have had more recent concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose I was actually shocked to see this nomination, a very opinionated user and combatitive in expressing those positions imo, there is nothing wrong if they manage to express their position and stay within policy but as an admin, no. Anyone who is involved in any kind of off wiki mailing list designed to group together to influence decisions on wiki is a big no for me. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose The community looks to admins to be reasonably impartial and able to help resolve conflict without becoming involved. I am not sure EvergreenFir is quite there yet. Also, I am a little concerned with the answer to Q3, it feels a little like the candidate knows their editing is controversial but is still saying: "give me the keys, you can always take them back if I crash the car". Glennfcowan (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the very good arguments by Pudeo. Cassianto^Talk 09:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Pudeo. Quahog (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

   Oppose per Pudeo and Govindaharihari. Dr Horncastle (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Struck as sock of Eric Corbett.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Pudeo and my memories of the candidate's battleground attitude at various noticeboards in the past. Way too involved in gender topics to trust they would be impartial. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose as per Pudeo. The candidate clearly has bias and would not act in a neutral way.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
12. Reluctant oppose per Puedo among others. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
13. Oppose While my oppose is also reluctant, EF has shown an inability to behave in an unbiased manner, particularly in topics related to gender and politics. Starcader (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose: Per Govindaharihari, Mr Ernie, and my own RfA criteria concerning controversy in word and deed. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    At the request of DBigXray (talk · contribs), please see here, under "RFA Criteria#Controversy". — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    I don't regularly respond to those who vote the other way from me; but in Javert 223's case, I'll happily make an exception to note that at the time they voted, their criteria stated that controversy is not necessarily disqualifying, which is reasonable. The latest addition—two minutes later—was of course necessary in order to justify this vote, but still manages to miss the point: a controversial editor will not necessarily make a controversial admin, and it is wholly simplistic to suggest that they are mutually inclusive. FYI. ——SN54129 11:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    And a controversial admin will not necessarily make a bad admin, as stated elsewhere on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    I should note, though, that although I did make a necessary change to my RfA criteria, this is not something I haven't considered in the past: I will note my history of RfA votes against possibly controversial administrators. The possibility alone of controversy has long been good enough for me. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

15. Oppose Very few articles started was the first thing that gave me pause. But having an off wiki mail list to coordinate on wiki issues is extremely problematic. In addition the opposes who have spoke about the impartiality is a deal breaker for me. Present administrators are sometimes snarly or pick sides, the problem is it is a lifetime appointment. And so we must be careful. Gaming the Time honored traditions of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not something we can ever condone from an editor or administrator. Lightburst (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Lightburst, Which mailing list is it that you are referring to? Just trying to understand this. Do you mean the Wikimedia Foundation Gender Gap Mailing list?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    The Gender Gap Mailing list holds a complete archive of discussions here. It has had little traffic since mid-2017. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    If that is the same list mentioned as "off-wiki", it certainly looks to be operated by Wikimedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    We should have an RfC to see if the editors believe that Admins should have a lifetime appointment. Perhaps there should be a term for admins - in perpetuity is not advisable for the position. We often have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS change in relation to a variety of WIKI issues and I guarantee some of the present admins would be removed if a new RfA was initiated. As it is, the lot of us have to put up with admins who were appointed in 2005 - by 5 editors. I recently had an issue with an sdmin's unilateral action and so I looked. Exactly five editors participated in the admin's RfA. And there is no reasonable way for the many editors to contest the actions. The lifetime appointment is the reason we have such contentious RfAs. If this was not a lifetime appointment for this candidate I would take a chance. As it is, I have to be wary...and so should we all. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    That is stuff for WT:RfA, Lightburst, not here. That said, if you think you can change things, go for it - I might even support it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

    It is for here because it is my part of my rationale for oppose. But thank you for reading. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Oppose Unfortunately, the arguments presented by the opposition seem stronger to me than those of the support. Maybe if the issues brought up are responded to, than I will move to support, but right now I don't see this editor as being fit for adminship. :( Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC) moved to support

16. Oppose. I do regret having to oppose but there does seem to be a history of partisanship. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC).
17. Oppose per Puedo. Too much wikiwarrior. Hlevy2 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    This one may need to be struck. User has been asked by admins three times now (including just now) to disclose and link their main account, first in Nov. 2016 then again in July, and looks to have not complied. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

18. Oppose per pudeo and others expressing concern about battleground behaviour. Too much ideology entering the encyclopaedia and the tools will likely exacerbate it. record does not inspire confidence.ConstantPlancks (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
19. Oppose as per the above arguments. RockingGeo (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    RockingGeo have you done your own research and checked the appropriatness of every oppose vote? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, I'd rather not have an admin who regularly edits on contentious issues and "isn't shy about voicing opinions." Those are red-flags. This person is better as a subject-matter expert user than an admin. RockingGeo (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    RockingGeo, as an admin they can do either as appropriate, they’ve already stated that they’d ask for more eyes at ANI if admin tools were needed but they were in some way too involved. To me it seems we get the best of both. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Sure, an admin can be involved in content disputes with users, but I'd just rather my admins not, due to the power imbalance. Better safe than sorry in this case. RockingGeo (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

20. Oppose. I didn't like this nomination when I first saw it and I like it even less now. In brief: per Pudeo, MONGO, Juliancolton, Govindaharihari, Glennfcowan, Lightburst, Xxanthippe, and others. – Athaenara ✉ 14:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose IMO the opposes above are concerning enough to research possible issues, especially with regards to a WP:BATTLEFIELD approach. #1.) Keeps a list of disagreements on user page as badge of honor:[3] (November 2019) #2.) Keeps some sort of sock list/hitlist User:EvergreenFir/socks #3.) Now going back 6-8 months: Appears to be still interested in gender battles.[4] even if on the correct side of this, it shows they are still involved in the battle (May 2019) #4.) Still prone to snide comments: cut the patronizing crap[5] (April 2019) #5.) Disagreement with an IP at White Latin Americans (March 25, 2019), EF reverts edit, IP restores, EF goes to WP:RFPP and asks for semi protection (she can edit, IP can not), then EF reverts again. IMO this says she is not adverse to using whatever tools are available to win a WP:BATTLE. All this coupled with EF's preference to edit in contentious gender and political areas and I simply must oppose. Sysops doing battle is not something we need. — Ched (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    I'm really struggling to identify the problem in this edit. Opposing canvassing efforts by misogynistic redditors seems like a good thing. Is editing around gender politics just inherently a sign of bad behavior? Nblund ^talk 20:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    • That "accolades" section, which is a lighthearted list of unhinged personal attacks the candidate has received, to you, is "keeping a list of disagreements as a badge of honor?" Really? Calling someone a "Jew", a "Nazi", or "KKK garbage", that's a "disagreement"? Calling an LGBT editor a "freak", a "pervert", a "failure of a human being", a "gender studies major", a "tranny", that's all a disagreement, and the candidate is in the wrong for showcasing it? Wow. Just wow. Shame on you for that. I think I've made up my mind now that I see where this opposition's at. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    +1 on Swarm's point here. These aren't disagreements, these are pieces of abuse that the editor has acquired in the course of helping this project. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    I think it can be taken both ways very reasonably. I personally fall on the side that a small section lightheartedly reminding yourself and others how crazy people can be is harmless enough - but equally the other side of it is that *regardless* of how silly the accusations made are, immortalising them could be seen as revelling in conflict. ~ mazca ^talk 19:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    The page protection and reverts of the IP edits on White Latin Americans were appropriate. Example of IP copy reverted: "Also the American Sociological Association shows that 18.8% of mexicans in the sorvey respond that have white skin, with ranges of distribution in 22.3-23.9%..."(sic).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

    Ched, if these are your best reasons for opposition then it gives me another reason for support. Here's a breakdown of the things you're opposing: (2) a user being involved in fighting sockpuppetry; (3) a user commenting about off-wiki canvassing (and taking no action relating to it); (4) one rude edit in six months, directed at someone violating NPA; (5) reverting an LTA. And I've left (1) until last for a reason: it's an overt lie. Calling someone a "Nazi tranny" or "Jew" (as a slur) is not a "disagreement" and it shows such callousness towards a person who has been harassed that I ask you to please strike it. — Bilorv (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Bilorv: Then feel free to support, I won't badger you about it. I fully agree that remarks such as you quote are completely block-worthy, but those kind of attacks don't just happen out of thin air, and they are hardly "collaboration", or "Agreements". My issue is that I don't believe someone who takes pride in being insulted like that is sysop material. IMO it's indicative of a Battlefield mentality that is far too deeply entrenched in this project, so no, I won't be striking it. Many of the opposes cite issues from years ago, and I'm seeing that those same problems have not disappeared, but rather they are still extant. I looked through the contribs, and it took me all of about 15 minutes to find what I posted. I didn't feel a need to research any further. I'm comfortable with my !vote. Feel free to do your own research and view the diffs in whatever fashion you see fit, then !vote as you believe is proper. I have. — Ched (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    A user is bullied and abused, and you call it "disagreement", because, "they are hardly "agreements""? No shit they're not agreements Ched, it's called being victimized by abusive behavior. There are some memorable trolls who have plagued the RfA opposition over the years, but blaming a victim of harassment and abuse as having somehow deserved it is one of the most unhinged and disgusting opposes I've ever seen. The fact that you unapologetically stand behind it though is abhorrent. Here's an idea, maybe abusers should be held accountable for their abuse, and literal fucking admins shouldn't make excuses for them. Christ. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

    Swarm has already covered it but, "those kind of attacks don't just happen out of thin air"[6]... holy crap, Ched. WP standards around civility and tolerance for bullying have been getting really bad, but this is shocking. You don't have to support EF for admin, but to hold it against her that she has the guts to protect the articles that attract vandal bigots is appalling. You are siding with vandals here. She has courage for doing this work. She deserves none of this abuse. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

22. Strong Oppose per Ched, sysops are seen as role models of Wikipedia and should not be involved in partisan activities. This track record is not flying well with me. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Oppose Based on my past experiences with this user, I have strong doubts as to their ability to not let their personal views interfere with their admin activities. I see this is shared by many others and the examples brought up above are concerning enough to me that I have to oppose this one sorry. Perhaps if they agreed that they were WP:INVOLVED with any areas relating to gender-politics/social justice, I might be willing to change my vote. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Neutral After a more thorough reading of the questions section, it seems my concerns have already been addressed to some extent, so I'll strike my oppose for now while I take more time to consider. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    Changed to Support following answer to Question 12. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

23. Oppose The older, more obvious, battleground issues could be overlooked, if the candidate were not near-exclusively editing the same contentious topic areas. I doubt they would be so short-sighted as to openly abuse the sysop tools, but based on the evidence above, they are likely to use the bit to shield other battleground editors who share their biases. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
24. Oppose, per concerns set out by Pudeo and other above. It is unfortunate. Kierzek (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
25. Oppose My only interaction with her, which was a year ago, indicated to me that she has not changed. I reverted her edit in which she “collapsed” a talk page section with the edit summary: “Useful discussion that should be visible. Not off-topic. We don't want someone restarting the discussion because they didn't see this...” . She reverted me with the edit summary: “Start a new section.” Whether you agree with me or agree with her on whether the section should be collapsed or not is beside the point. What is important here is that she did not give me a reason on why the section should be collapsed. I thought it was unreasonable to ask me to open a talk page section about removing the collapse of a talk page section. I then looked at her user page and saw her infoboxes and thought to myself that this explained her behavior. She was too personally involved into gender issues to be neutral and objective. I have to note that I never edit these topics and was on that page by coincidence and did what seemed natural to do. To me, this incident denotes an unwillingness to engage in dialogue and a battle ground attitude. I didn’t pursue this issue because I didn’t care enough and was not looking for a fight. We don’t need another User:Piotrus issue (sorry man for using you as an example). On the other hand, we do need a non-admin, competent, passionate editor who helps with vandalism and other tedious tasks. Tradedia^talk 18:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    @Tradedia: With respect, I can't agree with this interpretation. MOS:GENDERID is (and was at that time) pretty clear on the question that thread was actually about, and EvergreenFir and ChiveFungi were correct that rehashing that guideline and its rationale at an article-by-article level is not a productive idea (even aside from the WP:TROLL-ish tone of the hatted "challenge", which neither of those editors actually called out). The very reason we have guidelines is to centralize site-wide consensus and avoid re-re-re-arguing the same things over and over again (and, worse, coming to conflicting "micro-consensuses" based on who bothered to show up at which article talk page on which day). Further, EvergreenFir's suggestion to open a new thread is the opposite of refusal/avoidance of discussion; it's a concession that if multiple editors really do want to try to rehash GENDERID at that article talk page then it could happen, but that it's a separate discussion (or at least a sub-heading) from whether the guideline as it currently stands does apply to the article. Interpreting a guideline and trying to change it are not the same topic. This was completely normal talk-page management, per WP:REFACTOR, WP:CONLEVEL, WP:MULTI, WP:TPG, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    @SMcCandlish: MOS:GENDERID is a Manual of Style guideline. It says that you should “give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources.” It therefore relates to editing the article. Here, we are talking about a talk page section. The person on the talk page was asking a question and not “misgendering” in the article. Realize that for thousands of years, humans were divided into males and females. Therefore, it is not surprising that many people are not familiar with the non-binary concept and do not understand why someone who seems like a women cannot be called she/her. These people should be treated with respect on talk pages and wiki policies explained to them. Assume good faith is also a wiki guideline. I didn’t sense any “TROLL-ish” tone in the hatted section. Maybe a conservative person used to the old world. MOS:GENDERID even says:” When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it…” It doesn’t say treat them like trolls and collapse their section so no one would see their filth…
    There is nothing wrong about asking questions about wiki articles and policies. The section was collapsed as if asking questions is shameful. You say “that rehashing that guideline and its rationale at an article-by-article level is not a productive idea”. You also say “The very reason we have guidelines is to centralize site-wide consensus and avoid re-re-re-arguing the same things over and over again”. I fully agree. But this means that we refer the person asking a question (or challenging) to the place where the consensus/decision was made. Hatting the section achieves the opposite! People will not see the discussion and open another section to ask the same question! In fact, you can see that after the section that was hatted, there are two other sections that were opened under the titles “gender at birth/biological gender” and “Question regarding article's presentation of gender identity”!
    Also, unlike what you say (and I think this was also clear to EvergreenFir), I was not trying “to rehash GENDERID at that article talk page”. I was just unhatting a discussion so that its content would not be rehashed in the future. Hatting the section did not achieve any of the aims listed in WP:REFACTOR, WP:CONLEVEL, WP:MULTI, WP:TPG. It was simply a way to bully editors and stigmatize their comments. This aggressive and arrogant attitude only hurts your cause. You are alienating many good faith people. I certainly don’t want this kind of attitude from an admin. Tradedia^talk 02:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    Nah. "Referring to a single person as 'they' is simply nonsense ..." is a general statement and clearly is about the article content; it has nothing in particular to do with talk pages. I won't argue further about it here in mid-RfA; I've said my piece, and anyone can just go look at the diffs in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    Huh? Nah what? What you just wrote does not address/contradict anything I have written above. Off course the sentence you cited is related to talk pages, since it is a comment left on the talk page! Off course the comment relates to the content of the article. This is what talk pages are for. So you are just agreeing with me that the content of the section in the talk page is not “off topic”. Therefore, it should not have been hatted as “off topic”. Also, since the editor only asked a question on the talk page (and not edit the article), his actions should not have been characterized as “misgendering”. In any case, I also have said my piece, and am happy to let other look at the diffs in question. Tradedia^talk 21:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    Realize that for thousands of years, humans were divided into males and females. — You make a factual error here in that many cultures have had no such division (consider the hijra of South Asia, two-spirit people of indigenous North America etc.). Perhaps it's true in your country but it's not true, for instance, in America. It is more true that the term non-binary and the cultural context it refers to is modern, and therefore people may not understand it, but if your aim is to teach someone the basics of non-binary gender and pronouns then (a) such content doesn't belong on the talk page of a specific individual and (b) you might do well to teach someone that isn't a person acting in bad faith with such gems as This is the current flavor of the month for some people, gender'ism if you will, as though what you see with your own eyes doesn't matter and Wikipedia will remain more concerned with protecting the fragile egos of some users than they will with reality. Asking a question is one thing to but to go on a pseudoscientific diatribe in which you insult the "fragile egos" of the people you're talking to is not exactly the good faith "I'm sorry, I don't understand this policy" that you're making it out to me. — Bilorv (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    This is obviously a contentious topic. There are clearly two camps. None of them is “acting in bad faith”. You seem to have strong feelings about it and so did other people from the other camp on talk page. I don’t have any strong feelings or knowledge about the topic, so I will not argue either way. I just wish both camps would discuss the issues calmly and with an open mind instead of engaging in a cultural war. Trying to suppress the comments/questions of the other camp is not the solution. My only point is that I don’t think that an editor/warrior belonging to either camp should be entrusted with the mop. Tradedia^talk 21:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    I did not say that people with a particular viewpoint were arguing in bad faith, merely that one individual on a diatribe about fragile egos of some users is. I don't follow how you read my comment as if it contains the same "strong feelings" as the one you compare it to. I dispassionately stated some relevant facts, and the other user presented value-laden descriptions of why they believe Wikipedia is going to hell. If you can't distinguish the two—or which viewpoints are based in academia and which are WP:FRINGE—then you might want to consider whether your self-described lack of expertise means that you should veer clear of these areas. — Bilorv (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

26. Oppose per Pudeo. Participating in a cabal, no matter how noble the candidate believed it to be, is the opposite of good judgement. We need less politically inclined admins, and far less that choose to collaborate in the shadows. I would've supported other than that, I generally get along with EvergreenFir. Pudeo's information is news to me, and I don't like it.--v/r - TP 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
27. Oppose Per most of the above, particularly Pudeo. User appears to have a knack for becoming embroiled in drama. Additionally, the partisan/semi-political/victim card userpage is an enormous redflag. No.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 20:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
28. Weak oppose - questions 14 & 15 are making me waver. I still don't agree with Pudeo's oppose rationale, but some of the arguments raised by Ched seem like it will lead to a hostile editing environment (especially for newer editors) and the answers to Q14 & 15 aren't reassuring. Banedon (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
29. Oppose mostly per Pudeo and Ched. Too much battleground mentality is never good for an administrator.--Darwinek (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
30. Strong oppose too much opinionated for left-leaning and feminism related ideologies which is giving me doubt that user may abuse their administrative privileges. What the nominee said in the above questions (specific Q12) are still paradoxical for me. For example, they edited the Talk page of Donald Trump recently in May 2019. They have strong opinion, they have strong ideology, they couldn't keep themselves away from the topic yet and they will not do so in future. My strongest fear is they may apply DS unilateraly on user having opposite ideology although they are not involved. Also, there were several edits pointed by other users which clearly shows user is aggressive in their editing and authoritative just like their co-nominator. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    Being a feminist is actually a good thing. And as far as the Trump talk page goes, I looked at half a dozen edits and they were all edits similar to the most recent, which was to remove the facetious edit request "change his name from donald trump to donald rump".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    ThatMontrealIP Being a feminist is actually a good thing. That's opinion, not fact. Her edits clearly shows that she is just too aggressive in her opinions.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    Can you find fault with any of her edits to the talk page? If not, then what is the problem? It's not like she is topic-banned, so I don't understand the objection that she edited the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    Black Falcon She is not topic banned but she clearly said she has too much strong opinion on contemporary US politics and according to COI, persons having so strong opinion can't provide neutral version. She said not to participate in those areas but she was still doing it. That is paradox. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    Your issue concerned me. I'm !voting in support based on her willingness to stay out of topics she has strong opinions on. So her not doing that in the past seemed like a potential issue. That said, I looked at a couple of edits and didn't see anything troubling at all. Her most recent one was basically reverting pretty clear vandalism (by someone who certainly doesn't like Trump). A quick look at recent edits all seemed like things that seem analogous to "unambiguous vandalism or zero tolerance cases". Are you seeing anything else in the last year or so? Hobit (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

31. Oppose I am not threatened by their so-called "partisanship", nor do I believe they would abuse the tools, but the concerns of strong-arming give me pause. I would not be comfortable knowing they could use the inherent persuasive power of just being an admin to influence a discussion. While I do not believe this would be their intention, I unfortunately am just not comfortable with supporting. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
32. Oppose Thank you for answering my Q15. I am not impressed by the candidate's answer and to an extent even disappointed by the lack of judgement shown here. As an admin, you would be expected to (sometimes) take unpopular decisions in the wider interest of the community. Even a bully has a few supporters, but those cheer leaders dont make his act of bullying justifiable. User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior#26 being quoted above is not " Wikipedia Rule #26 " as is being claimed but just someone's opinion essay. Further it is not a justification to glorify harassment. You are quoting WP:Deny recognition but this act of putting harassment on a gallery on your user-page, IMHO is an exact opposite of WP:DENY. In spite of being specifically asked you did not respond with any loss this glorification may have on Wikipedia (perhaps you did not judge that this will cause any loss). Creating and expanding this section on harassment as "Accolades" on your user-page might have made you feel better, but the folks who dished you those words most likely don't give two hoots on what you write on your user-page. On the other hand, consider this example. A neutral IP editor or a new user follows your contribution/sign to your user page, what might be their reaction? Looking at such fine abuses, isn't likely to encourage him to make an account or contribute more on Wikipedia. I hope you do realize, that by becoming an active admin, you will be almost certain to invite, a daily dose of abuses/threats/harassment/personal attacks. So this list is only going to expand and very quickly, once you get the mop. So I do hope that you will get rid of that section soon. This among with other issues pointed above leads me to come to a decision. Sorry but, I cannot support a candidate who has intentions to work at AfD, AN3, BLPN that are controversial areas with this sort of judgement. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
33. Oppose Pudeo's argument matches my observations of this editor. Admins ought to be disarming drama, not fueling it. Yes, people have thrown insults at this editor as seen in Q15, but to publicly announce them as a badge of pride rather than moving on suggests someone who shouldn't have tools. I don't want admins that proudly fight with jerks, I want admins that swallow their pride and reduce the drama. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
34. Strong opposeThe "minor" drama that Evergreen Fir was involved in, and dismissed for the purpose of this RfA by Ritchie333, was an extremely unpleasant and protracted episode leaving a very bad taste for many editors and a platform for continuing drama. No matter how much time has elapsed, I find it impossible to believe she could be an impartial administrator particularly where gender is concerned. J3Mrs (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
35. Oppose Per Pudeo, Ched and others.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
36. Oppose While I think this user is a great editor and I respect their work fighting vandalism, I personally value neutrality in admins and think it's a very important part of that position. Unfortunately, this user is not as impartial as I would hope and, regardless of which way they may be biased, I don't think such impartiality is a good quality in an admin. ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
37. Oppose per Pudeo and Ched. Another battleground admin? No thanks. Intothatdarkness 03:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
38. Oppose I don't think the candidate would abuse the admin toolset, but I'm not convinced that EF can remain neutral on topics that they feel passionately about, and this isn't a trait I want to see in an admin. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 08:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
39. Oppose due to others' concerns about tendentious editing. From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

    Is there evidence of “tendentious editing”, or just that they edit in a topic area that has its share of controversy? Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

    Whose concerns, UnnamedUser? You are the first person on this page that I can see who has accused EF of tendentious editing. Diffs please. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

    Using tendentious editing to refer to nasty conflicts, for lack of a better term. From UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

    Tendentious editing has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and shouldn't be used imprecisely like that.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

40. Oppose Chronic bellicosity is not a trait that I want to see in an admin. I am sorry, but this person is the wrong candidate for the position. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

    Chronic bellicosity is not a trait I want to see either. However I am not entirely convinced that this is the case. Please link me to three recent examples that support your position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

    Sorry, Charlie, but I am not here to educate you, let alone amuse you. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

    Thanks for the help in making up my mind. Your input was pivotal! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

41. Oppose A "robust debater" which is cool, wikipedia needs them... but not in admin positions. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

    @MaxBrowne2: Can you explain your use of quotation marks? The phrase "robust debater" does not appear anywhere else in this discussion. --JBL (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

    Wasn't trying to start any argument, just my own feeling. "Robust debate" is often used in the context of parliamentary debates in my country (New Zealand) where it often degenerates into silliness. Same in other countries I'm sure. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

    @MaxBrowne2: Thanks. (Not trying to start an argument, either -- it looked like it was meant as a reference to something someone else has said in the discussion, so I was puzzled.) --JBL (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

42. Oppose Agree with Pudeo and Govindaharihari Seven Pandas (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I may move to support. Right now I am considering the high delete record (64%) at AfD. Also very few articles started. The reason I may lean support, is that 58% of the cadidate's edits are in main space. I believe the purpose of an administrator is to protect content and content creators. Lightburst (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Moving to oppose.

Just as a note, 64% for combined deletes/redirects (she has only 1 of the latter, which is its own query) is actually somewhere in the middle - of our last 15 or so candidates the majority were over 80%. Obviously you can think that's still too high (we're both inclusionists), but thought it worth noting. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nosebagbear. I like the high participation in main space. I checked out some the delete nominations by the candidate and they look justified. Lightburst (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst, is a high delete score at AfD really a problem? 78.9% matched the result and that's the criterion we should be looking at. After all it is Articles for Deletion, and that's why they are there. Where AfD fails as a process is that too many of the !voters do not take any notice of policies and guidelines - or may not even be aware of them.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Are the AFDstats even an issue? Evergreenfir has only voted four times at AfD in 2019. I ignored this in determining my support as it is very minimal. I think it's better to look at their sustained 90K of contributions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutral - Worried about warriorism. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC) — Moving to Support. The wars are done. Carrite (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

1. I'm just here to watch history unfold, and want to maybe one day remember where I was when whatever happens happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Not impressed with her content work. In fact, there is much to be desired about it. I think admins should have a strong background in creating content. More work needs to be done here. Leaning towards oppose, but since Wikipedia is already a hostile environment for editors who think differently than the majority, I'm parking here for the time-being. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I've seen this user's work around and think they are generally a net positive to the project. However, it looks like they have also taken a battleground approach on certain controversial topics, as pointed out by several comments above, including Pudeo's. I don't really like where this is going, so I'll sit this one out for now. epicgenius (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I spent a good deal of time reviewing EvergreenFir's (EF's) contributions, and this comment is partly just a reminder for me to come back after I've had a chance to sleep on it. This edit from the Oppose section does not concern me at all—the other editor's comment was patronizing, we all get frustrated at times, and EF's response was sharp but not uncivil. In my review, I came across many examples of EF maintaining content (reverting and reporting vandalism, responding to protected edit requests, contributing to discussions on contentious topics, etc.), well-considered edits such as these two that suggest EF is certainly capable of separating her personal POV from her editing, and one amusing exchange (the diffs for which I forgot to retain) where she kept her cool with a combative editor who seemed fixated on her multicolored signature. Other than her choice of topics to edit, which comes down to personal interest and is nobody's business but hers, I saw no recent evidence of a combative attitude or of her POV affecting her editing. Her response to question 12 is also reassuring. My hesitation to support is based on a small number of edits, such as these two with their odd focus on "American men committing mass shootings" (emphasis added) and "violent patriarchy", that give me pause. Context matters, however, so I'll revisit this with a clearer mind. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
   

   Neutral for now. Black Falcon has summed up it well, so I won't repeat it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
   Moving to Support - rationale offered there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

5. Neutral. Fair candidate. Will pass, and will make a great admin. I'm just not a personal fan of their use of their "Accolades" section on their userpage or the User:EvergreenFir/socks list in their userspace. Seems to glorify wrongdoers more than it discourages them. Regardless, congrats on adminship! Utopes (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• A question for the opposers. I don't want to badger anyone individually, so asking down here. I haven't been around for as long as some of the experienced and respected opposers above, but in my time here I've only ever seen positive contributions from the candidate. I've had a skim through their recent contribs (I confess that it couldn't be described as an exhaustive search) and nothing negative is jumping out at me. The only specific examples mentioned above are from several years ago - to my mind, that's long enough ago for someone to have learned and grown, and I don't see why we'd be worried about it if there is nothing more recent. Can anyone point to any problems from the last year or so? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has answered your question, I want to address specifically the part where you ask “… why we'd be worried about it if there is nothing more recent.” Editors who ambition becoming admins understand that they need to avoid controversy in order to succeed. It is therefore possible that you don’t see their true face as they are exerting restrain until after the RfA is completed. Therefore, it is important to assess the candidate at a time where they might have been behaving in a more normal way and where their true colors are showing. We know the candidate has strong passionate opinions. There is no reason to think that this has changed.
The Eastern European mailing list ArbCom case has taught us that a biased admin with a political agenda can do damage to the project without appearing to do so. This got discovered only because someone sent the 3000+ emails from the mailing list to admins who turned them to Arbcom. I will briefly cite below some telling parts from these emails to illustrate what went on a decade ago (all personal details, etc... removed per ArbCom). We should learn from our past in order to not repeat the same mistakes.
Here, an admin on the mailing list is bragging to the others on the list: “Since most of the edits are from IPs/newly registered editors, I slapped a semi-protection on it instead of reverting :)”. More from the same admin: “I wonder if I am uninvolved enough to close the thread (link removed) by protecting the article. I haven't really edited the article in any controversial manner for a very long time”. Here, the admin is saying: “We really need more admins on our teams, I have already once been accused of doing favors on ANI/3RR, we need more people to be able to step in.” Here, they are plotting to have more admins in their group: “(name removed) has offered to nominate (name removed) for administrator." Reply: "Good plan, I will try to attract some (nationality removed) editors to the vote if needed. Is (name removed) in our list? If not, I think we should invite him."
Here, the admin is even plotting for the group to get their own CheckUser!: “I think we need to plan long term, and get a CheckUser of our own. This will involve first getting an admin status, and then, CheckUser. I don't think I am likely to get CheckUser myself, if for nothing else then that I am not involved and not interested in dealing with CheckUser issues, and one will have to prove that one is interested in CheckUser issues unrelated to (area removed) for that. In order to do this, I'd suggest that one of us exercises the WP:Right to vanish to clear his name from any association to (area removed) that would be likely to draw opposition "because of his friends" and creates a new account, one that would for the most part avoid interaction with (area removed) issues, and would become increasingly involved in anti-vandal / admin issues, embarking upon a track for adminship and then, CheckUser (it may be worthwhile to analyze edit history and pattern of existing CheckUser and emulate them). Who could do this? It has to be somebody with a clean record, to avoid being compromised in the future along the lines "you hid your bad block log" - I would not put it above CheckUsers to run checks on their future buddies. WP:RTV gives an editor the right to discard a previous identity, but hiding a bad block log ((name removed) or (name removed) - sorry guys - sorry :>) could sink our plan. I am afraid that such an account would also mean retiring the old identity, and not running other socks. Any thoughts who would like to embark on such a wiki-life changing move? Do note that becoming a CheckUser is only slightly less difficult then becoming an ArbCom member. On a related note, we have previously discussed admining more of us; I think it is still possible. (name removed) is the most likely candidate (clean block log, lack of wiki warring) for that. (name removed) has a clean block log, but little interest in wikipolitic/adminship issues (correct me if I am wrong?). (name removed) has only one 3RR block, it should be possible to bypass that, same for (name removed); (name removed)'s record also seems defensible. Any other candidates? Do note that once you reach admin level, you are that much closer to CheckUser. Considering the pool of our members, I think that getting a few more admins is possible, but getting a CheckUser will take time (years?). Still, if we don't try...” Tradedia^talk 05:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Tradedia, thanks, that history is really interesting, and obviously concerning. Nevertheless, it doesn't raise any concerns about this candidate, for me at least. You're saying that she has strong opinions, and may have just been avoiding controversy for four years in order to obtain admin rights - surely, if that had been her intent, she would have been much better advised to create a new account, edit uncontroversially for about 18 months, and then apply for admin rights? Then she'd have got the rights much more quickly, plus we would have no idea about her strongly held views. I'm more than happy to use Occam's razor here and go with the simpler explanation - when she was new, she edited in a way that a lot of new editors do, and got involved in some drama; with a bit of experience, she learned to avoid doing that. Without any evidence if anything more sinister, I don't see any reason to assume otherwise. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Block evasion

Strong Oppose This user's conduct at Jazz Jennings regarding their bias and hair-trigger reverts of those who add the subject's legal name, despite multiple sources, including the subject's own words. This editor is absolutely determined to make sure that the LGBTQ+++ side is the only side that gets told. 99.39.171.70 (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately, only registered users are permitted to participate in RfAs. If you have an account, feel free to log in and reinstate your oppose under your username. Kurtis (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

---

I have noticed that some of the opposers have returned after long absences to vote in this RfA. I can't help but wonder if there has been some off-site coordination.- MrX 🖋 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I also can't help feeling that WP:ARBGGTF is being relitigated here, which is inappropriate to say the least. Miniapolis 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Have you done a similar review of the supporters?--v/r - TP 00:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would I need to? - MrX 🖋 01:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have the slightest idea what would cause someone to dig into the edit history of RfA !voters. Maybe you could enlighten me why you did?--v/r - TP 03:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Because for so many opposers it is the long ago past that is 'causing' their opposes? As though no time has elapsed for them? What have they been doing in the meantime might be one question prompted by the unconcern with more recent conduct. Shenme (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to know because they have returned after so long, or do you want to know because they are opposers? If it's the former, then you should review all users. If it's the latter, then you've got a slant.--v/r - TP 00:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Not just people who have returned after long absences, but at least two sockpuppets returned from the grave to !vote to oppose. Is this an RfA or an exorcism? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen a boomerang used at an exorcism before, but it might be considered here. Shenme (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at RfA voters is apparently one way to refine the system to make it less stressful for all concerned, see the talk page of RFA. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2019 (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.