Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BDD

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

BDD[edit]

Final (119/14/4); Closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 00:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

BDD (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to nominate BDD for adminship. Though he's been consistently active for the last year and half, he's been kicking around Wikipedia since 2004. I first encountered him while working on the requested moves backlog around summer 2012, and across various discussions he showed such impressive knowledge of the policies, diplomacy and skill that I was surprised he wasn't an admin already. In my eight years at Wikipedia I've avoided the RfA process to the point that I've only ever participated in two before (including my own), so I certainly don't take this nomination lightly.

BDD is exactly the kind of person we want as an administrator. He's a solid content editor with nearly 10,000 edits in the article space. In addition to his own article writing, he's also been active at the Reference Desk and (he's a librarian, after all) and copy editing, a key if sometimes overlooked aspects of article work. His work in technical areas is impressive; the area I can speak the most to is RM, where he has committed considerable time and energy to one of Wikipedia's more onerous "backstage" tasks. His non-admin closures show great judgement, an impressive understanding of the byzantine policies and guidelines on article titles, and thoughtful consideration of all the viewpoints. He's been instrumental in helping mitigate the ever-present backlog.

The mop and bucket will help BDD be more effective in the functions and processes where's he's already active. It will be nice, for example, to have another knowledgeable and trustworthy admin closing requested moves. I definitely trust him to use the tools responsibly and it's my pleasure to be one of the ones nominating him.

Cúchullain t/c 19:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

Wikipedians, I am honored to introduce to you and nominate the editor BDD. From day one of my own editing history on Wikipedia, I have seen BDD helping out with maintaining such forums as WP:RM, WP:RFD, and WP:AFD, and this editor has not slowed down since. In addition, this editor has shown great knowledge of Wikipedia policies, citing detailed reasons behind performing edits and moves that would have been considered controversial otherwise. As an editor who has ran across BDD's work from time to time in these forums, I have seen that this editor does an incredible job not staying WP:INVOLVED when closing a discussion via clear consensus; especially with page moves, I could see the "admin hat" benefiting BDD's actions greatly. Closing discussions with notes, I have found, has been one of BDD's most productive contributions to Wikipedia, and could benefit in performing those moves with the administrator privileges. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
  • I accept. Thank you both for the kind introductions. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I primarily intend to work on the RM backlog and administer XfDs, especially RfD and AfD. I'd also like to keep CSD and PROD flowing nicely. I can't think of any administrative tasks I'd be uncomfortable performing or unwilling to tackle; I do want to start off with work I'm already familiar with.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I wasn't quite sure what say here. I'm really a generalist, both on Wikipedia and in my professional life. I tell people, half jokingly, that as a librarian it's my job to organize and classify topics I know nothing about. But I really enjoy that sort of thing, whether it's applying detailed Library of Congress Subject Headings to a book on electrical engineering or copy editing articles on cities in India I had never heard of before. I joined WikiProject Idaho a few days ago, but until then, my only affiliations were with WikiProjects Merge and Redirect, plus the Guild of Copy Editors. Creating articles can be a delight. Most that I've created are fairly short, though I am proud of Pro-Life (politician)See below and 007 (Shanty Town). But I really like behind-the-scenes sort of work. I think it's become very sexy these days to identify as a WikiGnome, but this is often how I approach the project, and I think the mop is a good fit for this sort of disposition generally.
Addendum: This was a serious yet honest omission. I'm not the original creator of the Pro-Life article. The article was deleted at AfD in 2008, an administrator restored it for me, and I essentially rewrote it. But it's not entirely correct to suggest I was the article's original creator. Judge for yourself: here's the article at deletion versus its current state. I am proud of this work, but I must acknowledge the work done by others as well. That's the Wikipedia way.
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: Generally speaking, I haven't really gotten involved in any edit wars. One aspect of my gnomish tendencies is that I really don't get very emotional with my edits. I very rarely watchlist articles just because I've added something to them; I generally am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to whoever might make a decision to remove my addition.
The only time I've really come close to 3RR in recent memory was with Pro-Life (politician). I wanted a See also section pointing to Seán Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus, another politician who changed his name to call attention to a pet issue, and I wanted Loftus's article to have a complementary See also. Another editor (who I notice has since been sanctioned for edit warring) reverted my additions, we talked it over on talk pages, and he or she basically just gave up and let it stand. But we were close to 3RR, and if the other editor hadn't given in, I would've done so and wouldn't really have felt upset over it.
Every now and then I get worked up when I feel like policies or guidelines are being ignored in favor of personal preference. I'm not proud of how I basically freaked out at the discussion in this RM. That said, I abided by the ultimate decision, cooled down, and didn't do anything crazy over it. You can't expect an editor to never get emotional, but when the dispute doesn't carry over into other areas of the encyclopedia, I don't think these types of disagreements do any real damage. I don't deny having strong opinions about certain issues, but I just don't let that override the consensus-building process. I'll always advocate reform of WP:USPLACE, for example, when it comes to an RFC, but I'm never going to make disruptive RMs or otherwise ignore USPLACE while it stands.
Additional questions from RockMagnetist
4. One of your opinions is that "notability can absolutely be temporary". Have you been in AfDs where this consideration has affected your vote? How would this opinion affect your closure decision in AfD's?
A: That's a tough one. I think this is one of the areas where Wikipedia policies and guidelines at least rub against each other, if not actually contradict. WP:NTEMP says notability is not temporary. That's a pretty strong statement. We can at least say little-n notability is temporary (cf. 15 minutes of fame). But even big-n, Wikipedia Notability can be temporary. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER urges us to consider "the enduring notability of persons and events." To some extent, that's a directive to engage in speculation. Wikipedia can be a fantastic resource for current events, some of which are very obviously notable, such as major terrorist attacks or political scandals. In fact, I can pinpoint one of the exact moments when I really came to believe in Wikipedia. It happens to have been eight years ago to the day, when Pope Benedict XVI was named. I hadn't seen the news anywhere else, and this is even more impressive in hindsight, as Wikipedia in April 2005 was a very different beast than today, and usually not for the better.
I suspect most editors would love to break a scoop like that, and that contributes to a zeal for coverage of current events. But I think a lot of dross is created in this process. When I vote on such articles at AfD, I tend towards advocating deletion. As I expressed alongside that opinion you refer to, there's no end of news events of yesteryear that could have articles if Wikipedia had been around in the 20th century, for example. And while I know we don't need to worry about having too many articles or anything, I think we'd be cluttered with ephemera that really only indicate a brief flash of interest. And I think there's a difference between topics like that and obscure topics that really do have a non-temporary sort of notability, such as J. Hamilton Lewis, one of my early creations.
In summary, I think Wikipedia documentation is like the US Constitution. It's vague, but it's probably best that way so editors' discretion can prevail in the many gray areas. As for closing AfDs, there's nothing I can say besides that my goal will only be assessing consensus among participating editors. If consensus isn't clear, I'll participate in the discussion myself or leave it for someone else to close. I'm not going to tear up news articles based on my personal opinions.
5. You once had your own Five Pillars on your user page, but you removed them because you now think of them as "dumb". One of these pillars was: "Full inclusion of the arcane - if you can write an article based on actual medieval writings dealing with the properties of and legends surrouding Satan's left big-toe toenail (but please cite your sources!)." Has your thinking on this changed?
A: Haha, yes indeed. As Steel1943 mentioned, I've had an account for a long time, even though I've only been highly active for a bit over a year. I was in high school when I wrote that, and I removed it at one point when I recognized how ridiculous it was. I participated in a few deletion discussions back there, but I'm not sure I ever actually looked at a policy page. My user page was quite silly when I was younger, and I'm not sure it could've passed through MfD entirely intact if it had been so challenged. I could generously be described as an inclusionist then, and to some extent, I think the whole project was. I don't particularly associate myself with any such labels at this point. But no, you're not going to see me making that link blue anytime soon.
Additional questions from Carrite
6. Have you ever edited WP under any other user name or names? If so, what were these?
A: No, not under any other user names. I probably made a few IP edits in high school before I created my account, and I've occasionally probed article histories in search of such edits just for curiosity's sake. I haven't found them, but they may not exist.
7. Your contribution history is interesting, showing just a few edits each month for years and years, sometimes falling to zero, but usually just picking along. Then, starting in February 2012 we see a move to "very active editing," and an escalation in subsequent months. What changed about you or about Wikipedia for you in that period? Are there lessons for us all in your own personal experience about how to turn occasional editors into serious Wikipedians?
A: Hm. It never occurred to me that my experience might have lessons for reversing editor decline. I don't know how much I can offer, though. I rarely edited in college and grad school, and to some extent I feel I have more free time as a professional. I think Wikipedia is just a very good fit for my professional interests. Library school these days has a real focus on digital information, and Wikipedia's mission strongly resembles those of most libraries.
If there's anything in my experience that can be helpful to other editors, it's that once I really started to feel like part of the community, I felt more personally invested in the project. RM really did that for me, because there's definitely a gang of "usual suspects" that regularly combs the list and offers opinions. I don't think we should become a social network or anything, but enhancing interaction and creating bonds between editors could definitely enhance content creation, not distract from it.
8. You indicate an interest in helping out with deletion closures, which I think is a good thing — we do need more dedicated closers at AfD. I see nothing in your AfD track record that is particularly concerning I will note. I would like your opinion on the Keep/Redirect consensus that has emerged at AfD with respect to articles on schools. Do you believe in the wisdom of this consensus and will you support it in your closes? Or do you find it troubling that the actual working consensus on these matters is somewhat different than the written guideline of GNG?
A: That's not a topic I've given a great deal of thought to. The school consensus is refreshing in that it has very clear divisions as to what's notable and what's not, but that's really not how notability is determined. From my own perspective, what makes a high school of a thousand students notable compared to a library branch that may serve tens of thousands? I think a change in that consensus would be smart, but I'd prefer to see it done with an RFC or something. There's no sense in just trying to fight out something on every new school AfD.
Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Hobit
9. You've expressed an interest in closing AfDs, so here's a question on that topic. Say there was a AfD where there were two sources from 6 months ago everyone agreed were reliable (in the NYT and Washington Post let's say) in-depth and independent. There are a few other sources that are independent and reliable (though 2 delete voters debate that point) but all agree those additional sources aren't "in-depth". There are 2 keep !votes on the argument that the topic meets WP:N and 5 delete votes on the argument that the coverage, while otherwise meeting WP:N, was over a short period of time and no non-trivial coverage has occurred since (though some of the poorer sources came 3 months later). How would you close the discussion if
  1. The topic in question was an internet meme
  2. The topic in question was a biography and the articles were about how this person had just happened to be at a wide variety of important historical events (think Forest Gump).
  3. The topic in question was a biography and the articles were about how this person had saved 3 peoples lives by pulling them out of a fire, each person being saved from different fires.
  4. The topic in question is a book.
  5. The topic in question a small, now abandoned, town in Korea that received coverage because of an artifact found there.
A: Always hard to say when we're speaking of hypotheticals, but I can tell you how I'd tend toward. First, though, I'll say that if there were only two votes to keep and two to delete, I'd probably relist first. But let's say it had been, and this is all I was working with. My inclinations would be:
  1. Tend towards deletion, or merging/redirecting as appropriate, such as to an item on List of internet phenomena (as was done with Cigar guy) or a relevant topical article (such as Juggernaut Bitch). This is in line with previous outcomes and the "enduring notability" of topics, as referred to in question 4 above.
  2. Perhaps no consensus, but I really have no idea. I have no frame of reference here, as I can't recall ever seeing such an article at AfD or "in the wild." Umbrella Man (JFK assassination) comes close, essentially a BLP1E whose role is apparently significant enough for his own article. But that's never gone to AfD, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were at least redirected there.
  3. Probably delete. It's not exactly WP:BLP1E, but without further coverage, it sounds like a GNG failure. Compare to Roy Sullivan, whose more extensive coverage firmly establishes notability. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Probably keep per WP:NBOOK, especially the Times and Post articles were reviews. I don't think our coverage of books overall is very good, but as works of art, they're in much the same situation as films. There probably hasn't been a news article on The Waterboy in a decade, but no one's going to take it to AfD. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Probably merge to a nearby settlement or the smallest administrative region in which it's located for which we have an article (what a train wreck of a sentence!). If it's an abandoned town, WP:NPLACE probably won't apply, but the discovery of the artifact sounds like a notable piece of local history worth a mention elsewhere.
Addendum: A few people seemed concerned about this answer, so changing it now seems dishonest. But I thought I'd clarify that I wasn't trying to argue that NPLACE doesn't apply to former settlements, nor does this stem from my views on notability. Truth be told, I never had occasion to consult a notability guideline on places before, so on my first reading of NPLACE, I thought it might only apply to current cities and towns. WP:GEOLAND is clearer that that's not the case. As with question 10, I just want to reiterate that I plan to err on the side of caution with administrative tasks. And as I alluded to in question 4, the task of a closing administrator is not to decide the merits unilaterally, but to assess consensus and argument strength.
Additional question from Mkdw
10. Since you started logging your CSD tags in January, you've only tagged 20 articles. You have only a 72% !vote to consensus outcome percentage at AFD, and you've only participated in 30 AFD discussions in the last 4 months. Many, including myself, would not considering this to be much experience at all, and possibly the area you're the least experienced in of all the areas you do participate. You cite CSD and AFD as the main areas of adminship duties you'd like to participate in. Could you please explain why you feel you have enough experience to be working in these areas?
A: I perhaps thought this would go without saying, but I suppose that was too big an assumption on my part. WP:BEBOLD is terrific advice for the reticent editor who needs encouragement to fully share his or her talents, but I think it's terrible advice for new administrators, especially when it comes to deletion. That's a recipe for disaster. If confirmed as an administrator, I very much intend to delete conservatively until I'm sure I know what I'm doing. I'm not sure how many CSDs I tagged before I enabled logging (though probably not many), but I think I've shown good judgment with what I have tagged. Of the three bluelinks there, there's a dab that was recreated once its listed articles were created, a new dab that replaced a promotional webpage, and a redirect from a semi-notable band. My PROD log is even smaller, but the only blue link there was a complete rewrite compared to what I tagged.
I know from my RM experience how to assess consensus, and again, I'm not going to jump right in to try to close the most contentious discussions. On a practical note, I currently live in the Pacific Time Zone, making me among the last Wikipedia editors to wake up each day. When I first look at the AfDs closing on a given day, the majority are already closed, some by non-admins. Much of what's left are clear delete outcomes simply awaiting administrator attention. In the long run, those certainly aren't the only sort of discussions I intend to close. But I think that's a good place to start. For what it's worth, I listed my interests in question 1 from approximately most to least interest. In the past couple of months I've been at RfD much more than AfD, and if confirmed, you can expect my administrative work to proceed accordingly.
I'm sure the delete button is very exciting for many new administrators, but I want to make clear that I'm not here on a power trip. I first took up admin-like duties at RM simply because I saw a formidable backlog that I could help with. Now, I just want a few more tools to make my work more effective. If you think I'll abuse those tools, I'd certainly understand your position. If not, I hope you'll reconsider.
Additional question from Razionale
11 Carrite has asked you a similar question but this isn't covered. While you have been editing for eight years, a year ago you still had fewer than 3000 edits. Only beginning in February 2012, your monthly edit counts has increased. How would you assure us that your edit counts are unlikely to fall as rapidly as they increased?
A: I can't predict the future, of course, but I do think recent history is more reflective of my overall commitment to the project. Most of those barren years were in college and graduate school. I'm not going to be the same person for the rest of my life, but I think it's fair to say I'll look more like I do now than I did then. And looking at overall trends, I've generally become more active as time goes on. I'm invested in the project in a way I've never been before, so while the question is certainly fair, I personally don't foresee myself lapsing back into inactivity.
Additional question from Northamerica1000
12 What are your overall impressions and opinions about the state of WikiProjects and Portals on English Wikipedia at this time?
A: My impression of WikiProjects is that many more are inactive in practice than only those tagged as such. I think that's a shame—I believe WikiProjects can be great ways to organize groups of editors with common interests to improve relevant articles and to serve as a source of expertise, sort of specialized reference desks, for issues other editors run into. I've left messages on talk pages of a dozen WikiProjects or so, with varying results. In several cases, I was clearly talking to myself. But in others, I found active, helpful groups of editors who left me with very positive impressions. WikiProject Military history, in particular, I've found to be a fantastic group that demonstrates what WikiProjects can achieve, and why they're a great idea. But many, many projects don't even come close to this level. I think the main reason I've been conservative about joining WikiProjects is that if I don't feel I can really do my part to help that project work towards that WPMH ideal, I'm really just wasting everyone's time. I'd rather see a project or task force with three highly dedicated editors than one with a long list of supposedly interested parties that just don't do anything.
As for portals, well, I've hardly ever visited one. I can see where they'd be useful for some readers, but they don't interest me personally.
Thanks for providing your perspective and viewpoints; it is appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • Links for BDD: BDD (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for BDD can be found here.
  • Page stats added to the talk page. mabdul 10:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So many of the comments have considered content creation, and I agree that this is important. But I feel that in some cases, content creation is being equated to the creation of new articles. One of the comments even makes this explicit. IMO this is wrong. When outsiders criticize WP, it isn't so often for paucity of articles as for poor quality, inaccuracy, COI, POV-pushing, trivia, and the last-man-standing nature of many of our ways of doing things. Every article has a maintenance cost -- the cost of filestore may be negligible, but each article needs to be on watchlists to defend against vandalism, each article creation and major edit should really be checked for copyvio, articles that were once dismal new articles are what fill up our cleanup backlogs, etc. So "content creation" should also recognise such things as cleanup, adding sources, copy editing, replacing OR with sourced content, etc. --Stfg (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Stfg, although as GOCE members we may be accused of bias. I've found that outsiders (non-WP editors) are usually pleasantly surprised—or skeptical!—when I point out the good quality of some articles, and hope I live to see the day when WP is less of a punchline than it is currently. Miniapolis 12:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation; several others point to the lack of GA or FA level work rather than article creation count (38 seems OK to me) Jebus989✰ 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They do indeed, which is why I said "... in some cases ..." --Stfg (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nom. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator.--Cúchullain t/c 01:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per noms. INeverCry 23:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per noms. BDD is a strong contributor with thousands of edits and years of experience. I have no problem supporting. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, with great pleasure. I work with BDD at the Guild of Copy Editors (where we're both coordinators), and have seen their good work at RM and AfD. A fine addition to the admin corps. Miniapolis 00:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support There are plenty of important roles on this project, of which content creator is only one of them. BDD has done good work over a number of years. That his primary activity is not content creation is not of concern. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per noms. I don't see a reason not to. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support BDD already wields a broom pretty well, so why not formalize it? I'm not too concerned about the lack of in-depth experience in developing articles because he has contributed so much to the Guild of Copy Editors backlog drives: as his his barnstars attest, he has often been on the leaderboard. We don't all need to take the same route to adminship. My only quibble is a very minor one - what's with all the edits to his user talk archives? I hope that he will keep any current discussions involving administration on his main talk page, so other editors can find them easily. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support barring a completely unexpected answer to pro-forma question 6 above. The heads up about the old 2005 User Page is a good one; someone that "right on" at age 17 is certainly worthy of support after the better part of a decade of additional seasoning (sporting a clean block log and no indications of assholery over that time, unsurprisingly). Concerns about relative lack of content creation are misplaced; administrative functions are only tangential to content writing, which is the reason that some of the best writers are not administrators and some of the best administrators do little in the way of mainspace content creation. An excellent candidate. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support if a qualified editor is asking for the tools to work on requested moves, an area in which hardly any administrator is willing to touch, they should be given the tools pretty much by default. Secret account 03:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I've done a formal review on him previously, and considered nominating him myself, but wasn't sure if I could be around to do a fair job of it. I'm very comfortable handing him the extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support From his hard work in copyediting to his kind and helpful personality, I fully support this candidate. MJ94 (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems to be a good editor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - my father told me you can always trust a W&M grad. In all seriousness, I have run into BDD at AfD several times and have long thought he was a solid admin candidate; glad to see he finally ran. Good luck. Go Phightins! 03:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yea, I've seen him a lot. Good candidate. — ΛΧΣ21 04:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Net positive contributor. TBrandley 07:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, looks good to me. Competent user looking to work in an area that's often short of admins. ~ mazca talk 11:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No Problem.--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support looks like a great candidate for the mop. We'll have the full story... at 11! 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Here since 2004 + no problems = WP:DEAL. Looks solid and trustworthy. Content creation is unrelated to whether he'll use the tools properly, but the candidate has numerous DYKs. He's also surely familiar with current resources, since any academic librarian who was in high school in 2004 hasn't been in the field too long. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. No concerns. Ducknish (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support BDD seems like a good candidate. I also reviewed this editor according to my own user page criteria and am satisfied. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No worries. From what I've seen, BDD is always civil and thoughtful to others, and I definitely think we can trust him with the admin tools. May he be a light in dark places when all other lights go out. (Good luck, and be good.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, although one would be generally concerned regarding the peak of editing leading up to the 2012 election season, upon review of the edits during the months leading up to the 2012 general election in the United States most edits were outside of the realm of politics. The subject of this RfA has become an avid contributor to the community, and works with the GoCE (always a good sign, IMHO), and has a clean block log record.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I can understand opposers who want to see more content work, but I don't accept that admins are a "governing class". Or at least, we're not supposed to be - we're supposed to be a serving class. I know there are some admins who think they're the bosses, and I've clashed with one or two of them in my time. But I do think that those who are best at creating content should create content and those who can serve best by protecting and assisting them in that task should become admins (though I would like to see more overlap in the two roles). So when evaluating candidates at RfA, my final decision to some extent comes down to whether I think they have a "serving" or a "ruling" mentality - and I think BDD fits in the former category quite easily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I understand the opposers in principle, but I think BDD has had content work, certainly enough to know how things operate and have a sense of the difficulties content creators have. I'm impressed by BDD from my interactions with them. Shadowjams (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - no concerns. Tolly4bolly 19:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, looks like a fine editor. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Per noms. - Camyoung54 talk 21:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Good overall experience and a sound understanding of how the back office functions. I'm not really understanding the opposes so far, some of which seem like the typical thread-shitting bitterness that plagues the bottom of RfAs these days. BDD has created some admirable articles such as Steven Amstrup and Extra Virginity. His talk page interactions seem fine, and he seems to have a positive vision for the project. - MrX 22:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Thread-shitting bitterness"? Really?—S Marshall T/C 22:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, unfortunately, really. Note, however, that I said "some (of the opposes)." - MrX 22:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And you think that makes it better? First, I don't know what "thread-shitting bitterness" means precisely, but I suspect it's not a good thing (sarcasm). Second, if I were the candidate, I wouldn't be overwhelmed with gratitude for a support vote couched in this manner. Finally, do you think your comment makes RfAs more constructive?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and I've stricken my above commentary. It was not my intention to disrupt the RfA. I apologize to the community for crossing the line in such an offensive fashion. - MrX 00:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "BDD has created some admirable article". You mean like this one?: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. No concerns.--В и к и T 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Adept at RM. Good luck! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. As much as I respect Malleus, S Marshall and Colonel Warden for their content creation efforts, and Jusdafax for his usually sound reasoning, I must say that I believe that these four gentlemen are singing a tad off-key in this instance. Like them, I like to see well-rounded administrator candidates who have a sound appreciation for editors who create content and have shown some talent for doing so themselves. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, and our principal purpose is to create good content; that purpose includes all users, including admins. That having been said, I think BDD has demonstrated he knows how to write well enough in the English vernacular, and how to create an encyclopedia article based on a dozen or more among the 38 articles he has created. Sure, I would love to see several Good Articles among his accomplishments, but he's also shown that he has a strong command of policy and a head full of good sense. Cheers to you, BDD, good luck as an admin, and never forget why we're all here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I trust you and think you'll make a great administrator. —Soap— 01:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I've no concerns, will make an excellent addition to the admin corps. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 03:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I'm satisfied this candidate has the temperament and experience to wield the mop safely. Some good evidence of dispute resolution on their talk page and archives. Pol430 talk to me 11:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Builders build houses for people to live in. Decorators paint them. Groundwork people prepare sites for builders to build on. Demolition men remove houses that are not sound. Removal men bring the belongings of the people who are going to live in the houses. Legislators make regulations concerning standards of construction and safety. All necessary jobs, unless you live in a grass or mud hut area. They don't all need a full knowledge of each other's jobs. I can't see any reason why BDD won't make a good admin. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - I somewhat share the concerns of some of the opposers but I probably disagree with them on the solution - the answer to a lack of content-creating admin candidates is to nominate some content-creating editors for adminship. Opposing the nominations of those with other skills is not the answer. That's like saying, "we don't have enough police so I'm going to oppose the hiring of more fire fighters". Nominate your content-creators; I'll back them too! Stalwart111 14:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per the opposers. The ones who aren't writing articles 24/7 are the ones that should be admins, not the other way around. Wizardman 16:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support 9 years of experience, coordinating the most important of our clean-up projects, solid experience in the sort of contentious administrative tasks that most admins prefer to avoid, and several DYK articles, when weighed against a lack of a GA, clearly show that BDD has no clue how Wikipedia works. Wait. Strike that. Reverse it. Danger High voltage! 18:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    9 years of experience is a bit of a stretch, by the candidate's own admission Jebus989✰ 20:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, "9 years of experience", sounds impressive! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, a mere 8.5 years of experience with almost 10k article edits. Right, a clear noob. Or maybe the expectations here are utterly absurd. Danger High voltage! 11:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're both trying to nudge you to check out the candidate's editing history broken down by month, it's really a long-held account that's been active for the past year Jebus989✰ 14:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I do understand how links work and have checked the candidate's editing history. Danger High voltage! 14:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an exceptionally weak argument. At this point BDD probably has a comparable article edit count to myself and many others when we became admins. He has been quite active for over a year; that combined with the experience of many years of incremental editing, it's clear the dude's been around the block.--Cúchullain t/c 15:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the weak argument? I'm not claiming a year and 20k edits is not enough for adminship, just that "9 years of experience" could be misleading Jebus989✰ 15:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring more to Ihardlythinkso's comment than yours. The fact is that BDD does have nine years of experience, including a year and more of substantial experience following many years of incremental editing. Even removing the less active years from the equation he's still an experienced editor. At any rate Danger appears not to have been confused.--Cúchullain t/c 18:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise I'm labouring the point but that isn't actually a fact in the traditional sense of the word. The user made their first edit 8 years and 3 months ago, so that has to be some sort of maximum, even if you take the 17 months of 0 edits, 9 months of 1 edit, altogether more than three years of months with <=3 edits as "incremental editing" Jebus989✰ 00:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're belaboring the point, but fine, eight years instead of nine years. And again, over a year of inarguable consistent activity, which is what matters anyway.--Cúchullain t/c 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello? "Exceptionally weak argument." What argument, Cuchullain? (I've made one point here, and one point only. I'm surprised I have to spell it out: "9 years of experience" is misleading, when you look at the facts.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC) And BTW, "incremental" means "increasing", doesn't it? I don't see increasing edits in the candidate edit history, until the last year.[reply]
  45. Support Content creation is important, but the editor has 10 DYKs, which is more than enough for me. All told, plenty of clue and plenty of experience merits plenty of support for BDD. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --Rzuwig► 20:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 20:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Sound candidate. Contributions evidence good judgment. As to the criticism of Q9 response, closing such discussions is a skill best learnt on the job. WP:DRV exists in case of errors. The answers given (if not necessarily perfect) seem to be a sensible starting point for a new admin. WJBscribe (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - An overall net positive for the project. Best of luck to you BDD. — -dainomite   23:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - In addition to the points raised by Secret above, I support this candidate because of their strong contributions and leadership of the Guild of Copy Editors. I hope the opposing comments motivate the editor to promote articles and create more original content. - tucoxn\talk 01:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. LlamaAl (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support — Why not? Kurtis (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support A few of the AFD votes are questionable for me, but overall the candidate seems trustworthy. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No concerns for me. Widr (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I don't normally participate in RfAs, but in view of the reservations being related to content creation and being a content animal (more or less than those raising reservations), I'd say DYK quality counts for more than quantity of content. There have been admins with less DYK. In any case what is needed is temperament, and BDD has that. Look also at who is nominating. Support. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. If an editor has 10,000 edits to mainspace, and someone pops up to suggest that the editor has no content experience, that person should be ignored. Other than that, this is a thunk-he-was-already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support No problems here - Mop please!! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, based on review. Like others, I would like to see more content work over time. Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Weak Support candidate has sufficient content contributions to satisfy my criteria, and otherwise seems clueful and mostly sensible. Weak because I'm nervous about handing them the delete button. The idea in their answer to Q9 that because a town becomes uninhabited it loses its notability is troubling especially when they thought that was supported by wp:NPLACE ϢereSpielChequers 14:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: My experience with the candidate has been very, very, good! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. I join with several of the editors above in thinking that BDD was already an admin - and that speaks, I think, to BDD's general reasonableness. I don't agree necessarily with some of their AFD !votes, but I appreciate that there is a reasoning behind them - it's not just "Keep because reasons" or whatever. If the tools are granted in this case, I believe we would find ourselves with another thoughtful admin who would not jump headfirst into things and screw them up - and we've been lacking that sort of admin recently. I read through the opposes, and - while I respect my esteemed colleagues under that heading - I find them unpersuasive. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - With Wikipedia having more than 4 million articles already, it's not easy to find a subject for creating a new notable one, let alone start a GA or FA from scratch. The certain lack of content creation and his statements/answers above convince me that he would be a rather excellent admin... Kraxler (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I like this candidate's history with Wikipedia. I think this candidate's decision-making processes would be appropriate for the project. - stillnotelf is invisible 16:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - I've been aware of the user and their work for some time now, and I generally have confidence in their judgement and understanding of Wikipedia. I'm surprised to find from the responses to questions that the user is no older than mid-20s, as I perceived them to be somewhat more mature than that age implies. I don't like the peculiar answers to Q9 -- they caused me to reconsider my opinions of the user, but I think we can trust the user to have the good sense to be more cautious about closing AFDs than those answers indicated. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - User seems solid in their work. Not a major article writer and I would like to see more content work but admins don't do much of that anyway so this is probably a good fit. Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per Shadowjams and Nyttend. The candidate is helpful and clueful with just about enough content experience to be trusted with the tools. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I see no reason not to trust the user with the tools.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. User was helpful at a recent RfM I started and has a solid edit history; the "content creation" aspect is important, certainly, but not everyone does content creation and BDD wants to use the tools for work with moves and the like, so I don't see a problem. Stalwart111 and Peridon above hit the nail on the head: some people do lots of stuff, other people specialize. So what? Ignatzmice•talk 01:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Hardworking editor with plenty of clue. Already familiar with behind-the-scenes, janitorial type tasks. About time they had a mop! --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. On Wikipedia, as in the larger world, there are creators and there are custodians of that which has been created. Both roles are critical, and neither should be dismissed as inferior or unimportant. Of course, there are those who flourish in both roles, but likely there aren't enough of them to constitute a sufficient pool of RfA candidates. BDD looks to be a highly competent, productive editor who would not abuse the tools. Rivertorch (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Looks like they will be a helpful, productive, and trustworthy admin. Kaldari (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. A good candidate. Good luck. — Scott • talk 09:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. As per Shadowjams and Nyttend. Further long term user has 10 DYKs with creating 38 articles.Feel the user can trusted with tools and see no scope for misuse based on track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. This is the type of non-controversial editor needed among admins. Deli nk (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. The candidate seems trustworthy and knowledgeable, and I don't see any red flags. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Candidate seems to be trustworthy, knows what's going on, has experience working in the background. I don't buy into the content-creation requirement - different editors work in different arenas. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Lots of good experience working in admin-related areas, good communication skills, I don't see any problems. CaSJer (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support no concerns -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Solid work at WP:RM. Favonian (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support: Greatly productive and knowledgeable. Monterey Bay (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. I like the look of highly detailed answers to the questions. It makes me think that he will have solid admin skills. Minima© (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support High edit-counts and nice answers. -Angelo1345 (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support While there may be concerns raised about content creation, 10 DYKs still represents a large amount of work, especially when content creation is not everyone's forte, and it is also more than quite a few of our most respected admins.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. WP:NETPOS. Reviewed the candidate eralier and no reason to suppose he can't use the buttons wisely. Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - looks good to me.Deb (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Technical 13 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - it's been such a very long time since I last got to do that. I agree with Malleus and others below, knowledge of content creation is important in administrators, but I disagree it's important in all administrators. Wikipedia, as a project, needs a wide variety of different 'types' of administrators, it's nice we have some who focus on images, others who focus on templates and yet more who try and deal with the vandalism that's so prevalent. WP exists in a state where compromise is essential and no one solution is perfect, having content led administrators would be good for many things but not everything, so when good candidates come forward who will be a net positive to the project, even if they don't have a FA, GA, DYK and the triple crown, I feel we should support them and make use of the skills they offer the community. Nick (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Net positive, clueful editor. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support we could use some help on the non-drama section of the XfD such as WP:RFD. Oh BTW, GA's, FA's and other shinies are not required by law although some people think so. --Lenticel (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support with great enthusiasm. I have worked with him on RM and some AFDs in the past and completely respect his approach to the process, and believe he already makes a great addition to the non-administrative work and promoting him with a mop only improves his ability to contribute further. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Saw his sig around; impressed by how clearly he explained his thoughts in discussions. A row of GA, FA, etc. topicons isn't needed. Trust is. He has mine. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 03:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Answers appear generally clueful, no reason to think tools will be abused. (And I still haven't done a GA...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. I'm not concerned by the supposed 'lack' of content creation, and I think we can trust BDD not to abuse the tools. It's no big deal. — sparklism hey! 06:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support – This person comes across as trustworthy and competent to utilize the administrative tools on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, though I would strongly recommend the candidate be cautious with non-housekeeping CSD nominations, given the lack of experience there and the mistaken tagging of Oakwud (though the answer to Q10 is encouraging in this regard). Otherwise seems perfectly qualified with no red flags. I think RfA actually has the opposite problem to that identified by some of the opposers: a lot of editors now expect candidates to have "content creation", which isn't defined as contributing to articles, or even writing articles, but as something closer to writing GAs and FAs. The skills required to do this have basically nothing to do with the vast majority of administrative work. Hut 8.5 18:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support...opposes offer a few extremely minor red flags, but not enough to believe that this editor will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 18:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I thought they were already an admin, but that's because I confused their name with User:Bbb23 :-) Seriously, though, I think they're plenty qualified. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support great user, with a good record of content creation as well.--Snow Blizzard 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Moved from oppose. See below. Mkdwtalk 00:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support While I lend a great deal of weight to several of the opposes below, specifically Hobit and DGG's, I find them as a majority to be unconvincing. The candidate is unlikely commit any intentional asshattery that is going to break the encyclopedia. That works for me. Trusilver 00:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support BDD has been a good RM closer and gives the appearance of being a thoughtful person. Giving him the opportunity to expand into other administrative areas of the project will, I believe, benefit the project. --regentspark (comment) 00:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Mediran (t • c) 00:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. There are a few valid rationales in the oppose section - which has degenerated into the typical example of why suitable candidates are reluctant to run for admiship - but my research plus instinct confirm that this candidate is mature and can be trusted not to abuse the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support The Transhumanist 07:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support – A great contributor with a ton of experience and a clean track record that speaks for itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. "Trust" seem to not be in question. Sufficient content work. Admin Help at WP:RM is needed. Please be cautious with speedy deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support per Dirtlawyer1. Nobody is an allrounder and I have no problems with admins focussing on (or mainly working in) specific areas.  Yintan  15:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I don't see the lack of extensive content creation experience as a major factor for an editor who primarily wants to help with a RM backlog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support per clean block log and no indication of troublesome behavior that would suggest abusing these tools. Have come across him in AfDs and found him easy to communicate with. Content creation would be nice, but I do not find it a requirement. If there are issues regarding adding and removing content that requires admin involvement, I hope he will seek additional input in such matters. It's just not a reason to oppose him being able to use the tools. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - no major concerns; I actually thought you already were one! GiantSnowman 18:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Per pretty much everyone else. In response to the opposition over lack of a GA, I'd say that his dozen or so DYKs are probably equivalent in work to at least one GA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. I've tried to take the oppose arguments very seriously, and I have thought about them carefully before landing here. It seems to me that the concerns are about what could happen: bad decisions due to lack of detailed content work, bad decisions about deletion discussions. However, I just don't see anything to make me believe that these things will actually be problems if the candidate becomes an administrator. I see plenty of evidence that the candidate listens thoughtfully to feedback and is ready to self-correct, and I see enough experience with content. I also note that the long history of the user account began when the candidate was still quite young, so I'm more interested in today than in long ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - The encounters I've had with BDD have always left me with a feeling that the editor was a competent and greatly useful contributor. I have no worries that he will continue helping to improve Wikipedia with his new tools. I want to note, again, that I find "lack of content creation" to be a very poor reason to oppose. Wikipedia needs content contributors. Wikipedia needs editors interested in discussions and dispute resolution. Wikipedia needs gnomish editors. Wikipedia needs administrators. Some users are lucky enough to be part of more than one of those categories. Requiring RfA candidates to be content-oriented, discussion-oriented and maintenance-oriented all at once is really fucking stupid and it's the reason why hardly anybody wants to volunteer for an RfA, and even less make it through. Y'all need to chill out and let people who want to help actually do so, as long as they're not grievously inexperienced or have shown poor behaviour or judgement. Granted, if the process for revoking adminship wasn't so cumbersome, perhaps it would help, but that's another debate altogether. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For additional disclosure, see the list of pages which BDD and I have both edited, mixing participation, nomination and closing from both of us. I couldn't find one specific example where either of us disagreed with consensus or with each other, although I would've liked to in order the highlight the user's ability to discuss constructively and rationally to work towards consensus. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Per noms.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Impressed by self-disclosure and sense of humility. I see a net positive here. This inclusionist has no concerns with thoughtful deletionists. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Without reservation. Dru of Id (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support No worries. Looks good. TheStrikeΣagle 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. BDD has been very helpful in closing WP:RM requests, and being an admin will be able to help eliminate the backlog there. WP:RM is designed to not have a backlog, if enough admins were available to close or relist the requests. Apteva (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. No significant content experience therefore no real understanding of how Wikipedia actually works, or more often doesn't work. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although I wouldn't put it quite like Malleus, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the ratio of content-creating sysops to non-content creating ones. We're in the process of electing a governing class who see content creation as something other people do, and although we can appoint these people, we can't un-appoint them if we turn out to have made a mistake. I don't think you need to write content to understand Wikipedia, but I do think you need to write content to achieve a full understanding of the problems and issues facing content-creators. I would support next time if this candidate could show either (a) evidence of collaborating with others to build a more substantial article or (b) evidence of having written audited content by himself (e.g. a Good Article).—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You, Malleus and other "content creators" (among whom I've noticed increasing snobbery in recent years) may not understand—or may take for granted—the role of copyediting in your GAs and FAs. Such you're no-good-because-you're-not-like-me elitism has no place in a collaborative project; we can't all be equally proficient at everything. Time was when experience, interpersonal and communications skills and a good grasp of policy and guidelines were sufficient qualification for the mop. Miniapolis 14:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. We'll have the full story... at 11! 15:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Did that cap fit?—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all content creators, some are just more prolific than others. I didn't get my first GA until after getting the bit, and likely would not have without the exceptional patience and hard work of Malleus, who opposed me at RFA and I now consider a dependable friend. Opposing for these reasons is perfectly fine even if I disagree. I do think that demeanor, ability to stay calm, and objectivity are more important traits for an admin with the block button, as long as they have enough experience to understand the difficulties in generating FA and GA class work, and truly respect those talents. Some create fluid prose with seemingly little effort, others write excellent code, while some of us simply mop up. As long as mutual appreciation and respect is there, we are better served by doing what we each do best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, I think that you are right in saying that BDD does not have the right experience for some kinds of admin duties. For example, without experience in collaborating with others to build a more substantial article, I wouldn't recommend forays into WP:ANI. However, I think there is every reason to think that BDD will stick with the sort of tasks he has experience in, such as AfD and RM. I doubt any admin candidate has ever been strong in all areas that are relevant to admin duties. Does that reassure you at all? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, my concerns are only with two tools: block and deletion. I don't really care who has access to the others and who doesn't. I've been on the receiving end of a bad block, and I've fairly extensive experience of Wikipedia's deletion processes. Reversing a bad decision in either field is possible but expensive in Wikipedia's most valuable resource (which is volunteer time). Therefore I decide based on whether I'd trust a user with both tools. In this specific case I would have no concerns at all about giving BDD access to the block button. Given the lack of content contributions, I would not want this user to have the capacity to delete articles.

    I've been an active participant at Deletion Review for rather a long time. By its nature, DRV is often concerned with the most difficult and controversial deletion decisions and it gives you a good overview of the cost of a bad deletion decision... you can lose editors as well as content. Years there have taught me to dislike seeing non-content creators deleting content.

    If I had my druthers, then nobody would have access to the "delete" button until they'd written a piece of content they're passionate about, poured their heart and their soul into it, and then logged back a few days later to find it gone because an American teenager making four edits a minute thought it might be spam and tagged it for G11, and an inattentive sysop didn't check.

    If the candidate had pledged not to delete anything, then I would withdraw my opposition, but he has not and I have no reason to think he will.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not without precedent. I believe I was the first and only editor to pass an RfA due to a willingness to do CSD mentoring, which I completed thanks to DGG and Boing!. I'm not suggesting he needs mentoring, but I think he would tread very lightly in areas that others point out here. It boils down to trust. I was fortunate that others trusted me to complete what I promised, something I still feel indebted to them for. I trust BDD to tread lightly. It would be a shame to lose a good, trustworthy potential admin over a legitimate but solvable concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a possibility besides 'losing a good potential admin.' It's generally referred to as, not now. It appears that some above have misconstrued that and also SMarshall's reference to Good Article. Perhaps, if the candidate could show where he has successfully "fought" for content creation in the appropriate ways? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:YESNOW. "Come back in six months" (or whenever) is tossed lightly at seasoned candidates by those with no firsthand experience of what an RfA entails. I wonder if editors who keep detailed records of others' contribs have quantified the percentage of failed RfA candidates who come back for a second (or further) attempt; I know that if I hadn't squeaked through mine, there was no way in hell I was going to put myself through that again. It's telling that the RfA process is apparently unrepairable; I'm not advocating handing the mop to patently unqualified candidates, but fewer potentially-good admins seem to feel that the ordeal (as currently structured) is worth the access to two buttons. Miniapolis 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your process criticism does not address the issue, which is that people are going to be looking for particular experience, the only way to address that is to show that experience. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and admins have tenure. For the moment, the community can appoint them but not dismiss them. If there was a functioning community de-adminship process then I would be less cautious, but as of now, "oppose" is reversible and "support" isn't, so I'm afraid that if I have any reasonable doubt, I oppose. It's normal and accepted practice to oppose for lack of content contributions—it's not some kind of weird aberrant behaviour—and I'm confident that closers give such !votes their full weight.

    Yes, RFA is a nightmare. (Ask me how I know.) But that's not my fault.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  3. Oppose I was interested in this question of content creation so I looked above where the candidate seems to suggest that he's proud of creating Pro-Life (politician). But, on close inspection, that article was started by someone else and the candidate just expanded it. Looking at the contributions for last October, I notice the creation of List of breweries in Idaho. This seems quite weak in that none of the entries are blue-links and the source is quite promotional in tone ("Visit Idaho"). And, as the candidate is quite proficient with redirects, it's surprising that he didn't go on to create redirects for the distinctive brewery names like Laughing Dog Brewery. As the candidate is a librarian, I would have expected them to do a better job by turning up sources like Beer and Brewing in the Inland Northwest, 1850 to 1950 or Great American Craft Beer. My impression is that the candidate still has a lot to learn. Warden (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that out. I've written an addendum above clarifying the status of Pro-Life. I had honestly forgotten that the article had been restored after deletion. I believe my work amounted to a rewrite, but it's not correct to imply that I was the article's original creator. As for the brewery list, I mostly wanted to make for Idaho the standard sort of list we have for many states. Like basically all of my short articles, this is one I'd like to improve in the future, especially now that I've joined WikiProject Idaho. And I'd like to join WikiProject Beer at some point, too. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - After some thought, I am with the opposes here, and Colonel Warden and S Marshall bring up some specific concerns that have me in agreement with them. Admins should be a bit more well-rounded than the candidate appears to be, and since Wikipedia adminship is for life as currently construed, six months of seasoning in dedicated content creation would not be a bad thing. Jusdafax 22:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I honestly appreciate your detailed answer to my rather annoying question. And I fully realize that answering a hypothetical can be fairly bogus. But the answers scare me a bit. Hobit (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 9.1 would seem to contradict your commitment from 4 to not let your commitment to "my goal will only be assessing consensus among participating editors" rather than your opinion that WP:NTEMP isn't valid.
    • 9.3 not sure how it could be a GNG failure when it meets the requirements of the GNG and no one in the discussion argued otherwise.
    • 9.4 Your reading of NPLACES would be again a failure to recall WP:NTEMP. Further I have issues with suggesting a merge when that wasn't an outcome from the discussion. Better to !vote there for certain if you think an outcome not proposed in the discussion is the right outcome.
    I suspect you will be successful in this RfA, and looking at the whole of your contributions I don't think that will be a disaster. I do urge you to endeavor to keep your views away from your closes. Hobit (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed the addendum to 9. I think that lowers my worries a bit. Mainly the ability to acknowledge the issue... Hobit (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose As far as I can tell, the ed. still thinks that notability is only valid if it's permanent. The example for an abandoned town illustrates it: there is nothing in NPLACE saying what he thinks. The actual practice is at WP:NGEO, " Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. ." It's not a formal guideline, because it is almost impossible to establish a notability subguideline due to stubborn objections to anything proposed, but it's consistent practice.I'm also concerned at some recent AfD contributions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Turner and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Research Institute where the ed. did not consider the possibility of merging or redirecting. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger you old friend, but in the first example, he seems quite open to any outcome and admits he isn't sure what it needs, a perfect example of why AFD should be Articles for Discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Regretful oppose. Moved to support. BDD, you expressed an interest in CSD but according to User:BDD/CSD log you've only conducted 20 CSD tags in 2013. Most importantly, the AfD Statistics Tool reports in your last 250 AFDs you only meet the outcome consensus 72% of the time. You also only participated in 10 AFD dicussions in March, 11 in February, and 8 in January. Considering these are the areas of adminship you want to specifically work in, you do not have enough experience. Will possibly change depending on answer to question 10. Mkdwtalk 08:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be useful to express AfD participation in terms of a win-loss record rather than a mystical single percentage figure. According to the STATS TOOL, in a career total of 192 AfDs offering an opinion, excluding the "unusual" outcomes of Merge, Redirect, and No Consensus, BDD has a with consensus "win-loss record" of 38-5 (88.3%) voting advising Keep and 87-17 (83.6%) advising Delete. That shouldn't be a concerning number in either instance, in my estimation. The real issue is whether the candidate will be able to set aside their own opinions in establishing a consensus to close — a question which isn't directly measurable from this set of statistics. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For benchmark purposes, parsing the data the same way, in the last 250 cases you would be 37-1 (97.4%) advising Keep and 127-7 (94.8%) advising Delete; I'd be 56-4 (93.3%) advising Keep and 75-4 (94.9%) advising Delete. I guess it depends on the level of matching results it is reasonable for one to expect. If we can draw a conclusion about the candidate from these numbers, it is that they might be a bit quick on the deletion trigger-finger — something to keep in mind. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am leery of the fact that he lacks enough experience to close AFD's where the consensus is barely in place and some times against the tally. We need more admins handling the difficult closes. We've seen some bad closes lately and it has some times been frustrating for the AFD participants. That said I don't think DBB will abuse his powers, break the system, or intentionally cause harm to the process. As such I'm moving to support and I hope he spends a considerable amount of time easing into closing close call AFDs. If I could leave DBB (you) with one piece of advice, 'no consensus' outcomes can be just as bad as a wrong decision which many admins don't fully consider. Mkdwtalk 00:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Lack of CSD participation, as well as content creation, make this a no. Buggie111 (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Q9 and Hobit. These answers were eccentric. Also per Malleus; RfA candidates should have some content creation under their belt. --John (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, don't 10 DYKs count as "some content creation"? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, with all due respect, DYK seems to be more about quantity (ie wordcount) and little meaningful quality audit is performed. I'm talking about GA, FA or similar. Not as a badge of honour, and not to make adminship a reward, but because it is otherwise very hard for an admin to understand the concerns of consent creators who, for example, have their hard work fucked over by Randy from Boise, and get blocked for swearing or the like and then leave the project. There are too many Randys here and not enough writers. I am sorry as I am sure the candidate is a decent person offering to serve the community and all. But this is my settled position. --John (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Thank you for explaining your position. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    John, I agree that experts should be encouraged to contribute and they shouldn't have to deal with Randy from Boise; but I'm not sure what you are afraid BDD will do. Delete a GA-quality article? Block a frustrated expert? RockMagnetist (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose IMO the candidate seriously lacks editorial judgement ... I agree w/ User:Shearonink at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, the candidate never responded to Shearonink, and the supporters who did respond, didn't do BDD's position any favors. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There were plenty of comments I didn't respond to there, but I still don't find Shearonink's arguments very convincing. Like several other delete voters there, he or she seemed to confuse the validity of the conspiracy theories with their notability—a classic WP:VNT fallacy. The user's opening statement was how "several [references] are not about how these theories hold water," which is completely beside the point. There also seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY in the argument. I'm sorry you found those who did respond not to your liking. This seems like guilt by association. But you're free to disagree. Thanks for your comments. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BDD, Shearonink prepared an extensive and clear counter at the AfD, and you didn't reply at all. You wrote above he "seemed to confuse the validity of the conspiracy theories with their notability-a classic WP:VNT fallacy", and I think that is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the point he made at that AfD. His point was that the preponderance of the references which passed the article as far as meeting WP:GNG, focused on the blatant obsurdity (falseness) of the conspiracy theory/theories they dealt with. However, your article was not constructed according to those RSs. (He suggested an alternative title that was consistent with the supporting RSs would be Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting fringe theories rather than your title Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories.) My way of expressing this clearly is that the RSs were about "x" (x = the outrageous fictions cropping up in the aftermath of the tragedy in the form of conspiracy theories), but your article topic was not "= x", your article topic focuses on the theories themselves, a mistaken translation from RSs to justification for your article thrust and structure, essentially implying through careful NPOV presentation in your article write-up that these theories could perhaps carry some validity, when that was entirely inconsistent with your set of RSs at the time of the AfD. User:Shearonink further questioned (in his next post) why an article exists that presents these debunked theories, thus implicitly conveying to them notability and significance, when the RSs didn't support that view at all. You have mistakenly, in this RfA even when it is brought to your attention, misconstrued Shearonink's point and contribution at that AfD. And IMO, Shearonink was correct about your RSs, and the focus of your article and its title were summarily misguided and misleading. Especially given the nature of the tragedy (age and numbers dead), I especially found this inapprpriate and sloppy on your part, which I have in my !vote called a serious lack of editorial judgement, and that is the why behind my criticism and vote. You have wrongly concluded Shearonink's counter at the AfD was based on fallacy, but if there is a fallacy present, it is from you and two quite extremist supports of the AfD'd article (one example of extreme policy-literal argument was exhibited when one supporter of your article said "Utter junk covered by 50+ reliable sources is wiki worthy. end of discussion." and another supporter said "You could have the fakest fake thing of all things fake [which explains most fringe science], but if it received extensive coverage, then that wouldn't matter. The truthfulness of a subject is irrelevant."), and you all have basically offered a single one-dimensional defense of the article only, namely that it passes notability and GNG due to having a set of identifiable reliable sources. When the notability and existence of sources weren't in question at all by numerous responders there but it was pointed out to you and the other supporters, including by Shearonink, that having RSs isn't sufficient to warrant an article, and in Shearonink's argument, he was willing to grant an article, but showed you how the focus and title weren't defendable by the sources you used in making the article.

    Here are Shearonink's two posts so that you can re-read them and see for yourself how you have misinterpreted and misrepresented his position at this RfA, and unfairly charged him with failing by a fallacy that he doesn't evidence in his counter at all: post 1, post 2. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like you're basing your opposition on a personal disagreement and the actions of other users at one AfD.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cúchullain. No. Not because others gave poor answers to Shearonink's concerns, in lieu of any reply from BDD. Because there was no good reply, because IMO Shearonink was correct. (Why are you attempting to mischaractize the reason for my vote as something personal, based on your misperceptions what I wrote, when what I wrote was clear enough?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that still sounds like you're opposing this RFA because you disagreed with his opinion at one AFD.--Cúchullain t/c 01:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate the obvious attempts to marginalize & minimalize my view by attempting to mischaracterize with "his opinion" and "at one AFD". (By saying "his opinion", you seem to be somehow asserting that I cannot, or should not, draw my own conclusion as to the level of editorial judgement of the candidate. Is that what you are saying? Your argument seems to be that "all opinions have to be deemed equal at AfDs", and one cannot use them as basis for assessing the editiorial judgement of an editor? That is the only sense I can make of what you seem to be saying here, and, that is patent nonsense. Additionally, saying it was "at one AFD" is further attempt to minimize and marginalize, as though "one" in number somehow makes what I believe was a serious example of editorial misjudgement somehow less important or less severe. [If you were an attorney defending a capital murder case, would you tell the jury to acquit because your client, if guilty, had murdered "only once" and not more? Bogus argument, Cuchullain.]) I have no idea why you chimed in here, except to badger. The fact you are mischaracterizing and even objecting to my having the view I do, separate from the substance of it, is a bit tacky, in that you think you need to defend your candidate by such tactics, and that you want him promoted by any means or reason. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My only intention here was to question what I consider a very weak reason to oppose someone's RfA. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.--Cúchullain t/c 03:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not buying it. (If that were true, Cuchullain, then guess what? I don't need you to come here to tell me that I am entitled to my own opinion and !vote. Somehow, I already know that. And the fact you spent zero effort to look at the substance of my opinion, instead choosing to marginalize, minimize, and attack it on the exterior -- that my view stemmed from an AfD, and that the AfD was one AfD, not multiple -- well, that seems tacky to me.) Fact is, I've been waiting for you to stop badgering so I can concentrate on a substantive reply to the candidate's response. (Can you please permit it, without further attacking me in shameless defense of your nom??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I'm also concerned about the lack of content creation experience. Mine might class as weak oppose, but with no real ability to remove an admin once they're appointed, I have to fall into the oppose category. Intothatdarkness 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose Yesterday I checked out his content contributions to see if the opposing editors had a point. Because he has no notable articles and his 10 Dyk articles are the basis for the counter-claim of his supporters, I checked out his latest Dyk. I was welcomed by a vastly oversized portrait, which was at first normal and then it was oversized by the candidate [1]. Perhaps "normal" is not a good word because the creator of the image (not the candidate), who also removed the salary and a first name in the article, seems to be very close to the subject of the article and that should have been investigated by this candidate too. But the fact that he does not know the normal size of images is enough for me to believe he has a lot to learn.--Razionale (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair it looks like that was just a copy editing error.[2] We've all made them.--Cúchullain t/c 12:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) That image resize doesn't seem at all intentional to me. I'm surprised that someone would let such a little editing error have any impact on whether they are suitable to be an administrator or not. Deli nk (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was not intentional, he was not using "preview" nor at least having a look at the result for all three consecutive edits. An oversized image is easy to notice. On top of that, the article was supposed to be proof of his content experience and those ten Dyk articles would have to be sparkling like diamonds to justify his lack of awarded articles.--Razionale (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hilarious. But yes they must have been trying to remove the thumbnail frame, I've fixed it now Jebus989✰ 12:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. The main problem is the suspiciously enthusiastic nomination by Cuchullain, who has a hobby of making trouble for me. Kauffner (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you taking your quarrel with the nominator out on the nominee? Steel1943 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, perhaps the nominations should be made anonymously. Kauffner (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could judge a candidate on their merits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dealt BDD quite a bit and, yeah, he's a cool guy and all. But if this RFA goes through, he obviously owes Cuchullain one. Kauffner (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like your vote is more of a "Support" or "Neutral." If you think that BDD is "a cool guy and all," why negatively affect BDD's RfA by voting "Oppose"? Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So we shouldn't weigh your !vote when the RfA gets closed, got it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm rather hoping EVula is stating that with his bureaucrat hat firmly on. In my opinion this vote should be completly discounted by the closing 'crat. A simple "oppose" and no reason would have be fine (if unhelpful). This however, adds nothing to the debate about the candidate at all. Pedro :  Chat  20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually vastly better that Kauffner has explained himself, and thus ensured that no closing 'crat will take his comment seriously, than simply say "oppose" and lure folk into stating that his opinion be counted regardless of whether it's substantiated or not. And with that, I do hope that people will stop biting on this desperate bit of trolling. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Um No??? Is that the best you have? FFS I spent time editing that comment, to make it as neutral as possible, to respect that we have no consensus that blank "oppose" and blank "supports" aren't equally valueless. And I still get fucking picked up on it? Screw it. This place is a shit hole filled with pernickity twats, and it ain't getting any better. Thanks at least for finally opening my eyes Thumperwad if nothing else Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, Pedro, relax. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Pedro, my impression of Thumperward's comment is that he mostly agrees with you. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, RockMagnetist, you're probably looking at the current version, not the one he first saved that I responded to - one that he edited prior to my response due to me shifting from tablet to computer. Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he had an "ummm, no" [3]. But no need to be upset. Let's all relax.--Razionale (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, I've only blocked one person in the 5 1/2 years I've been an admin, but if I ever see you use language like that again, I will consider exercising that power a second time. As a Wikipedian, and especially as an admin, you should have infinitely more tact than that. If I were you, I would be ashamed of that comment, regardless of what Chris said. -- Mike (Kicking222) 09:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like it would be toeing the line on punitive blocks. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unfortunate this discussion became derailed. I do hope the closing bureaucrat will ignore this oppose, since Kauffner has made it as clear as possible that it's entirely vindictive and has nothing to do with the candidate himself.--Cúchullain t/c 16:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not pretend to speak for others. I vote in my own interests. For this, I get accused of trolling. Do the truly fair-minded vote to sanction themselves? It is possible that I am not the only editor who supports English-language article titling. If you look at Cuchullain's talk page, perhaps you can understand why I oppose this nomination. Kauffner (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On his talk page, I see your name in reference to Vietnamese naming. Your position is against diacritics. BDD is for Vietnamese diacritics: [4]. You're suspicious that this is one of the reasons or the main reason why Cuchullain supports the candidate. Is this correct?--Razionale (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, certainly. Vietnam is an editing focus of mine, but Cuchullain involvement in this area seems to be mostly about getting back at me. BDD has already closed against a Vietnam-related RM of mine at least once. There are only a few people actively editing in the area, so he could have an impact. But this hardly the only reason. Cuchullain has disrupted several of my RMs and is campaigning to have me sanctioned. My reading of BDD is that he is a Wiki-politician. I am sure that is useful skill in many respects, but it is not likely to work out to my benefit. As a good politician, BDD does of course recognize that I am a potential roadblock, and he has proposed RMs in advance of this RFA catering to my pet peeves. Kauffner (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Fruitless oppose The second I mention "lack of content creation", the beuraucrat will move on to the next oppose and completely ignore anything I have to say as past precedent has shown for the past several years. Despite that, it is still the reason I'm opposing this candidate and I'll continue to do so with every candidate that can't be bothered to expand articles, regardless of what closing bureaucrats and current administrators think. I don't have a "good article," nor do I care to apply for one even though I've made significant contributions, but if admins want to consider me a 'snob' for daring to have a dissenting opinion, so be it. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not fruitless, Vodello. I'm quite confident that bureaucrats give full weight to opposes based on lack of content contributions. It's a normal and conventional position to take and I'm sure you will not be disregarded. You may be outvoted—this RFA may well fall into the band where bureaucrats have no discretion about the outcome—but there's no need to feel that the bureaucrats are disregarding you.

    "Oppose" positions based on lack of content contributions will always attract antagonistic commentary from those who don't write content. This is normal, and it's to be understood as a defensive reaction. They're saying this because they feel undermined by the oppose—i.e. the cap fits them too.

    By tradition, RFA permits a high degree of hostility in the comments section. Although this is unpleasant it's also temporary. I think you'll find that once the RFA is closed, it's all over. Hostility doesn't normally carry over from one RFA to another.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If "the cap fits them too", S Marshall, then in disregarding their comments what should the 'crats make of yours and Vodello's, given that you've less articlespace contibs put together than the candidate does? (At least once upon a time editors insistent in perpetuating this "content contributor" myth had the decency to, like, primarily contribute to content themselves.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not running for adminship. You can also argue that a Pope should be able to speak at least five languages, while not speaking at least five languages yourself.--Razionale (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Without opining on the merit of either, I'll note that quantity and quality are not the same thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to comment here because this has been brought up several times. Above everything else at Wikipedia, I'm a content editor. I'm extremely sympathetic to those wary of admins who lack article writing experience, but that's just not BDD. He's a solid content writer. As I said in my nom, in addition to his "heavier" article work, he's a prolific copy editor, and that's an important part of article writing. One of the most frustrating things to content writers is the "attrition" good writing can face under the pressure of well-intentioned but retrograde changes. In those cases, good copyeditors help immensely to preserve article quality, and BDD is one of those who set themselves to that task..--Cúchullain t/c 16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say, Thumperward, that not all edits are equal and you might find comparison of the content of those edits enlightening.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 19:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll either speak plainly or you'll keep your peace. Explain why your own contributions, which are dwarfed by many of those challenging your position, are more worthwhile than those you're attempting to have discounted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, yes sir! Your humble minion quakes before your wrath and hastens to obey your order.

    First, I'm saying that there are small edits and big edits. Your metric counts both of those equally, and they're clearly not equal contributions. Second, I'm saying that content contributors do significant work in their userspace, sandboxes, or offline which your metric values at zero. I'm saying that content contributions are best measured by looking at the content of the pages the user has created, and the number of references and footnotes found and added (which values the research work that the candidate has done). Copyediting of other people's contributions is of course a valuable thing to do and I'm not denigrating it. However, I also don't think it can be equated with researching and writing content.

    I assessed the candidate's work by examining the pages he's created and the articles to which he's made the most edits. The way to rebuff what I say is not to accuse me of hypocrisy, nor to threaten me with your big admin's bludgeon, but to show me some piece of content work that he's done but I've missed.—S Marshall T/C 10:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't actually meaning to address your original oppose. I don't think it's correct, but I can understand why editors would—regardless of their own contributions—wish for candidates to have content experience. When I said "yours and Vodello's" above, what I was taking issue with was the aspersions you were casting over those who disagreed with you: specifically, that they were doing so because they felt "undermined" by edit quality being questioned, and by insinuation were attempting to jealously exclude "content contributors" and their ever-present cultists from joining the admin corps. By not naming names, you cast those aspersions over the group as a whole (much as Vodello casually suggested that his vote would be ignored on the basis of some endemic anti-content bigotry in the 'crats). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you rather I'd named names? I chose not to, because my objective was to offer the (clearly distressed) Vodello a little comfort without raising the temperature at this RFA more than absolutely necessary.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lack of content creation" is not always a fruitless oppose, it can be highly effective when a candidate genuinely hasn't added referenced content. One unwritten rule at RFA is that candidates now need to be able to demonstrate that they have added reliably sourced content and if they haven't done so then I doubt they would now pass. There are some editors who will oppose for various higher thresholds of content contribution than that, I've even seen someone who had contributed Featured content opposed for lack of content contributions. Sometimes the opposers make clear their reason, "oppose, doesn't have an FA" would if true be a perfectly civil if hopefully ineffective oppose. Othertimes I look at a "Lack of content creation" oppose and wonder is this a mistaken oppose from someone who didn't notice the candidate's content contributions, or an incivil oppose from someone belittling a content contributor. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. High quality of articles is a common criterion [5]. He has no featured jewels nor "good articles" to offer but I cannot say BDD is a poor content contributor, either.--Razionale (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (moved to neutral) Very reluctant oppose BDD is a great editor and is a helpful and drama-free coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors. I have also seen him do very clueful RFC closes that effectively cleared logjams in talk page discussions. I have no doubt he will make a fine admin very soon. But I have concerns about readiness just now. Q9 was poorly framed, with insuffucient detail of the !votes to make a good call, and with the distraction of so many special cases that seemed to be asking for erudition about notability special cases rather than reading of consensus. But a candidate admin should be able to see that, and BDD fell right into the trap. There's very little about reading consensus there, and a lot of what would be supervotes if these were actual closures. Secondly, in this RM that BDD mentioned, I'm not much bothered by any "freaking out" -- it's minor and only one instance. But "Page view statistics indicate that this is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" is an awful rationale that, if upheld, would perpetuate systemic bias and recentism. Sorry, BDD, I hate doing this, but I think a little more experience is needed. I'd probably support sooner rather than later, though. --Stfg (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose BDD has been helpful at ANI, in my experience, perhaps by avoiding vindictive threads. On the other hand, we need more focus on improving articles as a community, lest the goals of encyclopedia-writing continue to be slighted as this site turns into a political-front for Google and training-ground for Wikia editors, both for-profit enterprises. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I'm keen to support sensible candidates but am concerned by lack of significant content contributions and experience within the areas the candidate wishes to work. I'm interested to see the response to Mkdw's question, but will stay in neutral for now Jebus989✰ 13:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now. I am concerned at the scarcity of significant conytent creation; while it is perfectly possiblec to be an excellent admin and not continue to create articles, some prior experience is I think essential; on the other hand, voting at AfD is actually wholly irrelevant to this discussion, because the final decision at an AfD is determined by an assessment of concensus, or lack thereof, and the admin's personal view should play no part in the decision.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:NOTENOUGH. Miniapolis 01:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now, I think that the candidate should be more experienced with more edits. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral (having withdrawn my oppose) the answer to Q9 is poor, and I do have concerns about US-centric and recentist tendencies expressed in that RM and some other ways, but he's a competent, drama-free editor and GOCE coordinator, he won't break the encyclopedia or mistreat other editors, and he'll develop admin skills better as an admin than as not-an-admin. My oppose was going too far. I strongly disagree with those who think his content development insufficient. --Stfg (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BDD&oldid=1173842122"