Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2

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

Blanchardb

Final (54/38/7); Closed as unsuccessful by X! at 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Blanchardb (talk · contribs) – Presenting Blanchardb for your consideration folks. Blanchardb has been editing productively here since September 2007, and in that time has made almost 75,000 edits. Blanchardb is known to me through his work at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation where he has been highly active for the last 2 and a half years, with more contributions to that page than any other editor, all of which are helpful and productive - working there also involves working with the articles needing translation, which he also does a great deal. Just the other day he translated Charron Island from the French Wikipedia. When it comes to other Admin areas, Blanchardb is very active in both vandal fighting, 25% of his edits are with huggle, and deletion, with approximately 12,000 deleted edits, the majority of which are csd tagging and prods. He is also very active at AFD. Blanchardb is no slouch when it comes to article writing either, he helped bring List of bridges to the Island of Montreal to featured list status and has several DYK's, in additon to his work translating articles. He is also civil and willing to help other users, as a look at his talk page will show. One final thing, Blanchardb's previous RFA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb, was over a year ago and the main issue was not actually Blanchardb so much as it was his nominator, looking at the supports vs the opposes I think its likely it would have passed at the time had there been no issue with the nominator. Overall I think that granting Blanchardb the bit would be excellent for the project. Thank you for your time Jac16888^Talk 20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Given the number of people who, lately, have suggested that I try, I accept the nomination. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:26, 14 April 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 believe most of my work as an admin would be in the speedy deletion and expired prods department. Those are the areas I know the best. I am already taking an occasional look at C:SD and untagging articles that are either improperly tagged or ineligible for speedy deletion. Additionally, as a WP:PNT regular, I may act as a consultant when another admin comes across a situation where foreign-language material requires administrator attention. I speak fluent French, I have a basic understanding of Spanish and German, and I know how to use the tools we have at our disposal at PNT to identify obscure languages (WP:LRC, for example) and assess articles to see whether they are worth translating.

Addendum: I would also help at WP:AIV whenever that page has a backlog. Cases listed there need immediate attention, and most of them must be acted on in a matter of minutes, unlike listings at WP:UAA or expired AfD's, many of which can easily remain unanswered for an additional 24 hours without the delay being detrimental to the project.

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

A: My best contribution, of course, would be the featured List of bridges to the Island of Montreal. It is the first list of its kind to get Featured List status on Wikipedia, and I believe it is the model to be followed by similar articles. When I started working on that list, at first I thought all it needed was references for the information that was already present, but I found that some of the information was either wrong or missing. Plus, I had to drive to every one of the individual entries of the list to take pictures. This led to a discussion at WP:FP about accepting that for some subjects we will never be able to get an FP-quality picture when I asked for suggestions about File:Île aux Tourtes Bridge.JPG.

I am currently working on List of crossings of the Saint Lawrence River, which is different in several respects. For one thing, it lists ferry services. For another, I had to find a way to organize entries wherever the river splits into two or more branches. Finally, I will never be able to get this listed at WP:FL before I drive to Massena, New York just for one picture, and to a Salaberry-de-Valleyfield public library to dig for information on the minor bridges there.

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: The only situation that I would say did cause me stress is now ancient history. Écrasez l'infâme (talk · contribs) (whose username I knew was a direct reference to a work by Voltaire) came to the Bible article and added an over-referenced POV-pushing addition in which he insisted that the entire list of scholars supporting his opinion be kept either within the article or as a footnote. His addition was clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:REL He was reverted by several people who had the article on their watchlists, yet I was singled out as his main opponent, presumably on the grounds that I made the first revert. He tried to pass of the other reverters as supporting his position, not too credibly, I might say. In the end, just as I was filing a report against him at WP:3RR, he was filing one of his own against me at WP:WQA. He got a 24-hour block, which he unsuccessfully contested, and the WQA case against me was closed as stale. He never has edited since then. I wrote in the WQA thread, "I rest my case," but I believe I would have saved myself some stress if I had done that before the WQA case was even filed.

As for a WP:3RR block I got in December, while I wasn't too stressed about it, what I learned from it is that there is a way not to deal with people whom I strongly suspect of being sockpuppets. In the future, if I see someone who looks to me like a probable sockpuppet, I'll let them edit unhindered (except in cases of clear vandalism, of course), and I will simply gather enough evidence to file a strong case at WP:SPI.

Additional questions from Mkativerata.

4. Do you think these tags were in error? Why? [1] [2] [3]

A:

The_Tenderloins This was a borderline case. The only claim of notability for that troupe was winning a prize in It's Your Show, which, despite being on NBC, does not have an article on Wikipedia (although it probably should). This is not American Idol, however on second thought I think it should have gone directly to PROD or AfD. So yes, this one was in error.

Carrolls_Winward This is a case where the claim of importance is stated in terms too vague to be credible.

ChildFund_Alliance This is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. As I pointed out to the creator, being sponsored by a notable organization does not automatically confer notability.

5. A number of people in this RFA have put forward the view that if you are able to recognise CSD mistakes that should be fine. I agree with that; I just don't see enough in Q4 to satisfy me that you really understand A7 and recognise that all three tags were based on an erroneous application of A7. So I'll ask a few more examples, with a view to changing my !vote if you can adequately explain why you think your tags were correct or incorrect. These are the tags: [4] [5] [6] [7].

A:

Edmund_Thomas_Clint It is too easy to call someone a "child prodigy" when one has a close connection to the subject, and I've seen such WP:PEACOCK qualifiers too often on newpage patrol. This said, in this particular case the assertion was almost immediately elaborated upon, and I would probably have declined my own speedy, as I have done on several occasions, if it hadn't been for someone else beating me to the punch. I should say that I do follow up on the tags I insert. This was unwarranted, but I wasn't around to revert it when it occurred.

The_Gladstone_Institutes On this one, I am guilty of invoking the wrong CSD criterion, though even that is debatable. Again, notability is not inherited, and this revision shows no assertion of importance that is independent of the University of California, in addition to using promotional language. The creator was eventually blocked on a WP:USERNAME violation, but the assertion of importance eventually came up.

Adel_Awad A long list of diplomas does not by itself constitute an assertion of importance under WP:PROF, and neither is a number of research papers, none of which are asserted to be ground-breaking. The speedy tag on this one was eventually declined, but only on the basis of information that was added later on, possibly as a result of my reply to the creator's hangon rationale on the talk page. Bottom line: the article did mention "a lot of research papers, articls, and books" but did not say what the research was about. University professors are required by contract to produce a number of research papers, and a friend of mine, himself a former professor of Chemistry at the University of Minnesota, once said to me that universities tend to look at quantity over quality (that's one of the issues that made him leave, actually), so I believe a claim of importance should assert that at least one of the research papers produced became somewhat influential.

Hope_Hall_Foundation_School This one was a clear G11 with no assertion of importance. Not an A7 category (that's my only mistake here), but sometimes it is preferable to tag an article as non-notable rather than promotional, lest the creator would just recreate the article with a few tweaks. Given WP:SCHOOL, however, I should probably have done this myself.

6. In the four reverts that constituted the 3RR violation, it appears you used rollback (correct me if I'm wrong). Is this use of rollback justified? --Mkativerata (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A: Huggle uses rollback automatically. That's one of the drawbacks of using automated tools, and a similar "misuse" was discussed on my talk page just this week. This is precisely why I'm not using an automated tool on NP patrol.

Additional question from RadManCF.

7. Could you give links to any discussions about your block? I'm not likely to oppose because of the block, I'd just like to know the particulars of the situation.

A: Here's a link to the 3RR report. There's not much else to see.

Addendum: Someone did protest to the blocking admin here.

Additional question(s) from Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}.

8. During your vandalism patrol you meet a user blanking a specific page over and over. After warning him for doing so the user claims he is the subject of the article, and he is quite incensed that the information in the article is incorrect - according to him that is. After reading the article you see that it is woefully unsourced up to the point where the subject is proclaimed to be dead without any reference supporting this. The article also states that the subject was born in the 60's, so it isn't obvious that he cannot be living anymore due to old age. What actions do you take, and why?

A: An incident of this very nature was recently discussed on my talk page recently (archived here). The problem in this particular situation was that the "vandal" (who in this case was the subject) was blanking the entire article, not just the inaccurate information, thereby giving me no clue as to his intentions. But when his intentions became clear, I did blank the incorrect information, and erased all user warnings on his talk page. This was clearly an exemption to WP:COI. The rest of the page was eventually deleted by uncontested prod.

As the deletion of unsourced BLP's is a new policy, not every editor, even among the regulars, are familiar with it, or familiar enough to instinctively invoke it. This article being older than the policy, however, it had the benefit of a grandfather clause, and could not be deleted under the BLP policy alone. It was prodded over a different concern, and successfully so.

Could you please clarify why you mean by "clearly an exemption to WP:COI"  Chzz  ►  14:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken (emphasis mine) or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. Saying whether one is still alive or not is a matter of factual information, an I cannot come up with an example where an NPOV issue could arise over the date of one's death. Either the information is correct or it's not. The only way a problem could arise is if an otherwise reliable source gives incorrect information and is cited, but that wasn't the case here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I understand now. I didn't understand that by 'exempt' you were referring to specific edits, rather than generic auto-bio issues.  Chzz  ►  07:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

9. Under what circumstances would you revert an admin action other than your own and what else might you do to resolve the situation?

A: For one thing, I would never revert an admin's action unilaterally or without discussing it first, except in a situation where it is apparent that an admin's account is compromised and is being used by a vandal (and even then the evidence would have to be overwhelming). In situations where I believe an editor was unjustly blocked, I would not unblock the editor myself until the editor uses an {{unblock}} template and writes an adequate explanation to his actions. However, I would probably help the editor file the request in proper form. If you look at my block log, you will see another block in September that hasn't yet been discussed here (with good reason), where I was unblocked in a matter of minutes, and it is apparent to me that the blocking admin tried to undo his own action but was beaten to the punch by another admin. This shows me that there is an overwhelming consensus that the block in question was in error, and this would be about the only situation where I would undo another admin's action.

Bottom line, if an action wasn't a clear mistake and was done in good faith, don't undo it without discussing it first.

10. How would you respond if you made an admin action in the firm belief that it was well grounded in policy and this action was later reverted by another administrator?

A:' Not everyone interprets policy the same way. I remember a situation (can't find it in my talk page archives), where an admin wrote a notification on my talk page that he was about to decline one of my speedies, yet by the time he clicked Save, another admin had already deleted the page in question. There have been discussions above in Q4 and Q5 about what constitutes an assertion of significance. By my experience, the interpretation of that concept varies from one admin to another. Is a claim that X wrote a few research papers (without specifying which ones) an assertion of significance? It is apparent to me that not everyone agrees on the answer.

But to answer your question, what would I do if reverted, I think the answer would be the same as #9, except that I would proceed with even more caution, as the wheel warring process is already under way. Wikipedia has several venues to resolve such issues if one-to-one discussions fail. WP:DR is the next step, and I'm the kind of person who's not too keen about going one step further than that. If another editor is affected by the disputed decision, getting that editor involved in the resolution will get most matters resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Additional optional question from Chzz

11. In hindsight, do you think this CSD tagging was appropriate?

A: It was. The article was blatantly promotional with nothing that was salvageable as a stub. The tag states, would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Fortunately for the article, the fundamental rewrite did come not too long after tagging.

It should be said that whenever I tag an article and the concern is addressed before an admin sees it, I am willing to remove my own tags myself. As I said above, I do follow up on my tags, and I've removed quite a few.

Thank you for your honest answer - and I agree with you that it did fit the A7 criterion. What worries me slightly is that you tagged it 6 minutes after creation. If you had been a SysOp, would you have deleted it at that time? If not, perhaps you could explain if you consider CSD-deletion to require more consideration than CSD-tagging?  Chzz  ►  07:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this one was a G11, not an A7. As a college, the subject gets a free pass at notability per WP:SCH#Indicators of probable notability (a guideline which, though it failed to get consensus to become official, is applied in practice nevertheless). However, no such exemption exists with regard to promotional material. I read the first paragraph and saw an ad. So, I asked myself, okay, is the entire article like this? I've read the second one, which talked about a commitment to excellence, thereby also promotional. The third paragraph talked about the school's values. I had seen enough. Note that one cannot work this way to tag an article for A7 speedy. For an A7, one must read the entire article to see whether there's an assertion of importance hidden somewhere in the text. That may take some time, especially if the article creator tripped edit filter 180, but if I find even one single assertion of importance buried deep within the text, there's no way I'm going to put a deletion tag on the article, be it A7 or Prod (except for a BLP prod). However, I'm going to add a few maintenance tags and let SmackBot (talk · contribs) deal with the details. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As for whether I would have deleted the text if I had seen such an article with the tag already in place, I've often seen articles deleted as G11 which were immediately recreated in such a way that the G11 concern no longer applied. Whether the article is deleted quickly or slowly, the key, here, is to let the creator know what is wrong with his version of the article, and to let him know that the article can be recreated at any time if the concerns that led to deletion are addressed. I've even seen G10's that were recreated and allowed to stay. This said, if there's no salvageable material, quick deletion won't make much of a difference, provided that the creator gets notified as to what went on. In this case, the list of "subsidiaries" at the bottom could have been regarded as salvageable material, but not sufficient for a stub by itself (if left alone, it could easily have been regarded as an A1 speedy). So in a case like this I would have waited at least for the creator to react to the tagging. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm sorry, I meant G11, don't know why I typed A7 there - but still, perhaps my typo made for a better answer. I swear that it wasn't an attempt to 'catch you out'! That was a very well-considered answer, thank you. I will not waste any more space up here.  Chzz  ►  04:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Blanchardb
• Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2

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

---

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

Discussion

• Out of interest, as a non-admin and someone with little experience at WP:ANEW, is it normal for a 3RR block to come 2 and a half hours after the fourth revert? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Without hesitation.  7  23:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Reiterating - continued support.  7  23:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Support I'm actually quite surprised why this user isn't already an admin. No issues here. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Support Seems like this candidate has been solid over the past few months, so no worries here. Moved to oppose per CSD taggings.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

3. So very overdue. ceranthor 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Absolutely. per above. Dlohcierekim 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Continued support despite Mkativerata's examples. Blanchardb has over 2,000 deleted contribs, so has generally done a good job with CSD tagging. I believe Mkativerata 's examples are aberrations and not represetative of his knowledge and ability, and that it is still reasonable to support. Dlohcierekim 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Unless the counter is wrong its actually nearly 20,000 deleted contribs (18,716)--Jac16888^Talk 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks Jac. I stopped at over 2,000. If nearly 20,000, his error rate is pretty small. A pity as far as timing goes. Dlohcierekim 00:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I don't think you can assume that all deleted contributions are "correct" unless you look at them (I can't). How many were incorrect and then incorrectly deleted? I don't know what the error rate is. But several howlers over a few weeks, combined with a response that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the most widely used CSD criterion, is certainly concerning enough for me. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   To me, the question is not whether or not the candidate has never made a mistake. It's whether or not he understands the polices. We all make mistakes, and Blanchardb has demonstrated that he does understand the policies, and is willing to admit and learn from his mistakes. Dlohcierekim 03:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Support. Can be trusted, plain and simple. -- œ^™ 23:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Support - No reason to oppose. Blanchardb has a lot of experience and knowledge, is courteous, and has plenty of great contributions to Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC) On review, I do have a reason to oppose, see below. -- Atama頭 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Support No worries here. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Support--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
8. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
9. Support despite the opposes.  fetchcomms☛ 02:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. What I have seen from this user in the field has been impressive. I don't see any reason to not support this user, even if some speedy tags may have been in error. It will happen to the best of us, no matter what. We all make mistakes...even admins do. For that reason, I will definitely support Blanchardb. 7OA chat 03:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Sure, no reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
12. Support I've seen lots of excellent janitorial work from Blanchardb, and I think he would do fine with the mop. Yes, among his 75k edits there are some mistakes; I hope this RFA does not get hung up on those as I think any fair analysis would conclude that Blanchardb would clearly be a net positive admin.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
13. One of the very few contributors I've given two barnstars for deletion work. The block is a shame, but anyone can have a momentary lapse and lose count, and I have to weigh the one lapse against the thousands of good calls. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
14. After reviewing the circumstances of the block, I conclude it's no big deal - Huggle mistakes do happen, and in this case I think it was perfectly understandable. Q4 concerns also satisfied on reflection; admission of error on the first tagging helps a lot. Ray^Talk 04:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
15. Support all the way. Strong English, as communication is important in an admin. Lots of experience and did you knows too. He should be a good candidate for administration. Minimac (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Support Actually, we probably need more admins who have been on the receiving end of a block - it brings a sense of perspective. The candidate clearly learnt from that experience. A nod to the opposers regarding speedy deletions but if you take it slow and steady I'm sure you'll be fine. Pedro :  Chat  06:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
17. Support Apart from being blocked five months ago for 3RR, I don't see too many problems. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
18. Supprt No concerns with this user. Competent without question. Supporting without hesitation.  IShadowed  ✰  09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Support -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) - moving to oppose -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

19. Weak support. While there are some mistakes, nobody's perfect and there are plenty of admin backlogs. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
20. Support No problems with this user becoming an admin. Does a great job at WP:PNT. Jarkeld (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
21. I support this excellent candidate. Block unfortunate but overlookable in view of the totality of his contributions.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
22. Support While I am still concerned about question 4's response, I trust that the candidate will learn from past mistakes and feel promotion will be a net positive. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
23. Support This user will be a net positive. I have slight misgivings about his answers to Q4, but, will probably learn from any mistakes he/she makes. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
24. Support. Blanchardb has clearly made some mistakes over time, but viewed in the context of the immense number of good contributions he's made and his generally very accurate patrolling work, he is a very clear net positive and would make good use of admin tools. ~ mazca ^talk 12:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
25. Support The question i asked was technically based upon that exact discussion (So i already knew what it was about), but i am satisfied with the answer. If one knows a recent change in the BLP policy such as the BLP prod i have no doubt that they know the rest of the policy as well. I'm a tad worried about the incorrect CSD tags but recent history also shows that Blancharddb removed several incorrect CSD's added by other users and replaced them with PROD tags so i think that evens out quite well. Thus i would say Net Positive, with an additional note to be careful when pressing "Delete", as that is a bit harder to correct then an incorrect tag :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
26. per Pedro. -Atmoz (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
27. Has been active for quite some time, so I'm sure the tools will be found helpful. -- Mentifisto 14:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
28. Support No real problems here. We're electing an admin here, we allow mistakes to be made. No one is perfect. Also, per PedroAiken ♫ 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
29. Support The block was deserved but it was over a minor spat. I'm confident that giving the bit to Blanchardb will be a net positive. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
30. Support per Pedro, et al. It seems clear that the candidate is familiar with policy; the very few CSD errors brought up here are a tiny portion of the deleted contribs I see, most of which are fine. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
31. Support I can't count the number of articles I've deleted that were correctly tagged by Blanchard, the error rate is very low. The block was five months ago, he accepted it and didn't freak out, and hasn't repeated the actions that led to the block, to me that shows maturity and an ability to learn from mistakes, valued qualities in an admin candidate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
32. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Support It's understandable that some people are concerned about one or two CSD mis-taggings, but compared to the vast number done well, it's really not much. All in all, looks like a trustworthy candidate to me -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, have to change to oppose - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

33. Support block was unjustified, as candidate was clearly reverting vandalism. So this vote is to counteract some opposition. However I will check more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
34. Support. I was seriously considering a neutral or even a weak oppose with a "try again later" type comment, but I appreciate the thoughtful, policy based and thorough answers to my questions. With those answers and everything else considered, I think Blanchardb has sufficient policy knowledge and clue to make a good administrator, though I would add that in a potential "wheel war" situation, you may find it useful to seek input at AN/ANI or a relevant talk page (like WT:MP if the matter concerns the Main Page). Best of luck to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
35. Support Shadowjams (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Aaroncrick ^TALK 07:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
37. Support the block notwithstanding, appears to be a net positive and would be as admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
38. Support I agree with the general thrust of the aboveAjbpearce (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
39. Support. The block was last year, so I don't consider that a sufficient reason to oppose. Regarding the speedy tags, I think you just need to be a little more cautious. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
40. Support I've crossed Blanchardb's path at many AFDs. His comments were reasoned and he was open to discussion. Decent qualities for an admin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
41. Support May have a different interpretation of CSD tags than others, but able to support his usage of it. There is no bright-line rule establishing how much lower a bar A7 importance is from notability. So why not? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. I see Blanchard's work all the time, and the few incorrect and borderline A7 tags don't trouble me so much. We all make mistakes, admins included, and I have faith in Blanchard's mental flexibility and willingness to be corrected. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. In my experience, those editors who are critiqued for CSD work during their RfA are more cautious in the future; there is no reason to assume Blanchard will make the same mistakes in the future. Ironholds (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

    Well put. I'll add that many of these critiques come from a predictable pool of editors that seem to share a similar view about CSD and deletion in general, that's not necessarily the community view. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

    I think there is a disconnect between RFA opposes over CSD and the actual practice of long established admins. Candidates are then sometimes shocked at the stringency applied at RFA. Dlohcierekim 14:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

    I don't dispute that there are some admins who stretch the CSD deletion criteria more than others. However RFA is not the place to change CSD policy, and looking at the history of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion it would be difficult to describe the existing speedy deletion criteria as not reflecting the community view. I for one would be very unlikely to oppose an RFA because the candidate advocated changing a policy, but I do want to be comfortable that the candidate would use the tools in accordance with policy. ϢereSpielChequers 14:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

44. Support Appear to be an editor with a clue. I see no good reason to oppose. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Tan | 39 17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
46. Support per nom.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Seems like a fine candidate to me. AniMate 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
48. Weak Support: Still has a few issues to work on, but don't give up. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
49. Support - This is a close call for me, but I think the candidate has a good breadth of experience. The block and CSD issues are a little disconcerting, but my guess is he had learned something here. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
50. Support: Does a terrific job at WP:PNT; we're always in need of more admins, the more so multilingual admins. The points raised by in the oppose section do not convince me. Lectonar (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
51. Support I think a couple of minor errors on speedy tagging and the block log presented are very poor excuses to oppose on. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
52. Support - Would be a fine admin in my view. 75,000 edits speak to a long-term involvement here. The block issues are minor. Should this nom fail, strongly suggest another Rfa before the year is out. Best wishes to the candidate, always. Jusdafax 17:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
53. 'Support. In my personal experience, this editor consistently and constantly does intelligent work, is respectful of others, and is probably more knowledgeable about policy than I was at my RFA. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
54. Support My rationale is similar to Accounting4Taste's. While a couple of problematic A7 tags surely isn't a good thing, and while that edit-warring block is worth raising an eyebrow, in the end my personal experience overrides those factors. I have seen this editor around AfD and CSD multiple times before, and I do think he has sufficient knowledge of policy to use the mop properly. Like Accounting4Taste, my impression of this editor is that he is respectful, intelligent, and would be a good admin; in fact, not so long ago he corrected a misconception of mine about a CSD in a rather polite way. Together with his content work, which is impressive, I feel comfortable supporting. Good luck! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose sorry. I don't find the answers to Q4 satisfactory enough to allay my concerns that the candidate interprets A7 incorreectly and will continue to do so as an admin. The answers clearly conflate "notability" with "significance or importance". These are not isolated examples: this was particularly suprising. Mistakes are fine; everyone makes them. But the consistency with which these poor tags have been applied takes "occasional mistake" to "consistent misapplication of policy to the project's detriment". Bad CSD tags are a concern for a number of reasons: it can result in losing good content; it can create work at DRV; it bites newbies unnecessarily; and it shows misunderstanding of policy generally. I am also concerned by the 3RR block: 3RR is such an easy rule to comply with. But that alone would probably not have been enough to oppose. I recognise this is an experienced candidate with a generally fine editing history; but I don't think adminship is suitable at this time. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Do these three tags represent a larger pattern, or are these isolated incidents? I don't see any problem with his responses, he seems to know what he's doing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I can't say these are isolated incidents. The examples are too numerous and the responses to Q4 and 5 continue to indicate a misapplication of A7. The Adel Awad example is the most concerning to me. WP:PROF has nothing to do with an A7 decision. I can't conceive of any circumstances where a full professor who has many published works would be an A7 candidate. I would not oppose on isolated examples. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Alright, that's the kind of explanation I was looking for. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose The response to question 4 really concerns me. I feel that A7 is a vital criterion to understand because it is very often overused, and statements like "The only claim of notability for that troupe was winning a prize in It's Your Show" indicate to me that the criterion is not understood. A7 does not ask about whether such a claim is in fact notable per WP:N but rather whether any claim of notability is asserted (which, by the candidate's own admission, is made). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Candidate correctly says A7 was in error and this should go to Prod or AfD. I believe it is Shirk who is interpreting this response incorrectly. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   While I acknowledge that the candidate noted that this was in error, I was still not convinced of the candidate's expression of why this was in error. However, upon coming back to this after a day, I'm striking my oppose for a different reason. Based on other characteristics, I feel WP:NETPOSITIVE applies strongly here and cannot hold Q4 against the candidate sufficiently to hold up my support. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Per the recent block from edit warring and the answer to question 4. Sorry, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose answer to Q5 does not satisfy me at all, I would expect a more thorough self examination to be generated from such a question by a candidate requesting the mop. The answer makes me think meh. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) moved to support, my apologies I saw Q5 and opposed. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I had pre-emptively addressed this concern in my reply to Q3. Q5 was merely asking for a link to a relevant discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose My standards expect a clean block log for the past year. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Are those standards not reasons not to support, rather than reasons to oppose?--Jac16888^Talk 05:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   They are for any non-support; whether I oppose, abstain from commenting, or weigh in as a neutral depends on the circumstances of the RfA; see my RfA voting history for details. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose - While I see some good reasons to support, I can't support a candidate that has had blocks within the last year. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Again, wouldn't this simply be a reason to !vote neutral or not at all rather than opposing, if the block is the only reason for it--Jac16888^Talk 13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   No, I don't want him to become an admin. If there was say a year or two between now and the last block, then you'd be right. December is way too soon. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Weak Oppose I don't like to see recent blocks in an RFA candidate, but I'm happy to disregard this particular block. However I'm uncomfortable with the candidates CSD tagging. I'm concerned about some of the examples above, and have gone through some of your deleted contributions to see if these are isolated examples or not. Tagging Mooball as a hoax is somewhat understandable, but implies that you didn't google it. But this sort of one minute tagging seems to be quite frequent. If you are going to tag articles for speedy deletion after just one minute you need to be very cautious about good faith articles where only the first sentence has been saved so far. Most of the tags I checked were OK, but I'd like to see a little more caution if you are going to tag articles at the moment of creation. ϢereSpielChequers 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose - The CSD problems (as seen in Q4,5 and WereSpielChequers' oppose above me) and the recent block leave me with an uneasy feeling. Rami R 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose due to the recent block. Pantherskin (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose - The CSD mistaggings are troubling. But not so much the mistakes, as the incorrect response to them in Q4. The bar for A7 is supposed to be low, you're not supposed to look at an article and determine whether or not you think it's notable and speedily delete based on that. A7 isn't even about notability, as Wikipedia defines it, it is about whether or not the article plausibly claims importance. An article that says "Sam is my neighbor and is really smart" doesn't assert importance, "Sam is my neighbor and is an alien from Jupiter" is implausible, "Sam is my neighbor and is a famous local radio personality" plausibly asserts importance. Even if the article explains that the radio station is a pirate station with few listeners, you'd have to bring the article to WP:PROD or WP:AFD to delete it. That's our process. These misunderstandings combined with the recent block push me over to oppose. I still think Blanchardb has a lot of potential, and would probably support in the future if I see improvement, but I can't trust that the tools won't be used for out-of-process deletions. -- Atama頭 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Not to nitpick, but in addition to my original concern with Q4, I'm not comfortable with Q11. If you simply deleted the first 3 paragraphs of the article (as seen in this diff), you'd be left with a coherent stub free of promotion. I don't have as much of a problem with your determination that it was deletable as spam, because at least half of the article was spam, but technically it shouldn't have been deleted because it would have taken little effort to fix it. -- Atama頭 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose Based on the snotty attitude that was displayed when he was questioned about the circumstances that lead to his too-recent block [8] and [9]. Warrah (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Snotty attitude? Which bit exactly? And I would point out that the two users he was "warring" with were the same person clearly baiting him--Jac16888^Talk 17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   If he can be baited so easily, he’d be a poor admin. Warrah (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   You didn't answer the first part. I don't see anything particularly "snotty" in those two sections--Jac16888^Talk 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Considering that you're pushing him for adminship, I would be surprised if you did. Warrah (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   "Can you handle a WP:MEAT investigation? The timing of your edits is suspicious" - both intimidatory and assuming bad faith. Leaky Caldron 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I'd call it correct, since the timing was suspicious and the other two users were blocked two days later as the same person-Jac16888^Talk 17:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)as was he... Leaky Caldron 17:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   He was indef-blocked for socking? Where was this? Aiken ♫ 12:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

   Care to backup that accusation with evidence Leaky caldron? Jarkeld (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

   Are you two making this up? I repeated what is a matter of record. I said nothing about an indef. block for socking, I simply repeated what is a matter of fact shown in the above link. He received a block. Leaky Caldron 08:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

   More quotes: “Anyway, as stated on my talk page, I've already moved on to other issues” and “Well, I'm done editing that article, so have it your way.” That's a pretty childish attitude. No thanks. Warrah (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

10. oppose primarily due to apparently rigid attitude about notability shown above. Collect (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose While I applaud anyone who is willing to admit their mistakes, WSC and Atama have correctly pointed out that the candidate is showing more than a few problems with applying speedy deletion tags correctly and those examples are far too recent imho. Also, the block, while 5 months old, is a bit worrying because since they used a custom revert summary[10] in their second revert, it was clear that the candidate was aware of why they reverted the edit and should not have continued doing so.I like the candidate as an editor but at this time I do not think they have the necessary policy and guideline knowledge to become an admin. Regards SoWhy 22:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose - Candidate does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of CSD criteria, primarily A7. Way too stringent. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose You do not seem to recognize the difference between the mere assertion f importance that is enough to pass WP:CSD, and the demonstration of notability that is required to stay in WP article. Even after some prompting , you still don't recognize it. Given your proposed area of concentration, this makes for an impossible situation,. The basic requirement of someone deleting speedies is to delete the right articles according to the existing narrow criteria. It's not a question of deletionism, but where and how to do the deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
14. Weak oppose seems to be a net positive, but would be better off fixing the identified problems (mainly A7 issues) before getting the bit. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose whilst noting that the candidate has done a great deal of good work in the area of speedy deletion - including removing inappropriate tags - I do not feel comfortable with them being granted the tools at this time. The user constantly refers to notability when discussing criterion A7 when the policy specifically states that only the "lower" standard of an indication of "why its subject is important or significant" is necessary for an article not to qualify. I do not think this is merely a case of incorrect terminology as in the questions above the candidate refers to "WP:NOTINHERITED" which specifically refers to notability in terms of the Wikipedia guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Regretful oppose moved from neutral. I'm pondering about the CSDs.
    • I declined the first one, which Blanchardb has admitted was a mistake, so that's not a problem, we all make them, I made one this week (that I can think of off the top of my head, there's probably more!).
    • The second one I'd have deleted if I'd have seen it at CSD, there's nothing in there that's even hints as to why it's a notable animal, other than someone notable bought it and said nice things about it (indeed, I've just !voted at my first AfD in ages).
    • The third one is borderline. I'm still thinking about it now; is an international federation an inherent assertion of notability? Not sure. Have tagged as A7.
    • So whilst I've not got a problem with any of those tags (nor the vast majority of the other taggings of Blanchardb's that I can recall off the top of my head), I am a little concerned about the answer to Q4. The threshold is lower (credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), so NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply. Some clarification would be helpful.
    • Per Amata and others. Unfortunately, the responses to the further CSD questions do not give me confidence that Blanchardb understands that A7 is a lower level than notability. NOTINHERITED isn't what should be being used. GedUK  09:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose Per several of the opposes above (the block, rigidity, edit warring, etc.) Doc Quintana (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose I don’t get involved in CSD issues but as an editor concerned with the overall integrity of the project, there is sufficient concern expressed by those who know that area well for me to add my opposition to this candidate at this time. Leaky Caldron 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Warrah. Attitude issues. BLGM5 (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
20. Regretful Oppose, I followed a similar train of thought as User:Atama when looking at the CSD stuff here, and was on the fence after Q4 answers... However, the Q11 answer coupled with what I have reviewed previously make me a little worried. My apologies, but speedy deletions are very important in my mind as they affect both our content, and potential newcomers to our community, thus I feel unable to support here. All the best, --Taelus (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose, regretfully. You seem to be an excellent editor, and I don't think the history of a block is a problem, but unfortunately some of the diffs presented of recent CSD tags concern me, as well as your response to Q4. With regard to this tag for example, "Eddie and the 'touch button tank' went on to win numerous Grand Prix's all over the globe" is surely an assertion of importance (assuming the touch button tank is the horse). I realise that claim is not in the article now, so perhaps it wasn't true, but I think that's a credible assertion of importance given that it's a horse ridden by an Olympic showjumper. It looks like it will probably be deleted at AFD, but I don't think it met the CSD criteria at the time you tagged it. That's just one example of a several that are concerning, but given it's the area you say you will be active in, I'd like to see another few months of speedy deletion work to fully trust you with the deletion button.--BelovedFreak 19:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
22. Sorry to "pile on", I'm not bothered at all about the block, but for someone who wants to work in the area of speedy deletion some of the answers just aren't up to the job. BigDom 21:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose Too clueless. For example, in this case, the candidate nominated an article for AFD on the grounds of "no assertion of notability" which both misunderstood the nature of notability and was blatantly false as the article said it was "widely used all around the world". To the candidate's credit, he withdrew when sources were produced, but, per WP:BEFORE, he should have found these himself and not wasted others' time. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

    WP:TROUT. Thanks. :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

    For those interested in my AfD participation, I've compiled a summary of all of my interventions to AfD's since the beginning of the year here. This does not include AfD pages where I was merely fixing the formatting of a closed AfD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

24. Oppose – the recent blocks and the answers to the questions are raising to red of flags to ignore. –MuZemike 16:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC):
25. Oppose: Having a block in past 10 or so months (as said above) raises red flags. Pilif12p 02:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
26. Problematic CSD responses. —Dark 08:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Incorrect CSD tagging is a serious problem. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose per the candidate's inadequate understanding of deletion policy, CSD mistaggings, and recent block for edit warring. Laurinavicius (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
29. Weak oppose. I don't have the time to pinpoint problematic AfD nominations, but I do recall him nominating several articles in the software and/or computer science area that were easy keep after quick searches. Pcap ping 12:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
30. Weak Oppose - Per CSD stuff above, and the block thing doesn't impress me either. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
31. Oppose per comments by other regarding poor CSD taggings.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
32. Regretful oppose - fails my standards due to twice being blocked in the past 12 months. Also, I'm worried about the overactive CSD tagging, especially on Mooball. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

    The fact that you are even contemplating this tag as part of your oppose rationale is extremely poor. I know you are an inclusionist and all power to your elbow but....!! Polargeo (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

    Also, twice blocked is only technically accurate. You might want to know that the September block was unquestionably and self-admittedly a mistake on the blocking admin's part. The relevant discussion on my talk page is archived here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

33. Oppose (from support) - I have reviewed the taggings and feel that this candidate is not ready at this time. The fact that my previous 'support' !vote had no comment shows how weak a support it was, but having thought about this long and hard over the last couple of days, I cannot support a candidate who had a problem with CSD tagging - the relatively recent block was the initial reason for my weak support, and merely confirms that I cannot support this candidate at this time. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose. The block for edit warring is far too recent to comfortably support the candidate. Additionally, Blanchardb's CSD tagging also needs improvement from its current faulty state. — ξ^xplicit 02:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
35. Oppose with regret: Sorry, but I've been seeing some AfDs recently that look as if they haven't had sufficient WP:BEFORE done, which supports the suggestions that the candidate is a bit too quick with the deletion finger. A bit more experience and a shift in focus away from "delete" and more towards "improve", and I could see myself supporting a future RfA -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
36. Oppose Concern with CSD tagging, and block less than six months ago on a core Wikipedia policy. (See User:MWOAP/RfA Voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
37. Oppose per concerns with CSD tagging, and the recent block history. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
38. Weak Oppose – problematic A7 tags and recent block stop me from being neutral or supporting. ^Pepper∙_piggle 18:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not sure for the moment. While Q3 does help to reassure me, the 3RR block is still too recent for me to comfortably overlook. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   'I'm sitting here until the CSD issues have been resolved. In addition to the examples mentioned in Q4, this was particularly suprising. I'm seeing a lot of questionable (and downright wrong) recent CSD tagging that has had to be undone by admins. I'm worried that will be come questionable deletions that have to be undone at DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to support #Since the article in question has been deleted, I can't see what the 3RR was about - can some admin please post the diffs to the talk page? Also, a little concerned about the answers to Q4. Some recognition of where he erred in his initial assessment would be sufficient to drop that concern for me. In general, I've seen Blanchardb around, have a vague sense of having been impressed, and I want to support, so I hope these concerns clear up. Ray^Talk 03:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I have restored the article in question and moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2/Queer Fist for the duration of the RFA, it seemed to be the easiest way to do it. If someone could remind me to redelete it when this finishes that would be great.--Jac16888^Talk 04:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2/Queer Fist to hopefully prevent the page asserting itself as a previous RfA, which it did at its old location. --Taelus (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral for now I'm pondering about the CSDs.

   • I declined the first one, which Blanchardb has admitted was a mistake, so that's not a problem, we all make them, I made one this week (that I can think of off the top of my head, there's probably more!).
   • The second one I'd have deleted if I'd have seen it at CSD, there's nothing in there that's even hints as to why it's a notable animal, other than someone notable bought it and said nice things about it (indeed, I've just !voted at my first AfD in ages).
   • The third one is borderline. I'm still thinking about it now; is an international federation an inherent assertion of notability? Not sure. Have tagged as A7.
   • So whilst I've not got a problem with any of those tags (nor the vast majority of the other taggings of Blanchardb's that I can recall off the top of my head), I am a little concerned about the answer to Q4. The threshold is lower (credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), so NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply. Some clarification would be helpful. GedUK  08:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Moving to oppose.
2. unfortunate neutral, but... I wont support due to the block. But id like to. But i wont oppose either, I think theres more levels to this block than meets the eye. I think the mere fact that the edit war involved suckpuppets and such (I guess they were confirmed later right?) that they were disrupting and one could argue some justification in reverting and warning providing it could be proven they were socks. At any rate the best way to handle that would have been to file a sock puppet case after 2 reversions as you identified you would next time in your statement. However as from what i understand the blocking admin stands by his actions and this event was only 4 months ago. I hope you decide to come back to rfa in time if this is unsuccesful. Its unfortunate. but i cant support. Sorry. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral: Normally I'd have opposed from the block, but the surprise sockpuppet issue is a sort of get-out-of-jail free when combined with the positives here. Candidate seems very reasonable, experienced and well regarded. But deletion has an air of finality which makes me wary of giving this power away to easily. I'm also concerned of losing nascent articles and consequently the potentially good editors who make them. I contrast this with deletionist admins who go for articles which can never reach their required standard due to their inherent nature. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I'm totally opposed to people getting the mop & bucket based on a very high edit count of which a significant number are automated or semi automated, because it smacks of drive-past tagging. Nevertheless, the inevitable collateral damage by such a high edit count in his case seems to have been proportionately very low, and I think l we need more of this kind of janitor. I think Blanchard needs to be given time to demonstrate that he better understands the principles of CSD,and reflects for a few seconds longer before pressing his buttons.. --Kudpung (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral well, he was blocked because of WP:3RR back in December 2009, so this would be a reason to oppose for now. This user has made great edits and created 24 articles, which would be a good reason to support. So im a bit confused here, i guess. Dwayne was here! ^talk 08:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Moral Neutral (I may have just invented that) On the one hand, the concerns over interpretation of CSD and some of the other oppose concerns have foundations (that AFD, but meh, we all make mistakes). On the other hand, I admire the way that Blanchardb has dealt with the questions raised here, his honesty and openness to discussion - and I don't find the block too worrying. I suspect that the best result here will be to give it a few months to demonstrate a clear understanding of deletion policy, and I sincerely hope that we will see you here again, if you do not succeed on this occasion.  Chzz  ►  04:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral Pro: this candidate has almost 75,000 edits including > 20,000 to article-space. The 3RR block doesn't concern me all that much --> after all, the now-deleted article was 'Queer Fist'. That incident could very well have been (and probably was) a case where sysop discretion wasn't exercised well. Very valuable multi-language skills which have translated into solid contributions at WP:PNT. Con: the CSD mistaggings and the fact that the candidate seems to have a high % of his tagged AfD's kept causes me concern.--Hokeman (talk) 03:57, 20 April 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.