Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigDom

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

BigDom

Final (45/25/2); Closed at 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) by ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe

Nomination

BigDom (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I've been considering running for adminship. Until this point I had decided not to, using my time attempting improve myself as a Wikipedia editor. I now believe that it's time for the community to decide on whether or not I am ready to be given the mop, so to speak. My time on Wikipedia started more than four years ago now, when I made an account in order to improve the coverage of French football in the encyclopedia seeing as I couldn't create new articles as an anonymous user. In October 2007, I stopped using my username on account that I had forgotten my password. In May 2009, I regained access to my account and started editing in earnest from that point onwards. I realised that I wasn't providing edit summaries for all my edits, and have recently rectified this in my preferences.

I have taken part in many AfD discussions, and I also have limited experience in TfD. Thanks to my experiences as a young editor, I am interested in copyright and fair use issues and have tagged a number of questionable files for deletion. More recently, I have become a new page patroller, and have patrolled almost 1500 pages to date. When any of these new pages meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, I tag them accordingly and have a fairly high success rate in this respect. I also attempt to create new articles, and have significantly contributed to Did You Know?

I now leave it up to the community to decide whether I am ready for adminship, and look forward to your !votes and comments. Thanks, -- BigDom 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I am interested in the deletion process and subsequently the main areas that I wish to partake in are WP:CSD and WP:AFD. I have considerable experience in both of these, especially CSD, having been a new page patroller for some time now. I would also be interested in dealing with expired proposed deletions, as these can become backlogged. When I was a young editor (although I'm hardly old now) I had no understanding of Wikipedia's image policies. However, with experience I have come to gain a greater knowledge of what is appropriate for the project and what isn't. I make no apologies for my younger self, but instead I look to use my experiences to deal with copyvio files and files with poor fair use rationales and delete these files as necessary.

I would be more than happy to help out in vandalism cases when required. Although this is not my area of expertise, I do revert clear cases of vandalism when I see them, and with the tools it would be easier to deal with the vandals themselves. Also, as a WP:DYK contributor, I would be willing to update the templates, which are currently fully protected.

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

A: I believe that the process of building an encyclopedia is without doubt the most important part of Wikipedia, and accordingly most of my edits are in the main namespace. I have created well over 1000 articles, and while a large number of these are stubs, in my opinion stubs are canvasses to be built upon (let's remember that there is no deadline) and are as deserving of articles as any of the FAs. However, my favourite contributions would have to be the two Good Articles, Clarke Carlisle and Turf Moor that I expanded and transformed beyond recognition from their previous lives.

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: I can honestly say that I can't remember any specific times where a user has caused me stress. If I ever feel myself becoming frustrated on Wikipedia, I simply disengage from the situation for a short while until it blows over. Of course, I have had disagreements with other editors because that is a fact of life here on Wikipedia. My general course of action is usually to leave a polite message on the user's talk page, followed by a message on an appropriate project talk page if the problem continues. For example, most of my edits are football related, so if I had a problem I would not hesitate to leave a message at WT:WPF. I recall recently having a slight disagreement about a sourcing issue with a user (although I can't for the life in me remember who) but this was sorted out thanks to some civil user talk page discussion.

Additional optional questions from Shirik

4. You mentioned you would be involved in CAT:CSD. As closing administrator, how would you respond to this and this deletion nomination?

A: Well, the first example reads suspiciously like a vanity page but does include an assertion of notability (re. the awards). In this situation, I would perform a Google News search for the guitarist in order to find coverage of these awards in reliable sources. If these could be found, I would decline the speedy deletion. Otherwise, I would delete the article under A7 due to no credible indication of notability.

In the second example, I would decline the speedy on account that criterion A7 is only applicable to people or animals, organisations, web content, bands or groups; guitars are ineligible for deletion under this criterion. The article provides context so would be ineligible for A1, making it also ineligible for A3.

5. Can you please explain why this speedy deletion nomination of yours is not appropriate? What have you learned from this mistake and how will you apply it to your duties as an administrator?

A: I considered this article for quite a while before tagging it as I knew that he was in the squad of one of the top teams in the Netherlands, and in the end I nominated it for speedy deletion on account that the infobox showed he had played no matches, and there was no text present to assert notability. I now realise why the speedy was declined as A7 was not applicable becuase he is contracted to a professional club (although it was more appropriate than A3 which clearly states that articles with infoboxes should not be deleted for "no content"). The lesson I have taken from this is that a proposed deletion would probably have been the preferred route, which is eventually what I did.

Additional questions from Keepscases

6. Is it intentional, or coincidental, that you have requested adminship shortly after you turned 18?

A: It is completely coincidental; I don't think that age is relevant on Wikipedia. What is more important is experience, which I believe that I have after four years here.

7: You are ordered to spend a week in solitary confinement with absolutely nothing (excepting basic food, water and shelter) but a printout of one Wikipedia article. Which article do you pick? Why?

A: This is a very difficult question and I honestly don't know what the answer would be. Anything that's nice to look at would be the most important if I was locked up for that long.

Additional questions from Mkativerata

8. How would you close this AfD? Assume the article has not changed during the deletion discussion.

A: In my opinion the article in question does not represent a G10 candidate as it does not appear to be an attack page per se; rather it appears to be a valid attempt to provide a short description of an extremist group from a neutral point of view (although the unsourced naming of an individual member would be unsuitable). The consensus seems to be to keep the article, and seeing as it is important that admins can determine the consensus of the community I would be inclined to keep the page providing that significant coverage in reliable sources was available. Sure, it needs improvement but that is not a reason for deletion. I think that I would ask another admin or two for a second opinion on the closing of that AfD before making a definite decision one way or the other.

Additional optional questions from Lambanog

9. How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?

A: According to this page I have created 1310 articles altogether. I don't mind admitting that when I was younger, I created quite a few articles that I shouldn't have done as I wasn't familiar with the notability guidelines. However, to the best of my memory only one page I've created in the last year has been nominated for deletion. This was the page Wes Fletcher, which has since been recreated now that he meets the WP:ATHLETE guideline, but he did not when I created the original. From what I can see, only one article that I've created has been sent to AfD, and the result was keep. Some of my early articles were PRODded, but a number were kept due to the PRODs being contested by other users. From messages on my talk page it seems that in the past I have had four templates deleted at TfD. One was a squad list for a team that became defunct, another was a squad list that had become orphaned and the other two had become deprecated having been replaced by newer templates.

10. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close: T:cite_news

A: This is a difficult one, seeing as WP:CNR specifically seems to endorse this kind of redirect. However, it cannot be denied that consensus (albeit without citation of any WP guidelines) in both the RfD and the deletion review was to delete the redirects. Since the consensus was to delete, that would be the most appropriate thing to do in my opinion. All in all, I would have taken the same action as the admin who closed that RfD.

Additional optional questions from DustFormsWords

11. In 10,000+ edits you've apparently never had call to post on the administrator's noticeboard. Would you care to comment on the significance of that statistic?

A: That is a fair question and the honest answer is that I have never needed ANI as I have never been harassed or personally attacked and no other users have accused me of such a thing. Any problems I have encountered I have successfully been able to sort out through discussion on user talk pages, etc.

Additional optional question from Bali ultimate.

12. Do you consider PlayerHistory.com a reliable source both to establish the notability of a biography and to build an encyclopedic biography? Why or why not?

A: The website is maintained by a mixture of paid and volunteer staff of statistics experts and is independent from any clubs, which means that in my opinion it meets the RS guidelines. I realise that subscription is required to view the site, so I would always endeavour to find alternative free-to-view sources before citing PlayerHistory. However, if it is the only source available to show notability then I have no problem using it. I think the range of personal information (date/place of birth, etc.) and football career in a number of competitions means that it can be used to build a biography (although again, admittedly only with a subscription).

Additional optional questions from Hobit

13. Could you address the issue raised by Struway2 below?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on talk Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Happy belated birthday, by the way. Useight (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly :) -- BigDom 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• As a response to some of the comments below, I have made a concerted effort to add sources to the articles tagged as unreferenced on my talk page. All those now have at least one source, and most have two or more. As stated below, most of these pages were created about four years ago, but I have ensured that they pass the ATHLETE guideline and added sources accordingly. -- BigDom 18:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Wow, 78% main space edits - that's fantastic! After a quick scan through your contributions, all looks fine - I'd perhaps have liked to have seen more Wikipedia space edits, but you've been around long enough to understand how we do things. Reviewing some of your talk page comments makes me think you're a polite chap which is always a good thing! Best of luck! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Decent editor, good contribs to the mainspace and nice XfD tagging, but would you to see a little more project space edits (They are a tad dwarfed by your article edits). In other words, your a great role model. Buggie111 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Support 72 AfDs participated in, 625 CSD tags placed, and 1,495 pages marked as patrolled - perfect for the role. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Excellent work has been done by this candidate. I see no problems with giving him the mop. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 22:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - looking at your deleted contributions, you seem to have more than enough experience with speedies, and help with CSD is certainly appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
6. No glaring issues, and seems like an experienced user. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Support See no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

   Support. No glaring concerns. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Move to Oppose. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

8. Per above. no worries. Dlohcierekim 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

   Support. Concerned about Q8 as it falls squarely within G10 and should be deleted on sight. But in the real version experienced admins and editors also missed it (and even !voted keep). At least you have identified the BLP issue which is the main problem. Overall a review of your AfD contributions confirms that you have a good understanding of policy. Happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Move to oppose

9. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. Experienced, polite, knowledgeable. Answer to Q5 alleviated that concern. A green light from me. Useight (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Weak Support (EC) I think the answers to some questions could have been better, but I don't see much risk/downside. Keepscases (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
12. Support Large number of mainspace edits, large number of pages patrolled, satisfactory experience where you intend to work as an admin, and you give a good impression. No problem trusting you with the mop. Swarm^(Talk) 23:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 9,000 edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, autoreview rights, has a Barnstar, prolific article creator, etc. Recently came of legal age. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
14. Support- I don't know why but I think you'll be good. Thebirdlover (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
15. Support - looks good. I'm sure the BLPs will be fixed one time or another, since almost all of them were created back when the rules were not as stringent. Airplaneman ^talk 00:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. The candidate has both XfD and article-building experience, seems helpful, and has a clue. I see no red flags. Majoreditor (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
17. Support What I see looks good. Ray^Talk 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support I do not see that this editor having involved himself at AFDs and CSD... some win some loss some kept some deleted... would in any way cause him to suddenly begin closing AFDs against consensus. I do not believe any of his work addressing problematic articles makes him a deletionist, nor do I think his creation of numerous stub articles for others to improve over time makes him an inclusionist. His explanation for two years of no edits is reasonable, and it appears he's a decent contributor, even with his low percentage of involvement in other areas. There should be no worry about giving him the tools, as we need more admins willing to add content! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Move to oppose per not yet

    Comment: I hear you Michael, (especially in the wake of your own daunting experience), but in my opinion, just being a 'decent, polite, intelligent fellow' is not enough - he has to demonstrate a clear run of collaborate work, community spirit, and consistent style in his own edits first, and not just start those things when he gets the tools.--Kudpung (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    Very good points... specially since his participation at my own RFA would seem indicative that he is aware of the project's current concern over BLPs. So after consideration, I have struck my support. Though there's no big deal about doing a self-nom, it might have been prudent in the face of the current BLP crisis, to have gone back over his own articles to address some very real BLP concerns. I have no problem with them being stubs, because stubs encourage others in expanding and improving the encyclopedia. And while agreeing that some may have been created before the increased concerns that all BLPs... old and new alike... be properly and strongly sourced to Reliable Sources outside Wikipedia, in this case waiting for others to get to it was not the best choice. Whenever one adds a article to the encyclopedia... whether stub or start... and even though others might come along and improve it... it really is important that the author, specially one wishing the tools, takes a personal responsibility that what he creates meets guideline. Again, I appreciate that this editor is so willing to create new content, even if only stubs... but I do not feel comfortable offering a support vote at this time, and am moving to a polite oppose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

18. Intelligent. Icewedge (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
19. Support some good points raised about BLP, but have faith the candidate will take them on board and otherwise looks like a very good editor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
20. Support - Seems to be a good editor for the most part and I think they would be a good administrator as well. Camw (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
21. Support - You meet all my admin criteria. Keep up the good work! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
22. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
23. Would like you to sort out the unrefenced stuff but I'm not going to oppose you for it.  urban f o x  12:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
24. Weak support. Upon visiting BigDom's showcase of the articles he created, nearly all those showcase articles are stubs and most are rated low-importance by WikiProjects the articles he created have been inculded in. And per the oppose comments, with all those unreferenced biographies tags (or whatever they're called), 24 of them is probably a problem. So that's another negative. However, everything else looks ok for him to be an administrator. Best of luck (even if this is a weak support). --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - I honestly don't see any major red flags, and the answer to question 8 is perfectly acceptable. G10 does not apply as it is not an attack page. The question is nothing more than a trap. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    Read G10. It applies to pages that disparage "entities" as well as persons. For the good reason that pages that disparage an organisation by extension disparage all the living persons who are associated with it. No trap here: it was a real AfD case. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

26. Support the BLP concerns are valid, but overall, I don't believe they will cause this candidate to exhibit poor judgment with the tools. I do, however, want to see a bit more activity in the project space and the BLP issues to be dealt with, whether through better sourcing or deletion if no reliable sources exist.  fetchcomms☛ 16:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
27. Support per above.--sulmues (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    Weak Support Question number 8 is NOT a BLP only a fanatic would think it is--you delete the sentence not the entire article. The question is thus, as stated elsewhere, a trap. [EDIT: a valid point was made in the oppose that this could be deleted as a G10.] As for the list of articles that are not listed, I personally think NW's notion of desyopping people or opposing people for having written articles 4 years ago is ripe with wp:OWN. BigDom does not own the articles that he wrote 4 years ago, thus he is not responsible for cleaning them up. To retroactively hold a person responsible for such actions opens up pandora's box. Who knows what the next craze will be on WP? Who knows what policies are going to change. If we start forcing people to own articles and clean them up, YEARS afterwards, then this project is doomed. Who would ever want to write a new article? I just did a quick survey, looks like BigDorn is adding refs to all of these articles, but doing so is NOT his responsibility. While we would like that he does, I have a hard time forcing people to be responsible for articles that they wrote in good faith following the standards that were in place at the time, and then being forced to "fix" them to fit subsequent standards. This is a bad precident. When we have standards change in the construction/automotive industry, the builders are not expected to retroactively make their products compliant, they are only expected to do so going forward. For example, a bulding built in the 1950's does not have to comply with the American's With Diabilities Act until it undergoes a signficant renovation---at which point it is the owner's obligation to conform to modern expectations---NOT the original builder. (We still have thousands of buildings with asbestos because the builder is not required to clean it up---and the builders are not the one's being sued for asbestos related problems.) If the original builder were held responsible for complying with all future codes/standards, then nobody would ever build another thing (and if they did, they would charge an arm and a leg.) Most of these articles that he's being opposed for were written in 2006 when standards were vastly different. Not only that, but on most of them he has not made any edits to them since he wrote them! It might be a different story if he were actively involved with these articles, but he's not. Would we like to see people help out? Hell yeah, but I find this extortion despicable and contrary to the notions of WP. If we make this a mandate, then we are on the slippery slope of expecting ownership---you are now responsible for ensuring that every article you write meets whatever rules come up now and in the future.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Moved to weak per the answer to number 12, a website edited by users is not a reliable source, especially when related to BLP's even when it generally only lists stats.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Moving out of the support column, haven't decided if I'm going to actually oppose. I completely disagree with NW's notion of opposing over work performed 4 years ago, but other issues have come to light that make me unable to support at this time.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

28. Support I would have liked to have seen some detailed AfD debate on non-football related issues but plenty of useful contributions and reasoned arguments and I am satisfied that the BLP issues are not a reason for opposition to this RfA. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
29. Support 78% mainspace edits do impress me, but also he's a cool, calm and friendly type of characteristic with no intent to argue. Minimac (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
30. Support No issues that I can see. --John (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
31. Support. I realise that some of BigDom's BLP stubs are inadequately referenced. However the overwhelming majority of his work is of great quality. BigDom (now) understands the importance of referencing in BLPs. I don't think that this will continue to be issue in either his content creation or potential AfD closures. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
32. Support, looks fine with a good record of low-drama editing and sensible behaviour. I'm all for encouraging BLP sourcing but the concerns raised by the opposers seem rather strictly theoretical: harm comes from poorly-sourced controversial BLPs, not from single-sourced mini-stubs about minor athletes. This appears to be a dedicated editor who could make decent use of the tools. ~ mazca ^talk 20:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
33. Seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
34. me too. -Atmoz (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
35. Support - A long editing history in which he's gotten into remarkably few conflicts, evidence of a willingness to recognise and learn from mistakes, a good reason to have the tools, and no serious evidence that he'll misuse them. I honestly don't care if he makes a bad call about BLPs from time to time - admins make mistakes too - but what's more important is that when he does, it seems likely he'll be receptive to having that drawn to his attention, and learn from the experience. And thanks, BigDom, for your answer to my question. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
36. Support - It seems to me this user has enough experience, i mean he has created over 1,000 articles! He should be no concern to the Wikipedia Community. Written by GeneralCheese 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
37. Support mostly per Balloonman and DustFormsWords. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Most of the unreferenced BLPs listed in the talk page archive are stubs, and as BigDom says, standards were much lower when those were made; the effort put into fixing them lately is acceptable, and he is certainly going to be aware of these concerns in the future. Your answers to the questions are overall fairly good. You may not know everything, but I don't require someone to be the perfect admin at RfA. What you don't know, you'll learn, and I see no reason to oppose. Best of luck as this continues. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
39. Support I think this editor has learned from and continues to be willing to learn from their past mistakes, and has a reasonably sound grasp on policy. Plus, he seems like he isn't an a--hole., which is a good thing. Moogwrench (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
40. Support - seems harmless enough. BLP considerations are irrelevant. No one has mounted a successful action against wikipedia thus far, I fail to see why things should change now. Libel away! Crafty (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed, ethics are completely irrelevant. Somehow, I don't think that's a good thing... NW (Talk) 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

41. Fully qualified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
42. Support I understand the opposes due to possible mistakes in BLP (esp G10), but the candidate did clearly say they would seek the guidance of more experienced admins before making decisions on such issues, and I think that is commendable - a new admin who seeks help from others is a whole lot more useful to Wikipedia than no new admin at all. As for the unsourced early BLPs, as others have said, there were different standards in the past, and I see no evidence the candidate has acted against any contemporary standards. And finally, I see an intelligent and mature editor, which goes to show how you shouldn't judge a potential admin by their youth. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
43. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
44. Weak Support: A good editor but there are some issues raised by the "oppose" that need work. Good luck - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Great work in content building according to the criteria in place at the time throughout this editor's tenure. I see good work at AFD and in CSD tagging to go along with the content creation. I am not swayed at all by the opposes below, and believe that as per WP:OWN no editor has an ongoing responsibility to improve articles as standards change. If one wishes to do such a thing they should, but there is certainly no obligation to do so. Absent such an obligation, there is nothing to be held against this candidate. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    And the diffs which show he provided false attribution.. yesterday? I don't think standards have changed that much in 24 hours. Ironholds (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I checked out one of the 1300 articles which the candidate has created - Malungisa Dlamini. This is a BLP which was recently created without any references. Given the recent furore, this seems too clueless. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

   Without any inline citations, but not without sources. Whether the source is reliable I don't know, but it's not unsourced. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, everything in the article is supported by that source. The article only tells you his position and what team he plays on...this seems like a really benign issue to oppose adminship for. Swarm^(Talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

   That source is not reliable, being a personal website. The article does not meet our minimal standards and so the candidate should spend more time improving his own work before he is empowered to delete the work of others. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   That source is a frontend (used by over 6,000 wikipedia articles) for data from playerhistory, which is used as a source for over 4000 footballer articles. It is as a reliable & appropriate source as you are likely to find for that kind of data surely? Ajbpearce (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   I must say the FAQ part of the website doesn't quite fill me with confidence about the site's reliability. But this really is a debate for Wikiproject Football or for WP:RS/N. I'm conscious of BLP concerns but haven't seen anything too problematic yet. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose per User_talk:BigDom#Unreferenced_BLPs while some have external links some do not... Sorry BLPs need to be properly referenced and cited for me to support it is simply too big an issue facing Wikipedia right now. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   For the record, I count one article there created in 2009, one in 2007 and the rest in 2006 (when standards were much laxer). Olaf Davis (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   And the at least first ten are wholly uncontroversial articles about minor athletes.--Chaser (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose, per the BLP issue. Not that the candidate used this argument, but "other articles use it" is not a defence for referencing a BLP. Inline citations, while arguably not necessary for articles, should be; if you say "everything in the article is referenced to this source", fine, but if crap is added it's difficult to tell it's any less genuine than anything else. It's also a personal gripe when people stick sources under "external links", but that's somewhat irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
4. I will not support, or even evaluate further, until the list of articles at User talk:BigDom#Unreferenced BLPs is cleaned up. Per my position at BLP RfC Phase I. NW (Talk) 03:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose - It is my opinion that sysops should set an example if they are going to use a special set of tools to inform, encourage, educate, and pass judgement on other users. These actions are important amidst the common contention that admins are here just to delete articles and block users. I'm not convinced that BigDom's use of edit summaries is consistent enough. I'm also not sure that the candidate understands the difference between References and External links, and the reasons why we have those two distinctions. There are still too many Wikipedians who believe their edit count is a passport to adminship and that quantity is far more important than quality, I am not overly impressed by the number of created stubs or their notability (or lack of it), or the hig number of redirects counted as creations, or what in my opinion is a clear misunderstanding of the system of classifying articles as stub/start class etc. Admittedly the candidate makes very few semi-automated edits from Twinkle or Friendly, but that assumes also that welcoming or warning other contributors has been low on the priorities, as has, to judge from the ratio of article space to various talk pages, his general enthusiasm to be part of the greater community, and to be active in a broader diversity of topics. I'm sure that given time, BigDom would make a great admin, but only after becoming a more all-round editor and participating more in discussions, and cleaning up his own articles. I would like to see several months without a single complaint on his talk page, and then a new attempt at RfA.--Kudpung (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Per the Q8 answer. In my opinion an unsourced article containing accusations against living people is a perfectly valid G10 close, regardless of the AfD arguments. There are also several excellent arguments against adminship above. Kevin (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose from support. My initial concern about Q8 has now materialised into enough to swing me to an oppose: a litany of unsourced BLPs, poor sourcing in many other BLPs. Admins have to set high standards on BLPs: even if they're not BLP activists, they have to be trusted to see a BLP problem when there is one and not create BLP problems themselves. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   That hypothetical Q8 is a very poor attempt at tripping a candidate up. If it had been my own RfA I would have refused to answer it. Anyway the BLP concerns can be dealt with very quickly by the deletion of the one named individual and not the article as is stated by the candidtate in the answer "although the unsourced naming of an individual member would be unsuitable". It is not a G10 as Kevin suggests because WP:CSD#G10 states "and serve no other purpose" so the candidate is 100% correct because this page does serve another purpose. Although I am sure there would be plenty of editors who would incorrectly delete it as a G10. Polargeo (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   I agree completely. This "article" is not a biography of a living person, it is a short description of an organization. The sample did not list any names/identities. It is not a BLP.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   The article does list the name of the organization's (former?) leader, so it requires a consideration of BLP issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   I missed the name, but even so, you remove the offending sentence, you don't delete the entire article. This is the attitude that people feared most at the recent RfCs---where would the line be drawn? Would it take a mere name to be justification to delete any unreferenced article?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   With respect, you are all misguided. G10 applies to "other entities" as well as persons. For the good reason that pages that disparage an organisation disparage the living persons who are associated with it. How do we know this Association isn't actually a network of nice old ladies who raise money for wounded war veterans? Also a number of jurisdictions allow corporations and other entities to sue for defamation. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Valid point, I will concur that it would be deletable per G10---but I am very hesitant to say that this is a BLP. If we are going to do so, then we are very much endanger of BLP-Creep and the concerns voiced at the recent RfC's would have been multiplied because this could very easily lead to the argument that just about every article on WP is a BLP and that the issue isn't 50K, but 100's of K..---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   I will repeat myself G10 says "serve no other purpose". As this article contains factual information about an organisation which is not all attack by any means it does serve another purpose therefore G10 is technically incorrect. The BLP concern can be addressed by deleting the small amount of information on the individual not the article. This was a really poor trick AfD. I am not saying that it shouldn't be either quickly sourced or deleted just that technically by the letter of the rules the article should not be deleted per G10 or BLP reasons. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

   So-called "factual information", when unsourced and negative or conveying negative connotations, is attack material. Now tell me, what part of "white supremacist splinter group", "terrorist watchlist" and "fire-bombing churches" is not attack material? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose for the simple reason that anybody who wants the job is invariably not suited for the job. Regardless of how many edits they have or how many answers are answered with the answer the candidate thinks the flocking throng wants to hear. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Purely out of interest, how would you propose getting people who don't want the job to do it? Or do you think there should be no admins at all? -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   No I think the answer is that some people prefer candidtates who suck up to admins, including in off wiki chat, or do menial clerking in the hope of getting nominated rather than those who boldly say "I'm ready, I can do the job, what do you think?" Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Invited by their peers rather than recommended by other admins. And although, as much as I dislike admins as a group, there is a need for them, though I think they should be called janitors rather than admins or sysops. That alone would sort the wheat from the chaff, after all only someone who genuinely wanted to do the job and bring about improvements would mind being officially known as a "Wikipedia Janitor" as opposed to the perceived kudos of "Wikipedia Sysop". --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Yes but invited by their peers is generally a sure fire way to fail unless that peer is an admin (or is so well trusted that they should be an admin or have been in the past). I would prefer all candidates to be self nominated. Of course any co-nom statements from established editors would still be useful. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   By peers I mean fellow editors who have experience of his/her edits/behaviour etc, those may of course include admins. Being nominated only by other admins is a recipe for disaster the way WP is at the moment due to there being far too many admins who are in it for the prestige (self-perceived of course) and power. If we were starting from day one I'd probably agree with you, but as things stand now, like promotes like and there are too many dicks in the job already. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Ah, I get what you mean - no self-noms. I kind of agree, and think the ideal should be great candidates, recognised by their peers, who take up the mop with a little reluctance - but unfortunately, I just can't see us getting enough that way. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   I have to say that as a self-nominated admin I feel personally insulted by this. I've of course have heard of the philosophy before that nobody who wants to be in charge should be allowed to do so (After all that is a theme in the very series of novels my username is pulled from) but this is not a position of great power and authority. There aren't just a few select users with the extra buttons, there's over a thousand of us, and quite a few of us got the job on our own merits without another user nominating us. Yes, some candidates do want "the power" but only because they don't realize what a golden turd it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Is your right to feel insulted by anything you wish to feel insulted by, but that does not change my view one iota. A personal view based on a world-view cynicism and years of life experience, something, I note, that the candidate doesn't have. And people the world over are rushing to feel insulted by the slightest thing at any opportunity, which is why we are subjected to the new aberrant philosophy of Political Correctness. I agree with you though with the "Golden Turd" analogy, hence my view above that admins shouldn't be called admins or sysops as that confers a certain expectation on editors. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Hasn't the community been through this whole "oppose due to self-nom" discussion before? (hint: prima facie.) I'm not so sure that the 'crats pay much heed to this line of reasoning. Majoreditor (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

9. strong oppose for the serial creation of lightly sourced (some unsourced) stubs of living people that are unmaintained, add no encyclopedic value, and demonstrate a lack of judgment and discretion by the candidate. Evidence that he shouldn't be in a position of authority over content. Articles like Phinda Dlamini are also evidence of the problem with the special notability guidelines on athletes in general. Ryan O'Neill (American soccer player) is even worse (an american third division midfielder that hasn't had a decent source since big dom created it four years ago. The man is probably retired by now, given his age and the fact that 3rd division players in the US only make a few hundred bucks a game, if that, but there's really no way of finding out. (moved to strong in answer to my question; playerhistory.com does not have strong editorial controls, it's run by free contributors.)Bali ultimate (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   With all respect, the PlayerHistory website is not a free-for-all contribution site as you suggest. Contributors have to be approved by a member of the staff, some of whom receive payments for their work, hence the high monthly subscription fee. -- BigDom 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Who does the approving, who does he answer to, what sort of editorial oversight do changes to that database go through before being published, and what qualifications do you need to get approved? (I already know the answer to these questsions but i'll indulge you).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not going to discuss this further here, it has nothing to do with RfA in my opinion and it's not the place. If you have doubts about the reliability, take it to WP:RS/N where it can be properly sorted out. -- BigDom 07:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

   You don't think the validity of sources you have used to write BLPs, the Wikipedia equivalent of a fireworks factory, is anything to do in your RfA, where every. single. oppose has brought up the nature and sourcing of your BLPs? Either you don't get it (in which case you definitely shouldn't be an admin) or you're dissembling because you don't have a valid answer. Neither reflects well on you. Ironholds (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

   I can assure you that I do understand. The BLPs I create are of people who pass the ATHLETE guidelines and are completely non-controversial biographies. The articles I write are not going to get Wikipedia sued and are not the reason why there is such furore over BLPs. The only thing I'm finding it hard to comprehend is that articles I created almost four years ago are being held against me. -- BigDom 11:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

   This is bigger than just "it's uncontroversial". WP:V is one of the pillars of Wikipedia; how can we expect you to enforce policy when you won't follow it? Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose until BLP is taken more seriously. BLGM5 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose We need admins who are willing to assist in making atheletes of minor notability deletable, not admins who are going to make more. Sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    are you saying that you will oppose any candidates who support the current policy that deletion is the last resort, and that articles should be brought up to standards if possible? Or are you saying that you will oppose any candidate who supports the current policy on which athletes are notable? Or both? DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    Anyone who thinks WP:ATHLETE is a valid decision on notability is nutso. That thing needs overhauled, in a bad way. BLGM5 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    This isn't the place. If you have a problem, you can propose a change at the talk page, but please don't act like an RfA candidate is "nutso" if they accept the validity of an official Wikipedia guideline. Swarm^(Talk) 02:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, this is the place. Your oppose badgering aside, if an RfA candidate agrees with what amounts to a horrible Wikipedia policy, that's grounds to discuss/oppose. BLGM5 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, I think you'll find that the proper place to talk about how you would improve WP:ATHLETE is at its talk page. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that anyone who actually uses it to guide their actions is wrong. Discuss it in the right venue, make some good suggestions on how it should be worded/what should be added or removed - and get it changed by consensus. In the meantime, it is the guideline to be used. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

12. Oppose per not yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose. My experiences with this editor at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turf Moor/archive1 indicate that he does not understand the importance of accurate sourcing and WP:V. Such a misapplication of one of our core policies does not bode well for understanding and application of other policies. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    I respect your opinion, but from reading that FAC again, it seems that every problem that was brought up, I addressed. I think what you're referring to in particular stemmed from the fact that when I changed the sources to more reliable ones, I didn't get round to making slight alterations to the text before people commented. -- BigDom 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    That sounds reasonable—willing to accept on good faith. Thanks for responding. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

13. Weak Oppose. You've done a respectable amount of work for this project, but some of the opposers have valid points. If this doesn't pass, come back in a few months and several thousand more edits. I would be happy to support you then. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose - This user created some non-notable, unsourced articles. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy St. Patrick's Day!} 01:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
15. Reluctant oppose per NuclearWarfare. I went and found the list of unsourced BLPs in BigDom's archives. One has been stubbed down to one sentence, but contains no sources. The other remains completely unsourced. Even if everything is sourced to an external link, I feel that should be indicated in the article. Work on your BLPs, come back in a couple of months, and I'll happily support. AniMate 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
16. Negative ghost rider pattern is full. Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose - BigDom, by his actions, has shown that he does not comprehend the BLP problem. We can not expect editors who don't hold themselves to any standard, to make admins that will hold others to any standard. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose The BLP example (Q8 hypothet) showed a clearly contentious unsourced claim affecting a named individual, which falls into a clear BLP violation situation. I am less concerned about innocuous claims about footballers, though I suspect that normal notability issues may well apply - material suitable for a composite list may not be sufficient for individual articles. Collect (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
19. On the right track, but this nomination demonstrates a need for a bit more refinement before the candidate is ready. Keep doing what you are doing, take some of the comments above to heart, and in particular become more familiar with the BLP policy and its application and I'm sure a future nomination will be an uncontroversial shoe-in. Shereth 14:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose BLP issues raise too much concern. Sorry. Warrah (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose per NW basically - work on the unsourced articles you created, and come back in a few months, when hopefully I will be able to support. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    You do realize that this puts an ownership responsibility on people for work they did according to standards 4 years ago? And he has gone through them?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

22. Oppose. For quite some time, I've worked on referencing football BLPs, either fully, or just the basics: remove libel if any, add RS to verify notability and anything dubious, and tag {{BLP sources}}, which is what I'd done with this BLP. Yesterday, the candidate edited it to remove unsourced statements and to add more inline refs to a book source I'd used in the article. His changes didn't seem to tally with the book, so a conversation ensued, split between both our talk pages.[1][2][3][4][5] The fact in question, concerning when the player left a certain club, wasn't remotely contentious and could safely have been left uncited, but the candidate still reworded it, citing an offline book which plausibly might have verified the information but in fact doesn't. I went back a few minutes later to add something to the conversation and found he'd already archived his talk page, except that my middle post, where I said I didn't see why he was citing a source to verify something it didn't, or deleting as unsourced information that was verifiable using it, hadn't been transferred to the archive with the rest of the page. As yet, I don't think the candidate has enough grasp of what's important to the project, but if he takes this RfA seriously as a learning exercise, I don't see why he couldn't be a good admin somewhen in the future. Struway2 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    So to summarize: The candidate as recently as yesterday provided false attribution in an article. Do I understand you correctly?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

    I'm saying that the candidate was mistaken in thinking that either wording "was released at the end of the season" or "left at the end of the season" was verifiable from the book source. If that's "providing false attribution", then yes. Struway2 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

23. Oppose, concerns about WP:BLPs and poor sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose. WP needs fewer Sheep Maintenance Engineers and more content creators. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
25. Per Struway2. ϢereSpielChequers 18:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

It is my opinion that sysops should set an example if they are going to use a special set of tools to inform, encourage, educate, and pass judgement on other users. These actions are important amidst the common contention that admins are here just to delete articles and block users. I'm not convinced that BigDom's use of edit summaries is consistent enough,. I'm also not sure that the candidate understands the difference between References and External links, and the reasons why we have those two distinctions. Bearing in mind all the time that quality is far more important than quantity of edits (there are still too many Wikipedians who believe a massive edit count is a passport to adminship), I am not overly impressed by the number of created stubs or their notability (or lack of it), or what in my opinion is a clear misunderstanding of the system of classifying articles as stub/start/class etc. I'm sure that given time, BigDom would make a great admin; I know these items sound negative, but I don't feel strongly enough about them to vote either way.--Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Moved to Oppose.--Kudpung (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral I will not support over the unresolved BLP issues. Q8 i think is quite crafted for a paticular response which was not provided. Although its clear by the asker what his perferred response was, The fact that you would seek an additional opinion before closing is good and respectable though. However the article as it stands is against the BLP policies and would require immediate fixing (through G10) or immediate other means. There is nothing wrong in my opinion with yourself changing the article to meet the BLP standards during the discussion, although this would require another independent admin to close the discussion and not you. But to me the BLP violation is the most important thing to be dealt with and needs to be speedily dealt with. I think that you can still comply with consensus at that point (in fact youd tackle both sides of the coin in the discussion without even ruling). This is just my opinion based on your response to the query asked. I will not support, nor will I oppose. Please deal with the oppositions concerns and most importantly please come back to RFA and make another run(if unsuccesful), you have alot of potential and with a little tweaking your going to be a fine adminOttawa4ever (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now. Support per my first question. Oppose per my second. An admin should be able to assess matters independently and arrive at a clear and logical conclusion. XfDs are not a vote so relying solely on this vote of two individuals against one even when against the candidate's own interpretation of pertinent WP help files is not ideal. If the candidate was to close this as he says there is a better guideline based argument to be made but candidate has not identified it. Even then there are other circumstantial issues particular to this case that have been overlooked and to be considered. Will observe how the rest of this RfA plays out. Lambanog (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Discussion regarding this comment moved to talk page, not directly relevant to the candidate, more relevant to the RfA process and long-term. --Taelus (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Candidate withdrawal

After considerable consideration today, I have decided to withdraw this request for adminship in order to take some time out to work on the BLP issues raised in the oppose section. I have taken on board the comments and sourced all the BLPs I have created, and will continue to work throughout the project in this respect. Many thanks to those of you who have voted support; I have taken heart from your confidence in me that I will take into the future. To those who voted against me, I wholly respect your opinions and thank you for taking the time to participate here. I haven't even let being called "nutso" for following a widely accepted guideline put me off and I will continue to edit WP to the best of my ability. I admit that in the past I have made mistakes but I implore anyone to find me an admin who hasn't. All being well, I will be back here in the not-too-distant future. -- BigDom 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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