Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigDom 2

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.

BigDom[edit]

Final (72/16/5). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 11:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

BigDom (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. I guess this is going to be a pretty similar description to the last time I ran a few months ago. However, a lot has changed since then and I think my competence as an editor has definitely increased during that time. I started out here well over four years ago, and have come from humble beginnings writing admittedly rubbish articles about my local football team, Nelson F.C. (RIP), that were soon deleted. From then on though, I continued to learn about the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and became most interested in content creation as you can see from my contributions. To start with, perhaps I didn't use edit summaries as much as I could have, but I believe that this isn't an issue any longer.

As I stated in the last RfA, my early experiences here led to me taking an interest in copyright and fair use, and I have subsequently tagged a number of inappropriately licensed files for deletion. I am well experienced in Articles for deletion, and regularly frequent the TfD, CfD and FfD arenas as well. Most of my edits on Wikipedia are based around the sport of association football (mainly the players); I am a long-standing member of WikiProject Football and recently founded a French football task force. When the fancy takes me, I perform new-page patrols and have been known to place CSD tags on new articles whenever I feel it is appropriate and I feel that almost all of my tags have been correctly placed.

I have taken to heart the oppose rationales from my previous RfA and I believe that I have addressed the concerns satisfactorily. Many of the opposes stemmed from poor sourcing, and that is something that I have made a conscious effort to improve upon. We have all made mistakes in the past, and learning from mine has been a sometimes difficult, but ultimately rewarding, task. My edit count now stands at over 14,000 (including deleted edits) and I think that this is a sufficient amount to fully understand the ways of the Wiki. BigDom 09:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated co-nom

I've had the pleasure of working with this editor at WikiProject Football for much of the last year, and became familiar with his work after reviewing one of his excellent GAs. His mainspace work since I have been here is without exception excellent, and although 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season failed an FAC, it takes an extremely good writer for Tony1 to support the prose quality without comment. While we have frequently had different views, I can't remember ever reacting badly to anything that he has said, which anyone familiar with me will know is some feat indeed. When pressed on his opinion he is always capable of explaining his view, and has a good grasp of when to query someone on a point, and when it is best to agree to disagree, and allow others to provide their input. BigDom is knowledgeable of policy, and understands that the spirit is more important than the letter. He will make an excellent sysop. --WFC-- 14:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Malleus says below, while I did write most of the article, it was actually him that brought it up to scratch. BigDom 18:14, 31 August 2010 (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: Out of the many areas where admins are required, I am most interested in the deletion process. Subsequently, most of my administrative work would be carried out in CSD and AfD, while I would also happily help out at FfD and TfD as well. Users who understand the image policy are invaluable, and as a "newbie" I uploaded several images with incorrect licences, etc, which has helped me to gain much knowledge of the system. Although I am certainly not what one would call a "vandal-fighter", I do help out in the area sometimes, and would be willing to use the tools to deal with the more blatant vandals.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It is my belief that articles are the most important part of Wikipedia, because without them it would be nothing. In addition to creating more than 1,400 articles (yes, there are some stubs, but let's remember there is no deadline for improvement), I often expand and improve existing pages. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to write a featured article as yet, but I have written six good articles. My favourite contributions are 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season (in my opinion, the best article I have created from scratch), Clarke Carlisle and Willie Irvine (articles that I expanded).
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 genuine 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.
The only editor I can ever recall getting slightly annoyed by is User:Gobbleswoggler, but I haven't interacted with him for some time, and it's all in the past now.
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
4. After glancing over your previous RfA, what have you changed regarding creating unreferenced BLPs?
A: I just don't create unreferenced articles any more, BLP or not. In fairness, the majority of the problem articles brought up in the last RfA were written several years ago (most were created in 2007 I think) and since then I have changed a lot. Nowadays, whenever I am new-page patrolling and I see an unreferenced article, I tag it using Friendly and often leave a message on the creator's talk page.
Question from WFC
5. My support is pretty assured, but someone has to ask this. What is your view on our current notability criteria, particularly with regards to living people?
A: I think that the current general notability guideline is sufficient as it requires significant coverage of the subject, whether that be in newspapers, books or reliable websites. Applied to living people, it is especially important that the notability guidelines are adhered to in order to avoid any trouble for the project, which already has enough detractors as it is. As you know, I am not a massive fan of some of the sub-guidelines, such as NSPORT (although it is an improvement on ATHLETE), as people often misuse them and forget that sportspeople are still bound by the GNG.
Additional optional question from Groomtech
6. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: No, I wouldn't say it was really part of the admin role to issue orders, as it is not meant to be a position of authority. Banning a user certainly would not be acceptable for an admin to decide on their own, although admins can enforce bans following an ArbCom case.
Additional optional question from Salvio giuliano
7. What would you do if you stumbled upon the following articles [1], [2] and [3]?
A: The first one (the company) is the trickiest of the three so I'll start with that one. The A7 doesn't seem appropriate as the company is purported to have the widest delivery network in India, so I would perform a search for the company on Google or similar search engine and then PROD the article or send it to AfD if I then deemed it to be non-notable.
The A1 tag on the actress is clearly inappropriate because while the article is short, it does give enough information to identify its subject. For the A2 foreign language article, I would check the Wikipedia of the language that the article is written in (French in this case) to see how similar the two pages are. If they were very similar, the A2 tag would be appropriate so I would delete the page. However, if there was sufficient difference, I would refer the article to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English instead.
Additional question from Efcmagnew
8. You discover a sock puppet account of Jimmy Wales. What action do you take? He's probably reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efcmagnew (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Generally Check Users are the only users capable of discovering such account. wiooiw (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
9. Is there anything you would like to say regarding the comment cited by most of the opposers? Is it and was it an accurate account of your thoughts on BLP?
A: I would like to say that the comment on Herostratus' RfA was out of character, as anyone who knows me would vouch for, because I just saw red for a minute. I was disgusted at the way some users were hurling unfounded claims of paedophilia towards an editor (supposedly a living person) and then had the temerity to oppose based on BLP concerns!? It was a highly exaggerated version of my opinions. Of course I realise that we need a BLP policy, and it is a way to avoid lawsuits, but above all we need to ensure that we are respectful to those people notable enough for inclusion; that is of the utmost importance.
10. What would be your attitude towards enforcing BLP in an admin capacity should this RfA succeed and do you believe that the community is to strict in its enforcement and interpreation thereof?
A:Firstly, should this RfA succeed, I would be delighted to take up NW's offer of helping out with the OTRS queue so that I can gain some first-hand experience in that area. Another way in which I would be willing to help would be identifying/deleting G10 attack pages (this is something I have been doing for some time as a new-page patroller anyway). In clear or continued cases of BLP violation, it may indeed be necessary to block the offender(s), protect the page in question, etc. and I would gladly assist in this area (of course, we mustn't forget that BLP applies outside of article space so this extends to talk and project pages).
Second part of the question: I would say that if anything enforcement is not strict enough at times, some things go undetected for months or even years and editors blocked for BLP violation often return. Saying that, I think that some editors' interpretation of the guideline is very strict, verging on the point of too strict. That's always going to happen though; some people interpret the notability guidelines more strictly than others. My interpretation of the BLP policy page is that all potentially contentious (mis)information, or things that could be considered disparaging, should be removed if a reliable source is not provided. On the other hand, some editors believe that all unsourced material should be removed, even dates/places of birth/death, et cetera, despite the fact that the policy never states that this is the case. While I respect that view, I do consider it to be an overly strict interpretation.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Um, what is with Q8? Tommy! 02:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably someone trying to be funny (and failing). Mr. R00t Talk 18:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. I opposed BigDom's last RfA and it was not long before I regretted it. I regret it because it was ill-conceived and based in part on me asking an unimpressive question. I've since seen heaps of good work done by BigDom all over the wiki, particularly as one of the few genuinely competent content creators in football. I also think BigDom has the right temperament for an admin, evidenced by not just the way the first RfA was handled, but I also a tough unsuccessful FAC that was dealt with very well. BigDom is also an admin who will break the mould a bit and question quite a few conventions, which is a very good thing. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Affirming my support, particularly in light of the answers to Questions 9 and 10.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support User is even better than the last time I supported. Dlohcierekim 10:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Good work in a number of areas. Making progress at an impressive rate since the last RfA. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I supported last time, and since then all I see is improvement - including a serious effort to work on the issues outlined in the oppose section last time. Looks like a committed content-builder, and seems to understand the areas he wants to do admin work in. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've seen you around and have no reason to think you'd not be a fine admin. + Good contrbs Tommy! [message] 10:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support looks to have the right attitude about building an encyclopedia, knows how to move and upload and talk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - a fellow sports editor and long-time Wikipedian, the candidate is familiar; has shown character and fortitude in improvements since last RfA--Hokeman (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Helpful, friendly longtime editor with good contributions. Has taken concerns to heart from the last RfA and addressed them from what I can see, so I see no reason not to support. Good luck! Connormah (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - excellent contributions. Seems to relate extremely well to other users, and comes across as helpful, polite and knowledgeable. I see plenty of relevant experience, lots to indicate the candidate would be a good admin, and nothing which causes me concern.  Begoon|talk 13:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the light of recent comments, I'll reaffirm my support too. The answers to Q9 and Q10 explain. I remember that conversation at that RFA, and I can certainly understand how the atmosphere of seeing such aspersions cast with seemingly no foundation caused the candidate to exaggerate his opinions in such a way. A lot of people (including me) said a lot of things they wouldn't usually say in and related to that RFA, which I put down to feelings running very high at the time. I'm perfectly happy that the candidate's answers above support this, and I have no concerns that he would fail to enforce BLP policy as an admin. Let's not condemn a good editor for a comment made, basically to defend a fellow editor who he thought was being given a very rough and unfair ride.  Begoon•talk 09:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't see why not. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I supported last time, and, I'll support again. Minimac (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Seems likely to use the tools responsibly. Townlake (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn, attitude toward BLP policy is abhorrent.[reply]
  12. Support No worries. Pichpich (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Long since earned my respect, so it's a pleasure to land here. We often seem to be on opposite sides of the fence, especially at RfA, but every encounter I can recall has been civil and you always back your opinions up. I had a quick look at your deleted edits and saw nothing concerning and a few good G10 taggings, which shows you understand things like BLP as well as a good number of F5 tags (since it's an area you mention in the nomination). I see nothing to suggest you wouldn't do a good job and we need more admins, so good luck! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Why not? --John (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Cannot support per Doc Quintana and Sarah. Not opposing as I trust this was a one-off. But enough to prevent me supporting. Sorry. --John (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Tempted to add a belated co-nom. --WFC-- 14:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. As per last time, I see no reason not to support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Absolutely; a strong candidate. ceranthor 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Very good candidate. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Of course. Good contributor in all ways. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose Not nearly enough articles created, only 1,438. Needs 1,443 before they are qualified. Support Aiken ♫ 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Withdrawing support. Aiken Drum 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rats! I knew someone would pull me up on that! BigDom 18:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - The answer to Q4 addressed BLP issue raised at the previous RfA, and overall I can't see any other problems. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - should b e fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Trusted user. I am confident they will do great with the tools. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Inka 888 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Looks fine- no concerns. AlexiusHoratius 22:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that BLP quote is a bit of a concern. Not enough for me to oppose, but too much to support. AlexiusHoratius 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support—did so last time and will do so again. Airplaneman ✈ 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Trusted editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: No major concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposer's rationale is completely unpersasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to keep your comments addressed to the candidate's qualities, not your opinion of those who do not share your opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, his opinion was of your rationale, not of you. But, I agree that comments should be focused on the candidate. Aiken ♫ 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, to Malleus Fatuorum:) I always carefully review the comments in the oppose and neutral sections before supporting a candidate, to see whether there is anything that another editor may have said that would dissuade me from supporting. Since an RfA is a collaborative discussion, the facts that the multitude of other editors commenting on a candidate have turned up no negatives that I find persuasive, can itself become part of my basis for supporting, and thus is indeed a reflection on, as you put it, the candidate's qualities. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (adding)I stand by my support, but please give some more thought to the importance of the BLP policy. A Wikipedia article is typically a top-ranking Google hit for the article subject, and we need to write and watch over BLPs with that in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Stephen 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I have examined what purport to be opposes, and find no substance in them in the slightest. Unsourced bile is no substitute for reasoned argument. However, for the sake of argument, I have also examined the candidate's contribs, and can see no reason why the mop should not be granted. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support User has addressed the concerns I had at his last RfA and I am happy to support this one. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Seems to have improved from March. —fetch·comms 00:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support – Excellent article creator with enough experience in admin areas. A definite net plus. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - no probs. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - I was going to support last time, but the nomination was withdrawn before I could.  -- Lear's Fool 02:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I supported last time. I actually agree with BigDom's position in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kudjodji. Polargeo (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Of course. Trusilver 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Changed to Strong Support in light of the number of opposes from the hand-wringing, yet always humorous, BLP crowd. There have been a few minor BLP issues over time that have needed to be taken care of, yes. But nothing to justify the tens of thousands of man-hours of intellectual masturbation that has gone on by people that really need to find something else to do with their time. Sorry for being blunt, but it strikes me that BigDom understands that. That makes him an even better candidate in my eyes. Trusilver 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support After small analysis, I find nothing to be concerned about. --Next-Genn-Gamer 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Responsible approach, well experienced, and qualified. Concerning the diffs in the oppose section, well-reasoned and respectful dissent from a consensus position is fine, and the note that he would close that AFD against his personal opinion exhibits a healthy respect for the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Experienced, no concerns. I'd missed that (he?) didn't have the bit already. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a "he" last time I checked. BigDom 16:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    *grin*, thanks for the reply. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I've interacted with you in the course of developing WP:NSPORT, and we do not always agree, but I am confident based on those interactions that you have the best interests of the Wiki at heart, and that you have an excellent understanding of how things work. I am sure that you will be a very good administrator, and I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Substantial content contributions and plenty of experience outside of article space, and good answers to questions above. -- Atama頭 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Due to my brain suffering from overpopulation, I can't remember the former nom, so I'm voting yes since no unopposed opposes (meaning ones that have not been discussed) are visible. Buggie111 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Article writer, won't abuse the tools. Secret account 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My support withdrawn due to stance on BLPs. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per thoughtful answers to questions, per Colonel Warden (yes, I know that was an oppose, but the linked discussion shows good judgment and thought rather than slavish adherence to subguidelines), and per excellent effort at addressing issues raised at the previous RfA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support User has overcame concerns raised in previous RFA and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Works on content. Always need more admins who understand this aspect of things.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. A credit to WP:Football. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I supported last time, and things seem to have improved since then. Good luck! Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - trustworthy article writer and editor. Agree with Seraphimblade about the opposes - the candidate very occasionally invokes IAR, which as far as I'm concerned is a plus point. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - clean talk / user pages - great answers to the questions - sound in policy IMHO. I understand and have noted Malleus in oppose - the commentary in opposition from Colonel Warden is easily ignored. Not Nerd :  On WR  20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support SnottyWong soliloquize 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Opposes don't add up. Don't screw up? Vodello (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I trust this user from what i've seen so far. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) #::Removing comment per diff on Herostratus RFA. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Wikipedia would be benefited by him having access to admin tools. I see no reason to oppose, or !vote otherwise. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Have seem him around a bit and thought was reasonable and good editor. I share a small bit of CW's concerns but I don't that that should be deadly to an RfA. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, BigDom. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Good answers to questions, good editing history without significant conflict. I see no glaring errors in judgment. We need more admins like this. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean to support? Tommy! 03:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume so and have moved it to the correct section. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I don't see anything wrong. I think BigDom will make a great administrator. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Wait, I haven't supported yet? ~Pepper 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Another useful addition for the mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support No outstanding issues here.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Looks ok to me, not persuaded by opposes. Davewild (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Looks ok to me, has made some mistakes, but appears to have learned from them. In particular, the oppose below based on prior support for another user's RFA leads me to a moral obligation to support - we can't have open and frank discussions here if we are held accountable merely for expressing an opinion. Triona (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Expressing an opinion is very frequently dealt with harshly here on wikipedia, particularly if it's an unpopular opinion. Besides, casting a vote is more than just expressing an opinion, it's making a judgement, and in this case a very poor one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Seems to know policy well and has a good grounding in dealing with content-related issues. Should make a fine admin. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Glad to do so. Jmlk17 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - I left rather a long oppose speech on your last RfA. I also left a personal note on your talk page that if you you follow the advice in the opposes, I would support your next attempt. I think you did,.--Kudpung (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. The candidate is intelligent, reasonable, and knowledgeable on policy matters. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support wiooiw (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support A trustworthy candidate. Good luck! ---- Gfoley4 (press to chat) (what I've done) 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Mhm. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Definite Support for sure. Mr. R00t Talk 02:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. I'm really sorry to be the first in this column, or indeed in it at all in this case, but I really can't excuse BigDom's support of Terrasidius's RfA. BTW WFC, that prose you praise so lavishly is largely mine. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious; why is that such a deal-breaker for you? Here is the link so others won't have to search for it as I did. --John (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have more rewarding things to do than to get into another argument with you John. Anyone who cares about what I consider to be the poor judgement displayed in that RfA can look at it for themselves and make up their own minds. On the second point, I was drawing attention to the fact that the co-nominator's statement was substantially misleading, but I notice you chose to ignore that. Perhaps the truth means nothing to you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sophisticated enough to know that "the truth" is a subjective quality and so is best avoided in such debates. I note that several others (including Xeno) share the same judgment on that RfA you hold to be sufficiently poor to exclude the candidate from consideration, hence my clarifying question, which it is totally fine for you to decline to answer. I did indeed choose to ignore your second point. --John (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You did indeed, hence you clearly care nothing for the truth. You confuse the scientific method of attempting to disprove null hypotheses by experiment with "truth", but truth in a social context is that what you just just said is a lie, which can be easily proven to be a lie, as in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that this is that unreasonable of an oppose. If Malleus feels that BigDom's judgment is faulty in supporting that RfA, then maybe BigDom's judgment in nominating himself is also faulty. I don't share that opinion, but I think this is at least no more ridiculous than objecting because of a high automated edit percentage or not creating enough articles from scratch. -- Atama頭 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the sort of oppose we should be fussing over. Malleus F has opposed in a civil way, expressed his opinion on the candidate's suitability, and that's all there is to it. He's explained himself, we may not agree, but so what? He's even apologised for opposing, which is hardly necessary. Aiken ♫ 22:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairy nuff. Per Atama, Malleus is perfectly entitled to oppose on whatever grounds he sees fit; I didn't mean to imply he had been uncivil, but was merely asking a clarifying question. I consider it clarified now. --John (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree with any oppose based on an editor's history of !voting in RFA, because it creates a chilling effect on participation. Triona (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it any more "chilling" (what an overused word that is here) than an oppose based on an editor's history of CsD tagging, or AfD participation? Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe what Triona is implying is that a user might come a long who may possibly wish to nominate themselves for an RfA later down the line and may subsequently avoid commenting on present and future RfA's as they could gather the impression that they may be censured for their opinions on others nominations when their own nomination comes along. That's just what I gathered. It's a legitimate concern in my opinion, but a person's opinion is a person's opinion and I'm not one to stand in the way of that as long as it is civil, which, from my perspective, this has been. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 15:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that point but I reject it as implausible. What is much more likely are the "you support me, I'll support you" supports, which may go some way to explaining what's wrong with this place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to hope that editor's do not vote support in some (potentially mis-guided) sense of Quid pro quo, but that would just be naïve of me to believe that at least a small minority of editors do not. That said, I personally find both probabilities plausible, though with a slight leaning towards the latter as being more plausible than the former. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I feel high regard for our policies is needed in Administrators and don't think User:BigDom,s comment here reflects that position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Checking his contributions for Oct'09, we see him creating lots of stubby footballer articles such as this BLP. But in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kudjodji he invokes WP:IAR to !vote delete contrary to consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully respect your oppose, but to be clear, Dom was not calling for consensus to be ignored. He was arguing against the majority position (as you are) and explained his reasoning eloquently (as you have). --WFC-- 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He invokes IAR here. My objection is to the contrast between this case and his own perfunctory stubs. It does not seem proper for him to be arguing for deletion in a case which seems so similar to his own creation(s). As a contributor, this is not a big deal, but I prefer a higher standard of consistency and tolerance in admins. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BigDom does say IAR there, but is not saying "per IAR let's ignore consensus" - I just want that to be clear, since your original note might make it seem like that was the point. The point of IAR here is to challenge wp:ATHLETE on an edge case where the player only played one minute of fully professional play. This is a legitimate thing to do. wp:ATHLETE even says "occasional exceptions may apply" at the top of the page. That's what IAR is all about. Additionally, BigDom doesn't seem to like wp:ATHLETE much, and these guidelines can get modified if at AfDs they are routinely found to be problematic, so a la jury nullification I think this is a reasonable way to call this guideline into question. Now, an interesting question is how would BigDom have closed this AfD? ErikHaugen (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I hadn't been involved in the discussion I would have closed it as keep in spite of my own opinions, seeing as that was clearly the consensus. BigDom 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the only thing you can find is a questionable (but not unreasonable) application of IAR from a year ago, then I would ask if we're being a tad too stringent. If there were multiple cases of BigDom running all over WP doing whatever he wants, and quoting IAR as the excuse, then I'd say you have a point. I don't see any indication of that. Nobody is perfect (even admins). SnottyWong chat 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're talking about are things from before his last RFA. I think that assuming from what he's done after his last RFA would be a more appropriate judgement. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Colonel Warden, those edits you are referring to took place 11 months ago. Do you have examples of this behavior from the last few months? Kingturtle (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible that (s)he hasn't yet realized that this is BigDom's second RFA attempt. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't checked the previous RFA which I did not recall. I find that I opposed that on the grounds that the candidate was creating poorly sourced BLPs. I check his contributions since then and find that not much has changed. For example, see Mike Conroy (footballer born 1957). This is sourced to a fan site which does not appear to be reliable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The homepage of the Neil Brown website states "The English League player's appearances and goalscorers statistics are drawn primarily from Barry Hugman's 'The Premier and Football League Player's Records' series of books", so I would argue that the site is reliable. BigDom 06:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see our policy on reliable sources which explains that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". In this case, you are taking it on trust that this fan web-site has used the Barry Hugman source and has transcribed it accurately. Note also that this site states that "The English League player's appearances and goalscorers statistics are drawn primarily from Barry Hugman's 'The Premier and Football League Player's Records' series of books, for which I am extremely grateful for his permission to use". Did you likewise ask Barry Hugman for his permission to copy this information to Wikipedia? Do you realise that by copying these records to Wikipedia, you are implicitly claiming ownership and giving the world a licence to copy this further? My impression is that you are quite naive about these matters because our sports articles get a free pass when it comes to notability and so they haven't been regularly roasted at AFD, as other topics are. I caught you out on this at your previous RfA but your comments and behaviour indicate that you are still quite unfamiliar with our rigorous policies in this area. This doesn't make you a bad person but it means that you lack the knowledge and experience of sourcing, copyright and BLP issues which we expect of an admin. If, as an admin, you were to become involved in some topical matter like the current furore about William Hague, you would soon be out of your depth and might easily make a wrong call. This could be an expensive mistake and so it seems best that you get some wider experience before becoming an admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Implicity claiming ownership? Now I've heard everything. I do understand the BLP policies that Wikipedia has, and I know what you're getting at on the reliable sources front. I refer you to WP:BLP, which clearly states that only material that is "contentious" or "likely to be challenged" should be attributed to a high quality source. Do you consider football statistics to be contentious? So it appears that it is the two guidelines that are contrary, which might go some way to explaining our slightly different views on the subject. The bit about self-published sources on the BLP page only warns in detail against the use of blogs or tweets, etc, although admittedly websites are mentioned. I certainly do understand copyright, and what you're saying is that every time someone uses a source they should ask permission; that's just not true is it? Every single admin on this site will have used a non-PD source without "permission". By the way, I have no interest whatsoever in William Hague or controversy (I have no idea what the current "furore" is about) and wouldn't get involved in anything like that, I can assure you. BigDom 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the facts which you put in this particular BLP was the person's date of birth. This is sensitive personal information because it tells you the person's age and may be used for personal identification. The football statistics have commercial value as Mr Hugman seems to make his living by publishing them. As you seem to have copied them without permission or significant transformation, there seems to be a copyright issue here. You seem to be adding large quantities of this information to Wikipedia and this goes beyond fair use. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you propose removing statistics from all sports biographies then? Because someone must have collated them before they were put on Wikipedia and it's pretty difficult to "significantly transform" stats. BigDom 11:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see sweat of the brow which explains that, if you rip off someone else's hard work, then, under UK and EU law, you are potentially liable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But nobody is trying to pass off the stats as their own. Nobody on Wikipedia adds stats to articles in the hope of making a profit from somebody else's work. Surely if Wikipedia saw a problem in people doing this, they would have put a stop to it years ago? BigDom 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Foundation which hosts Wikipedia has a hands-off policy so that they are not legally liable for the content which the editors create. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is September '10 now. Is it impossible for us, as humans, to learn from our mistakes after almost a year? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mike Conroy (footballer born 1957) article was created two months ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hugman Players' records books are based on numerous other books like the Soccerdata, the Breedon and Yore publications (page 7 of the 2005 edition) . It's a comprehensive source, but certainly not the only one. Cattivi (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Colonel Warden, your thoughts on what's a BLP issue may be your own opinion (though birth dates are commonly added, especially if already publicly known), but your thoughts on the statistics are factually incorrect. In Feist v. Rural, the Supreme Court quite unambiguously decided that simple lists of facts are not copyrightable. The layout, presentation, or commentary on the facts may be copyrightable if creative enough, but the facts themselves are not. It appears your sweat of the brow doctrine is a feature of European law, but Wikimedia is based in the US and is subject to US law. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate seems to edit from the UK and so is subject to UK law. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would that would be their problem, not Wikipedia's or WMF's - so long as the servers, and legal entities are here, those are the laws that apply to our content. Triona (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be a general problem. Please see the current case of Darius Dhlomo - a sports fan with a casual attitude to plagiarising the work of others. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I'm sorry, because your answers were, generally, good; however, Off2riorob's diff is really a dealbreaker: BLP is one of our most important policies and admins should enforce it as strictly as they can, because what we write here can have serious consequences in real life. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 08:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Someone asked me about that diff on my talk page where I have tried to explain myself if anyone's interested. BigDom 09:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the pointer, I'm going to read your response! Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 09:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read it and I uderstand your position better; however, I have still qualms: in my opinion, BLP is not only there to avoid lawsuits... However, you've given me something to think about; I may still change my mind. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 09:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Some more experience needed in my opinion. Too may examples of questionable judgement and policy/guideline knowledge. Epbr123 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Off2riorob and Salvio. I have read the follow up explanation, however it's still a dealbreaker for me. BLP is extremely important, and it's not just about avoiding "misrepresenting people who could possibly sue". Regardless of whether or not someone may be able to to sue, we have a duty and responsibility as a top ten website to take the time and care to get biographical material right. Having seen through OTRS work the distress and suffering caused to BLP subjects when BLP isn't followed properly, I cannot support a candidate who doesn't seem to "get" BLP. Sarah 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per "BLP is taken far, far too seriously here on Wikipedia and some people really need to get a life" No, BLP still, even after all this time, needs to be taken more seriously. I can't support anyone who demonstrates a lax attitude towards BLP policy. Courcelles 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose BLP. Townlake (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose over BLP concerns. If those of us who stand up for the principle of doing no harm to living individuals are to be derided as hand-wringing, yet always humorous by the candidate's supporters, then we probably need to stand up for ourselves. Sorry BigDom, but this policy is not up for grabs. --John (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Sarah. The BLP policy is not just a means to avoid lawsuits; it is an ethical imperative founded in respect and fairness. Kablammo (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sorry to join in here, but your explanation shows you really don't seem to understand what we're trying to do here. Wikipedia policies aren't about "preventing us from getting sued", they're all (with varying degrees of success) attempts to make a working system of ethics that's applicable to Wikipedia's unique situation. To me, that explanation reads like someone who's thinking in terms of "what can we get away with?", not "what is the right thing to do?", and that's not an appropriate attitude in an admin in the Wikipedia context. Don't read this as a "never", but as a definite "not now". – iridescent 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad that our policy on living people has a strong ethical dimension to it, but it's an undeniable fact that legal considerations were a catalyst for its development, as evidenced by the fact that there are still thousands of several-year-old unsourced BLPs on the site. In relation to Dom's comments, given that an unsourced, on-wiki allegation of a named user being a p(a)edophile was raised on the page where Dom's initial offending diff came from, it is not at all surprising that he saw red. I don't defend his words in any way, but in fairness to him he was pointing out a double-standard. --WFC-- 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Underlined comment added late. --WFC-- 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I would have to agree with Iridescent. There are already far too many administrators who do not value our responsibility to individuals in the world who by no choice of their own have been been placed in what we term to be an encyclopedia, but can sometimes be better labeled a libel mill. Hell, I probably was one of those people who undervalued BLP myself before (to be honest, I probably am such a person now, though I try to recognize that and improve). I realize that this RFA will likely pass regardless of what I say here. BigDom, might I ask that after you do pass, pop me a note on my talk page. There are quite a number of emails (76) in the info-en-q queue on OTRS right now, and many refer to articles that need to be radically fixed, which you could certainly assist with and thereby possibly gain a better understanding of the importance of BLP. NW (Talk) 02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this a strange oppose. Firstly because nobody is accusing Dom of not recognising the very real legal concerns that BLPs pose. But secondly because, paraphrased, part of your rationale seems to read "I am an admin that does not have a good level of understanding of BLP policy. I do not think you should be an admin due to your level of understanding of BLP policy." Apologies if this is a mischaracterisation, but reading through it, that is how it appears. Regards, --WFC-- 02:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got back from a very long day out, so my apologies if I horribly misrepresented what I meant. I meant something more along the lines of this: "BigDom does not appear to properly understand our ethical responsibility to subjects of biographies." The other part was a recognition of "I am not perfect, but I recognize that fact and work to improve." NW (Talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Some of the arguments in this column are poor or hair-splitting, but really, our admins need to have a good understanding of the importance and background of BLP, and BigDom doesn't seem to have such an understanding. Ucucha 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly though that will make no difference, because this is just a popularity contest cum vote. The bureaucrats have no authority to refuse a "promotion" just because the candidate completely misunderstands one of wikipedia's most important policies. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fun fact: When Off2riorob posted the link to the BLP quote, his was the third oppose against 68 supports (including mine). Since that quote was pointed out, this RFA has certainly changed direction. I'm fairly certain I know what the 'crats will do with this, but I'm still a bit intrigued to see if we get an explanation that discusses this. Townlake (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we all know what the crats will do and how they'll explain it, don't we? Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the most likely result, but I haven't seen an RFA situation quite like this before - a late turning RFA, where the turn is based on concerns directly related to policy interpretation, on a US holiday weekend. Could be an interesting close. Townlake (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says on the main page, "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days..." This might well qualify. They could extend discussion an extra day, at least to have BigDom respond to Q9 and Q10 (or indicate he declines to respond) and give time for people to react. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and of course pigs might fly. Malleus Fatuorum 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I cannot support someone who thinks "BLP is taken far, far too seriously here on Wikipedia" —Dark 07:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I opposed last time on sourcing, and was hoping not to oppose again. But the BLP policy is crucial: we have an obligation to insist on getting it right. The answer to Q10, "some editors believe that all unsourced material should be removed, even dates/places of birth/death, et cetera, despite the fact that the policy never states that this is the case" isn't an overly strict interpretation unsupported by the policy. It's exactly what WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources and WP:BLP#Misuse of primary sources says we should do. Whether this RfA passes or not, please take seriously the comments made in this section. Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, though, that's your interpretation of the law. The policy that you've linked to, and that I've read many times, clearly states "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth... err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Yet some editors remove this information despite a lack of complaint from the subject. I will take the comments here seriously, just as I did last time. BigDom 09:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly my interpretation of the preceding sentence: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." (my highlighting) I see nothing which says it's OK to publish unsourced personal details and only remove them if the subject complains. Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but I never said it was OK to publish dates of birth that aren't included in any reliable sources. What I meant was that , if the date of birth has been published in reliable sources, it does not have to be cited directly in the article. If the date of birth has been published in reliable source and the subject still complains, then it should still be removed. BigDom 09:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have thought anything specified at WP:BLP as usable if "widely published in reliable sources" etc would necessarily require proof that it actually had been. But I realise this must be a difficult environment in which to express oneself clearly, and if I've misunderstood you on this particular matter, then I apologise. My oppose isn't based just on that one bit of a reply, but on how I perceive your attitude to BLPs in relation to what I'd hope for in an admin candidate. Sorry. Struway2 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - On BLP related concerns. It's much broader than a single comment made, but on an overall impression that given the recent BLP shake-up, I think the criteria's elevated. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral – At the moment not willing to support, for the most part per Iridescent in the "oppose" section, but might reconsider based on responses to Q9 and Q10. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Off2riob NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The BLP related comments are of concern, but I'm unsure if it enough to outweigh his other administrative ability attributes.--PinkBull 05:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I would like to see answers to questions 9 and 10 before I make a firm decision, and I, therefore, hope that the crats give this RfA a little more time. BigDom does a lot of good work, and I would like to hear a properly formulated account of his opinions regarding BLPs - the comment cited by several opposers was ill-advised and is worrying, but I am unsure as to how it might affect his work in admin areas. Rje (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral It's all good apart from the take on BLP... Aiken Drum 11:14, 7 September 2010 (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/BigDom_2&oldid=1146597817"