Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bbb23

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

Bbb23

Final (135/17/8). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination by Drmies

It is my pleasure to present Bbb23 for your consideration as an administrator. I have worked with Bbb since I guess the fall of 2011--in all honesty, I don't rightly remember, since he (I'm pretty sure he's a he) has become so helpful, so much a sounding board, that it feels like he's always been around. I can't remember when I thought he was wrong, though I am sure we have had disagreements; if he ever was wrong, he must have handled it with the appropriate sprezzatura. (As an admin, I can of course never be wrong.) I've been prompting him to start this RfA for quite some time since I think we can do with an admin like him: helpful to new editors, courteous, graceful under pressure. His contributions to boards like ANI are usually like oil on water, and I am quite convinced that he will reflect carefully and apply the proper hesitancy before blocking an editor or deleting an article. One may disagree with Bbb, but one can't claim he's a fool. Note also his many positive contributions at the BLP noticeboard: especially in the BLP area he could put a set of tools to good use.

We like our admins to have content experience also, if only so we know they know what it's like to have edits reverted or articles deleted. Bbb has plenty of article contributions but is hesitant, perhaps out of modesty, to create them--still, he has produced two, William G. Tapply and André Birotte Jr., which were more than adequate when he put them in main space, and show that he knows what a properly written and referenced article should look like.

I have great faith in Bbb. He is committed to the project and is idiotic serious enough about it to seek higher office. He knows policy and guidelines, he has proper table and board manners, he will not abuse the tools. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by LadyofShalott

I am glad to co-nominate Bbb23 for adminship, because I think he'll do a good job with the tools. Bbb23 is a level-headed user who knows policy, and is courteous to other editors. Those are exactly the kinds of traits we want in an administrator: someone who can calmly look at a situation and discuss it with the editors involved. Another trait that will serve him and the community well is that he asks questions if he does not know something or is unsure about it - nobody knows everything, but I don't think Bbb23 will rush in like a bull in a china shop acting like he does know things he doesn't. I believe he is committed to the project and will wield the mop with fairness and kindness. In short, he is a good servant to the community of editors and readers, and giving him the admin bit will allow him to continue that in more ways. LadyofShalott 22:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Dennis Brown

I've worked with Bbb23 closely in a number of forums over many months, and happy to be recommending him for adminship. In particular, when he and I disagree on any point, it has always been a positive learning experience for us both, as he is adept at actually listening and taking advice on board, while staying true to his ideals. He has a strong sense of fairness, yet is flexible in dealing with problems, and both traits will serve him well in dispute resolution. I've found him to be well versed in policy, yet not a slave to the letter, understanding that the intent of the policy trumps the individual words. More importantly, he is an independent thinker with abundant clue that we can all trust will do good things with the extra tools. I've said for a long time that he should be an admin, and I can't think of a person more deserving of my first nomination at RfA than Bbb23. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: My goal is to move slowly and help out where most needed, whether it be WP:RPP, WP:AIV, WP:3RRN, or whatever other forum has an administrator backlog or just generally needs administrative help. Once I feel more comfortable in those areas, I'd like to branch out cautiously into places I've had little experience, like CSDs and closures of AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

A: I've been a frequent contributor at WP:BLPN for a long time trying to resolve often very controversial issues. I've also participated at WP:ANI to help guide posters and responders to a solution of their problem. More recently, I wrote my first article, became more involved in RfAs, and engaged in policy discussions. I even uploaded my first picture. I was inordinately proud of that. It was surprisingly easy (I always expect everything at Wikipedia to be hard the first time you do it).

I'm also pleased with "mediation" in which I've tried to assist other editors reach a consensus about article content. I'm not always completely successful, but I like to think I had a positive influence. Some examples I can remember are: Andrew Nikolić, The Zeitgeist Movement, and Interlibertarians (most recent but less effort by me).

Although I've created only two articles, I have done some very time-consuming rewrites of articles. Two recent examples are Brad Birkenfeld and Tommy Morrison.

Finally, a big part of my work has been maintaining the integrity of articles (not just BLPs). That, of course, includes undoing garden variety vandalism, but also ensuring that articles are properly sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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: Yes to both.

Conflicts. Working on BLP articles often entails conflicts as, many times, the editors involved have rather entrenched views. It helps when there are other BLPN experienced editors who weigh in (we have some very good people who contribute at BLPN) so a broader consensus emerges. One-on-one conflicts are harder. Civil, calm comments go a long way with me. I sometimes react less well to aggressive, inflammatory rhetoric, and, particularly, to personal attacks, against me or others.

Even in non-BLP articles, conflicts arise, often about unsourced material and often with inexperienced editors. I deal with it first simply through edit summaries and perhaps a comment on the user's Talk page. If that doesn't work, I take it to the article Talk page.

For the future, my objective is to improve my reactions to problematic edits, something I've been working on for a while now. Unless it's an obvious 3RR exemption, I don't go beyond 3 reverts and will often stop at 2. I then open a discussion on the Talk page. The trick is to (1) not let attitude get to you (although I am human) and (2) step back and think, how much does it really matter to the encyclopedia if the "wrong" material is in the article while the issue is resolved. Things aren't always as urgent as we think they are.

Stress. My stress has reduced considerably over time. In dealing with difficult, inexperienced editors, I've figured out that some of their aggression may be attributable to defensiveness stemming from an experienced editor telling them what to do. Unless I have reason to suspect bad faith, I take that into account more than before.

Going forward, I plan to continue evaluating other editors' actions from their perspective.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Callanecc

4. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.

An IP user completely changes a large section of an article on a living from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level uw-vandalism4im warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits for 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback then reports the IP to WP:AIV.

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

A: I’m assuming you mean a BLP and inadvertently left out a word. I’m also assuming the article versions have precisely the same material, one with references and one without.

I decline the request.

What the IP did was not vandalism. Persistent change against consensus (even the rather unusual consensus you posit) is not vandalism. “Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.” And in this particular scenario, what the IP was doing wasn’t even “misguided”.

Some intervention and counseling are needed. First, I would look at the article Talk page to see how this “consensus” was reached. A decision such as the one taken here by the other editors cannot be a true consensus. A consensus is supposed to be based on “policy, sources, and common sense”. There is no policy that says an unreferenced article is more desirable than a referenced article. Obviously, there are no sources that the editors could have relied on. And the consensus defies common sense. I would advise the editors who apparently approved this “consensus” of the process of achieving consensus and wait for their responses to my advice. I would restore the article to a referenced version. I would advise them against “unreferencing” the article, but also explain that there are methods of dispute resolution available to them if they disagree with me.

Second, I would advise the registered editor that their labeling the IP’s edits as vandalism was wrong (“incorrect use of user warning templates, even if well-intended, should be identified to the mistaken user”). In addition, even if it had been vandalism, escalating templates should have been used instead of jumping to the end. Finally, I would advise the user that they should have responded to the IP’s question. Except in limited circumstances, discussion of differences is always a good thing, and one certainly shouldn’t give up on it before getting started.

I would also question the user as to why they think they should retain their WP:ROLLBACK privileges. Before asking, I would look at the user’s edit history to see when they acquired rollback privileges and how they have used them before this incident. Depending on the results of that review and my discussion with the user, I would consider revoking the privilege. Because I’m a new admin, I would consult with another admin before revocation to see if it’s reasonable to do this on my own, so to speak.

I would not block anyone for edit-warring. First, I see no technical breach of 3RR by either editor. The registered user made three reverts, I believe. Second, there was no warning of edit-warring issued by anyone to anyone.

I’m not going to address all of the BLP issues mainly because this answer is already too long, but very briefly, having a wholly unreferenced BLP article is problematic if there is ‘’any’’ negative information in the article at all. (I am now going to bed, so any follow-up will have to wait for tomorrow.)--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Minimac

5. When, if ever, should a vandal account who has not been warned be blocked?

A: Many believe escalating warnings (one through four in terms of the standard templates) are required before an account may be blocked for vandalism, but there is no rule requiring warnings. Per WP:BLOCK, “warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking.” See also WP:VANDAL (“While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block.”).

“[U]sers acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.” WP:BLOCK.

One example. A new account’s first edit is to vandalize an article and the vandalism is egregious. Before any warning can be given, the account has vandalized three articles in a similarly flagrant style. Remember the purpose of blocking is to protect the encyclopedia: (“prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia” - WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE ). Also, sometimes editors revert vandalism without warning the user after the reversion. Or while the vandal is being warned, the account vandalizes more articles; normally, a new warning can’t be issued until the vandal has had an opportunity to receive the previous warning (“the user received no intervening warning between the edits”).

There is a list of account types that may be blocked without warning. See WP:BLOCK, section “Disruption-only”. The list is not exhaustive, e.g., see blocking for sock evasion.

What’s key here is that the disruptive intent is obvious and to hold off because no warnings have been issued would cause further damage.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

6. What do you think of the current BLP policy? How could it be improved or changed?

A: This is a very broad question, so I’ll pick one area where I think WP:BLP could be improved.

WP:BLPCRIME. I was actually involved in tightening this policy, and just as with any policy change, we proceeded cautiously. The gist is that unless a BLP has been convicted of a crime, we should not report on possible criminal activity, i.e., investigations, arrests, charges, even trials. Before I address the explicit exception, I would make the policy stronger. At the moment, it doesn’t prohibit the material; it says only that “editors must give serious consideration to not including” the material (emphasis in original). I would say instead that editors must not include the material (no emphasis needed).

The exception is WP:WELLKNOWN. BLPCRIME states that the policy applies to BLPs “who are relatively unknown”. That phrase is further illuminated in a footnote that says “BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.” However, WELLKNOWN is a policy that applies in examples other than criminal activity; perhaps more is needed in BLPCRIME itself about the differences between low-profile and "relatively well-known" subjects. Even though WELLKNOWN gives a couple of good examples of what kinds of individuals are encompassed by the policy, we often have disputes over who is well-known, and part of the problem stems from WELLKNOWN applying to material that does not involve BLPCRIME.

The opening sentence of WELLKNOWN is a bit problematic: “In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say.” To some, a reasonable reading of this sentence is the more sources that report the incident, the more well-known the BLP must be. In this day of instant celebrity, we often have multiple sources for an event concerning a relatively low-profile individual (and many times there is really only one source with the other sources simply repeating what the first says). In my view, what matters more are the depth and duration of the reports rather than just the number. Finally, the first example given implies a connection between the report and whether it is “important to the article”. Although said in passing, even with a well-known figure, the relevance of criminal allegations to the person’s notability should be emphasized in the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from MONGO

7. Please tell me which is worse: a personal attack against an editor, or a personal attack against a nationality?

A: An attack against a nationality is not a "personal" attack. WP:WIAPA lists "some types" of personal attacks (the “examples are not exhaustive”), one of which is an attack against a person's race, sexual identity, age, religion, political beliefs, gender, or disability "directed against another contributor" (my emphasis). Therefore, even if nationality were one of the types, an attack against a nationality would not be a personal attack.

That doesn't mean an attack against a nationality is appropriate. You’ve provided no context for the attacking comment. Is it on the editors user page? If so, the appropriate guideline is probably WP:UP#POLEMIC. Is it on a Talk page? If so, the appropriate guideline is probably WP:TPNO. Without knowing more, I can’t give you a more specific answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to confuse you and my wording may have been so. I suppose what I mean is: Is it worse to say, "he's an (blank)" or to say "he comes from a nation of (blanks)"...--MONGO 23:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the motive of the attacker, which we may or may not be able to discern from the context or from other comments. If the statement he comes from a nation of blanks means he's a blank and all his countrypersons are blanks, then the second statement is worse than the first. If, on the other hand, it means he comes from a nation of blanks but he himself is not a blank, then it's not a "personal" attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

8. Looking at question number 7, what do you think should happen to an editor who routinely makes nationalistic attacks against others? Additionally, what would you do if confronted with administrators that ignore or even endorse such behavior?

A: Your wording of this question is a tad confusing. It seemed clear to me in Q7 that you meant a pure nationality attack, not directed at any editor. Here you use the phrase “nationalistic attacks against others”, which may mean attacking a particular editor’s nationality against a particular editor. If it involves an editor, it is a personal attack and should be treated accordingly. If it is an attack against a nationality divorced from a particular editor, it would be treated in the first instance as I outlined in A7, depending on the circumstances.

WP:NPA has a section on responding to personal attacks. There is a subsection on “recurring, non-disruptive” attacks, which are not generally sanctionable, and there is a separate section that addresses disruptive attacks (Consequences of personal attacks). In my view, the answer to your question is heavily fact-intensive, meaning without some idea of what these “routine” attacks are, it’s hard to identify the correct response.

As for your last questions about admins, ignoring (inappropriate) behavior is different from endorsing it. I’m not even sure what ignoring it means because I don’t know the venue in which it is being ignored, or how one even knows it is being ignored.

As for endorsing it, again it depends on the context, but if editor x says, for example, “Americans are evil” and administrator y says, “that’s true”, then administrator y has effectively put him or herself in the same position as editor x, and the correct response to the initial comment by editor x should, at least in theory, be leveled against administrator y. However, if, for example, the correct response is a block of editor x, blocking an admin is technically and practically difficult, if not paradoxical, to do. The usual formal sanction of an admin is a desysop, and yet it seems harsh to equate the block of a user to the desysop of an admin. At the same time, if an admin routinely makes derogatory statements about a particular country, they would probably not command much respect in the community. A desysop normally happens at ArbCom unless the admin is open to recall.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

9. Please define INVOLVED in your own words.

A: There are two parts to WP:INVOLVED. Part 2 says that regardless of whether the admin is “involved”, they may still take administrative action if the action is objectively reasonable, meaning any other admin would have done the same thing.

The first part states that an admin is involved if it is in the context of a particular dispute with the target editor. The easiest example is when an admin, acting as an editor, is arguing on the Talk page of an article with another editor about the article content, the other editor does something, and the admin wants to block the editor. Unless exempt under part 2, the admin is involved and should not block the editor.

An admin may also be involved if they have had a past dispute with the other editor. Three exceptions may apply. The first is part 2 above. The second is when the past dispute involved the admin acting in an administrative role. For example, if the only past involvement was a block of the editor, the admin may block the editor again. The last exception is when the prior involvement was relatively “minor” or “obvious”.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from My76Strat

10. How long have you considered requesting adminship; and what, if anything, have you done to prepare for this RfA?

A: Sometime in the last year I began thinking I might make a good admin, but I didn’t have much confidence I would be successful if I ran.

In April of this year, several editors suggested I run, including some I didn’t even know, as well as some I know and greatly respect. Although touched and flattered, I still lacked confidence, so I did the following things (not necessarily in order):

1. I started watching RfAs and sometimes voting, commenting, or asking questions. That was an eye-opener, frankly, and it didn’t, particularly in the beginning, give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
2. I figured my lack of article creation would be a problem for some editors, so I wrote two articles.
3. I became involved in new page patrolling.
4. I started a CSD log (I wish it were retroactive).
5. I discussed the idea with editors I know and trust.
6. I did a lot of thinking.
7. I had bouts of insomnia in the week leading up to this RfA. If I am successful, I will be one exhausted admin. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Carrite

11. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, please list all the names under which you have previously edited. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A: Oh, good, an easy question I can answer before shutting down for the night. No. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Optional questions from Callanecc

12. Would you please explain why you replaced a contested PROD [1] and "warned" the user who removed it [2]. This seems like it is going to be an issue for the RfA (especially since it happened yesterday) so I'm going to give you clear chance to explain it - you don't need to answer (by no means) it's completely up to you.

A: I was planning on retiring for the night, but that didn’t work. I will try to make this as succinct as possible.

I was unfamiliar with WP:CONTESTED. I do not remember ever prodding an article. The language in {{Proposed deletion}} does not clearly track the language of the policy. Based on my reading of the tag language, I thought if an editor removed the tag, they had to explain why they were doing so in their edit summary or on the article Talk page. Anyone familiar with the policy would probably not have read the tag the way I did, but I suspect others unfamiliar with the policy might have done. When the editor removed the tag without any edit summary or discussion on the Talk page, I reverted. My warning on his Talk page was consistent with my confusion.

The above is an explanation of what happened. It does not excuse my error. I should have read the policy rather than trust the language of the tag. Fortunately, the harm was avoided by User:Explicit who properly declined to delete the article because it had been contested.

For anyone interested in the details of the differences between the policy and the tag language, look at this discussion (it starts at about the middle of the topic).--Bbb23 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Callanecc

13. What will you do to prevent something like this happening again (that is, what have you learnt)?

A: Summing up what I said in A12, I should have been more careful, read the policy, and not relied on the language in the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

14. If, as an administrator, if you encountered a situation like this (if you were User:Explicit in this situation) what would you do to rectify the situation?

A: User:Explicit did exactly the right thing in declining to delete the article. He also elected to move on without any further drama, which was a generous way of handling another editor’s good faith mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Woombi

15. A registered user posts on your user talk page, saying: "Please block me indefinitely, I want to stop editing forever." They have many contributions and are a well known Wikipedian with thousands of edits. They have shown no signs of reducing their use of Wikipedia and they have had no recent Wikibreaks. They have has just one short previous Wikibreak several years ago due to work commitments. They have made no announcements in their recent edit history indicating that they want to leave or are considering retiring or leaving. Do you block the user or not? Woombi (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A: The short answer is no.

WP:SELFBLOCK states that “[t]ypically, such requests are refused”. The policy also says there is a "category of admins willing to consider such requests." There are only a handful of admins listed in that category. Two of them have a list of “requirements”. If you look at the two sets of requirements, you’ll note they are almost the same. You’ll also note that the account in your hypothetical doesn’t meet at least one of those requirements, i.e., indefinite blocks are not granted. You haven’t provided enough data to know whether the editor would fail to meet any of the others.

I would advise the editor of the list of admins willing to consider his request. The editor can then approach whichever admin he chooses. One item that would concern me is whether the account has been compromised, but I assume the admins on the list are aware of that possibility and would address it appropriately.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Keystoneridin

16 You have just noticed on the AN/I board that there is a complaint about a respected individual (non-admin) using their rollback rights to edit war a piece of information that they do not like. What would be your course of action? Thanks!Keystoneridin (speak) 22:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A: I assume the editor is using “standard rollback”, not the rollback that permits an edit summary.

WP:ROLLBACK is a granted privilege that may be revoked. It is normally used to revert vandalism, although there are other permissible uses.

I would first look at the history of the editor’s use of rollback. Is this the first time they’ve abused the privilege?

I would then look to see whether the editor has in fact been edit-warring and whether any other editors are also guilty of edit-warring. Has there been a warning for edit-warring? Has anyone reported the editor to any other administrative board like WP:3RRN? “[E]ditors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war”. See WP:ROLLBACK (end of section entitled “When to use rollback”).

I would still want to hear what the editor has to say. An admin “should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action – there may be justification of which the administrator is not aware (such as reversion of a banned user).”

Assuming there is no satisfactory explanation (“Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.”), I would revoke the privilege.

Whether additional sanctions are needed for the editor - or any other editor – for edit-warring would depend on the circumstances. Finally, I would consider whether the article should be protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from WereSpielChequers

17 When is it appropriate to simply revert unsourced additions as "unsourced" and when is it appropriate to use a {{fact}} tag? For the avoidance of doubt I'd like your answer to cover both BLP examples and situations that are more like this ϢereSpielChequers 11:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A:

Non-BLP material. If an article is already tagged as requiring additional citations, and the tag has been in place for a significant period of time, when an editor adds unsourced material, I revert it (that’s your Dick Van Dyke Show example). What the article needs is sourcing for the existing unsourced material. It doesn’t need more unsourced material, which only exacerbates the problem already noted by the tag.

I would use a fact tag when I see unsourced information where no article or section tag is in place. If an editor tried to add unsourced material to an already-tagged article with a fact tag appended to their addition, I would remove it for the same reasons I described above.

BLP material. The same answer, except if the unsourced material being added (or already exists) violates BLP policy, it wouldn’t matter whether the article had been previously tagged – I would revert it. I would probably also note in my edit summary that it was a BLP violation or had BLP implications, something to alert the adding editor to the BLP issue.

Just to be clear, sourced, "contentious" material added to a BLP article does not necessarily violate policy, but unsourced, contentious material, even if true, does. See WP:BLPREMOVE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Jorgath

18 Given recent ArbCom cases involving admins being accused of violating major policies, would you please state your understanding of how those policies work? Specifically, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:WHEEL, WP:CLEANSTART, WP:NPA and WP:SOCK seem to be in play. If I've missed any that you notice, please feel free to address those too. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A: Jorgath, that's a lot of policies. Could you please point me to the ArbCom cases you allude to? That would give me a more specific context. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was specifically referring to the Fæ case and the Perth case. Specifically, the Fæ case involved all of those except WHEEL, and the Perth case involved WHEEL and ADMINACCT (and INVOLVED, but you've answered that in a previous question). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jorgath, I don't think it's fair to ask an admin candidate questions that would require immensely long answers and documentation, and to do it in the context of two current ArbCom cases is asking the candidate to comment on actions and interpretations of policies that are at ArbCom for a very good reason: they are contentious and by no means straightforward, and not a matter for an RfA. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While you're correct, I feel that it's necessary for an admin candidate to demonstrate knowledge of some areas, and the recent ArbCom cases have made me worried about admin understanding of those areas. But fine, I'll limit it to Bbb23's interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL, in general context rather than in the context of the two ArbCom cases listed. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A: Wheel warring is a very specific prohibition against admins using their tools to fight with each other. Admin A executes an administrative action. Admin B reverts Admin A. Admin C reverts Admin B. Admin C is wheel warring.

Admin C cannot revert Admin B without first discussing the issue and gaining a “consensus” that Admin B was incorrect. Although the policy doesn’t say this, I would assume the first place to start is to ask Admin B why they reverted Admin A. If Admins B and C can come to an understanding, they can resolve the dispute without further drama. If for whatever reason they cannot, Admin C should probably take the matter to WP:ANI.

The consequence of wheel warring is “usually” arbitration.

Administrative accountability, by contrast, is a much more broad-based statement of policy concerning administrator conduct. Generally, an admin using their tools is accountable to the community for why they did so. Admins are not immune from criticism and should respond “promptly” to civil inquiries as to their conduct. Per policy, they should respond even to inquiries about non-administrative conduct (“Wikipedia-related conduct”).

The consequences of not being accountable depend on the seriousness of the offense(s) and the frequency. Administrators may be “sanctioned” or “have their access removed”. I assume that last phrase means desysopped (look at footnote #7), but that begs the question why it doesn’t just say desysopped.

Examples given for violations of the policy include bad faith (issues of trust), breach of policies, off-site conduct, failure to communicate, and repeated poor judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Electriccatfish2

19 When would it be appropriate to issue a....

• a) Block
• b) Site Ban
• c) Topic Ban

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A: Blocks are imposed to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. They prevent an editor from editing. See WP:BLOCK. Bans do not prevent a user from editing but restrict (not in a technical sense) what they edit. Bans can be article-related or topic-related (I address site bans below). They can be temporary or permanent. See WP:BAN.

Blocks are generally imposed for vandalism, edit-warring, or other kinds of non-specific, disruptive editing. They can be anywhere from a few hours to indefinite, depending on the level of disruption. An admin may impose a block.

Bans are generally imposed as a result of discussion about disruptive (often non-neutral) editing in a particular area of the project. They are not imposed by an admin without first having a community discussion. They may also be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia foundation. See WP:BAN, section “Decision to ban”.

I personally have never seen a discussion of a proposed site ban. However, there is a partial list of bans, including site bans, here.

Last, bans are enforced by blocks, meaning an editor who violates a ban may be blocked. See WP:BAN, the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Hipocrite

20 You discuss tightening up BLPCRIME. Most recently, I have seen BLPCRIME used here, to remove the following statements "followers were reported in the 1970s and 1980s to have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a number of violent crimes, including kidnapping and assault," "two NCLC organizers were arrested and charged with 2nd degree felonious assault after an attack that left one person with a broken leg and another with a broken arm," "ten members of the NCLC were arrested for allegedly causing a melee at a Newark City Council meeting that involved 100 demonstrators." Is this an appropriate use of BLP, or BLPCRIME? Why or why not? Do you agree that the BLP noticeboard is at times, as one administrator once wrote, "the last refuge of a scoundrel." If yes, what have you done to prevent the abuse of the BLP noticeboard for POV pushing? Provide links. Thanks.

A: Before answering your question, I’d like to review what happened. I don’t know who originally inserted the material, but an IP removed it citing to BLPCRIME. There was then a tug of war (not technically a breach of 3RR) between you and the IP. In one of your edit summaries restoring the material, you said “no reference here to persons, only parties and factions”. That wasn’t really accurate; “followers”, “organizers”, and “members” are people, just not identified by name in the article, although they might be identified in the cited sources (they aren’t online).

In any event, BLPCRIME applies to living persons and says nothing about whether those persons are identified by name, as someone pointed out in the brief discussion on the Talk page (which you opened but then didn’t participate in). One of the editors, though, opened a discussion at WP:BLPN, which also was brief and which you also did not participate in. The consensus among the three participating editors was to remove the material, and so it was done.

The answer to your question is I agree with the consensus to remove the material. We are including material about people arrested but not convicted. They are not well-known. Even without specific names, the sources may mention them by name, or our article may lead to others discovering their names, which we shouldn’t foster. In any event, the policy doesn’t require they be identifiable by name for the policy to apply. If you feel differently, you can push for a change in the policy.

In response to your last question, every noticeboard “at times” is edited by “scoundrels”. That, in and of itself, doesn’t mean the noticeboard doesn’t serve a useful purpose. When I feel the noticeboard is being abused by an editor, I say so. I’m actually pretty forthright on all noticeboards in that sense. I don’t think it’s really necessary for me to dredge up links.

As for POV pushing, that’s a very subjective judgment, and I don’t usually go there except in egregious cases. Too often on Wikipedia, one editor accuses another editor of having an agenda just because the other editor disagrees with the first. I don't find such accusations constructive and prefer to focus on the content at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Hobit

21 Sorry for all the questions, but I felt I needed to understand the logic of one of your edits. Could you explain your rational for [3] (also discussed under one of the oppose !votes)? Thanks.

A: My stubbing of the article was consistent with my response to Q17. In this case, the article had zero sources, and it had been tagged for over two and a half years. Essentially, it was the work of ONE editor who wrote a thesis on the subject. Nice, maybe some of it is accurate, maybe all of it is accurate, maybe none of it is accurate, but it’s nothing but WP:OR. As one editor noted, WP:V permits the removal of “any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.”

In response to the editor who said that the norefs tag was sufficient because it “warn[ed] unsuspecting readers”, I disagree. The tag is a maintenance template intended for editors, not for readers. Otherwise, we might as well put a big banner on the article saying, “Wikipedia has no idea if any of the material in this article is true. Please read it at your own risk.”

In this instance, the discussion here caused an editor to restore the material and add three references. They’re not inline citations, but at least they’re an improvement. In other instances where I’ve stubbed articles, even though the tag never got anyone’s attention, the stubbing did, and the articles have been improved, as this one has.

There is one negative comment about my action here that I agree with and will take to heart. To the extent someone doesn’t notice what I did (e.g., they don’t look at the history), it would be a good idea to comment on the Talk page to give editors a heads up.

One last comment. This is an RfA, and I feel it would be helpful to address what administrative action I would take if this kind of issue arose. I would not take any administrative action against the removing editor. It’s a good faith edit supported by policy. By the same token, I would not take any administrative action against the restoring editor, even if it were done as a simple revert and did not add sources. At this point it’s a content dispute. The two editors may disagree about policy, but neither editor has committed a blockable offense. Hopefully, they will work it out on the article Talk page to the benefit of the article. If not, there’s always WP:DR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Demiurge1000

22. Are there any of the five pillars that you're not entirely comfortable with?

A: I’m comfortable with all five, but if forced to pick one (otherwise this answer would end now), it would be "Wikipedia does not have any firm rules".

Generally, I believe our policies provide enough leeway to editors so WP:IAR should only be invoked in extraordinary circumstances. WP:WIARM is a helpful essay in illuminating what IAR means and what it doesn’t mean, particularly its allusions to common sense.

By editing here I’m committed to upholding and applying our core principles, and the five pillars do a pretty good job at summing things up.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Requests for adminship: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Requests for adminship can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• some early speedy deletes with given rationale: accepted unless otherwise noted Richard Ringheim attack, Michael Welden hoax, List of ex-gay people a-10 declined, Respect Gym db-inc, Vos Gym db-inc, Arturas Rosenbacher hoax, File:Arturas Rosenbacher Profile.jpg F10|G8 declined

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as co-nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom. LadyofShalott 23:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Investigation reveals plenty of well-thought-out posts written in plain easy-to-understand English. They seem to have an understanding of Wiki policies and have a good feel for the culture here. A nice mix of article, Wikipedia space, and talk page edits; their user talk page edits consist of custom-written prose, not templates, which is good. By the way, I also support more use of the word sprezzatura on this wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - I think Diannaa put it nicely. I don't see anything immediately standing out as a problem. Additionally, I think the words of the nomination statements are very persuasive. That puts it over the top if my general impression of Bbb23 didn't already. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Support per nominators and opinion of this editor. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support for all of the reasons previously noted. I don't recall ever commenting on an RfA, but I enthusiastically support this candidate. Bbb23's fair-mindedness, even temper, and knowledge of the intricacies of Wikipedia's policies and procedures have long impressed me. Bbb23 has been a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, and can be an even greater asset with admin tools. Cresix (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Support; I've worked with Bbb23 fairly often, on a variety of things. This editor is strong on BLP, on common sense, and on seeing right into the heart of an issue, which in particular is a talent an admin needs. One of the strongest candidates I've seen on RfA for a while. Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Support; clearly a competent editor, and has the ability to cut through invective to the heart of an issue. Both of those, especially the latter, are the most important skills of an administrator. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - per noms. Competent editor who will be a great help to the admin corps. Great BLP work too which for me makes up for shallow content. – Connormah (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
10. One of our best in BLPs Secret ^account 02:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Assuming of course he can restrain himself, I cannot see anything worrying enough not to support. — foxj 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Support I've seen the user around a lot and often mistaken the user for an admin. Number of articles created is lacking, but quality of the two articles created is good. I see a lot of vandalism fighting and lots of experience on WP:BLPN.--v/r - TP 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    At least I'm not the only one who thought he was an admin.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

13. Support - Opposes below don't shed any light on anything that could be remotely perceived as a net negative. Therefore, net positive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - Although there doesn't seem to be any massive number of articles created, there does appear to be a lot of article space editing and content addition. Article creation is a good thing, but you don't need administrative privileges for that; looking over the contribs there seems to be plenty of experience in the areas where administrative tools are used. - SudoGhost 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Support IMO, content creation is very valuable to Wikipedia but it's not as important as how admin button will be used by candidates for adminship. Not all of them must be expected to write GAs or FAs because it seems difficult for some people. However, first-hand experience is needed to deal with content disputes and Bbb23 is absolutely qualified enough for that--Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Oh, yes, support, if that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Support - Intelligent, thoughtful, courteous and well-spoken. All my interactions with this user, and there have been several, were positive and pleasant. I also think the work he does is very valuable to the encyclopaedia. More specifically, his BLPN-related work has been exceptional IMO. Also his approach to other users, from what I have observed, is even-handed and based on the assumption of good faith. This is a sine-qua-non trait for an admin. It doesn't get any better than that in this environment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Support - Zero reason not to. Swarm ^X 06:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
19. Seen him around a fair bit, always come across as sensible and knowledgeable. I also have Friends, which Bbb has made over 200 edits to, on my watchlist and his edits to that article demonstrate a good knowledge of content policies and guidelines. I actually thought he was an admin for quite a while. Only negative I could find was that he has spent more time than I like to see at ANI, but no one's perfect. Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
20. Support with real pleasure -- Bbb23 is a very sensible editor with a very even temperament. We have sometimes disagreed, but I've never found reason to lose respect for the way he has expressed any disagreement with me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
21. Support This user has proof of fully understanding certain situations, a key aspect for an administrator, especially with that professionally written answer to Q4. Minima© (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Per previous users' comments and the answer to my question. I don't have any problem with the seeming lack of content creation, the two articles look very good and the user has experience with admin areas (which I believe are more important than content creation). Thanks very much (and I hope you have a good night's sleep). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Support I have seen Bbb23 for some time on ANI and he has always been incredibly helpful. Also, looking at his contributions, i have no doubt he has what is needed for the mop. —Hahc21 07:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Great person to work with. He is knowledgeable, thoughtful and courteous. Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
25. Support answers to questions show the candidate is clued up on policy, while he hasn't created many articles, the ones he has done show sufficient awareness. Valenciano (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Seems like a great user who will use his skills to serve towards the betterment of the project as an admin. Michael (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
27. I do not see any problems with the candidate.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - Good editor to hand the mop to. Very impressed by the nominators/co-nominators statements and the quality of the support. The single oppose as of this writing is unconvincing, to say the least. Jusdafax 08:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    Support - Very impressive supporting nominations and statements. Content work does not solely equate to new articles, work on existing articles is just as important. KTC (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Moving to neutral. KTC (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

29. Support Bbb23 is the kind of editor where you forget they're not already an admin. I've greatly enjoyed our (too few) interactions. They are hard-working, helpful and definitely have a clue. I couldn't be more happy to support. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
30. Support per excellent nominations from respected colleagues, have seen valuable contributions at WP:ANI. I can trust Bbb23 with the mop. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
31. Support Good answers to questions, particularly question 4. I've come across this editor before and have seen no reason not to support, appears trustworthy. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. No concerns at the moment. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - Evenhanded, fairminded and knowledgeable about policy and how to apply it, in particular WP:BLP. Re: content creation, it isn't the only way to demonstrate knowledge and skill in handling content and content policies. And if anything, at this time it's at least as useful to preserve the integrity and improve on the content already on Wikipedia, in particular BLPs, and Bbb23 has been extraordinarily prolific and competent at that. Siawase (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
34. Oppose User is too popular and has way too many co-noms. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    Don't hate us cause we're beautiful (well, I'm not sure about Dennis). Drmies (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    Meh, I'm "bar pretty". After a few drinks in dim lighting, I look good enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    Inner beauty is what counts.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    * <--- The world's tiniest barnstar for one of the funniest RfA threads I've seen. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

35. Support No concerns--demonstrates understanding and competence. --IShadowed 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Seems capable and strong nominations.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
37. SupportWork on BLPN is as good a preparation (and indeed may be better than article creation) as any for the trials and travails of being an admin. It looks as though the tools will be in good hands. MarnetteD | Talk 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
38. Support - yes please! Fully trust the competence of the candidate as well as the sound judgement of all three nominators.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
39. Support good answers and contribs. —HueSatLum 16:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
40. Support largely through past observations of this editor demonstrating clue. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
41. Support Would be a net positive to the project. Simples.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
42. Impressed as hell by the noms and their support. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
43. Don't see why not. Monty₈₄₅ 17:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
44. Support. Bbb is one of the most consistently good BLP editors I've ever run in to. His blp work, even if not directly involving normal admin tools, is consistently solid enough as to remove any doubt about his judgment. He's so good, that I'm supporting him even though drmies nommed him...Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
45. Support. Appears competent, understanding, and definitely capable. Mysterytrey talk 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
46. Pile-on support for a competent candidate. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
47. Support. I normally view 90% of the dialogue concerning WP:BLP to be self-important intellectual masturbation. This editor is one of the exceptions, in my opinion. Much of what I read from him is interesting, and often undiscussed viewpoints on a subject that has consumed thousands and thousands of hours of time for the project. There are areas I would like to see a little more experience, but nothing at all that would shake my complete suppport. Trusilver 18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
48. Weak support. Unconvincing reasons for adminship, but generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Seen this username pop up here and there. They seem to be clueful and frinedly. Good luck!--Chip123456 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
50. Support Experienced editor. I don't see any reason to oppose this nomination. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
51. Support — No concerns. This is an easy choice. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
52. Support - Support. Obviously strong candidate. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
53. Support I know there is WP:SNOW for RfA's that will obviously fail. Is there something similar for RfA's that will clearly succeed? If so, it's time to use it. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    You know there exists some idiots who fail although it doesn't look like...? mabdul 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

54. Support - Meets my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 21:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
55. Support - If I had criteria, he would meet them. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. Very impressed by this user: honest, conscientious, logical, practical, civil. Communicates exceptionally clearly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
57. Support User has been editing regularly since April 2010 .Feel l the project will only gain with the user having tools and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
58. Support...my questions above didn't annoy you in any perceptible manner, so here you go.--MONGO 00:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
59. Support - Wow! A triple nomination. Is that what it takes to pass an RfA these days? :-) Seriously though, I am impressed with Bbb23's responses to the questions, and I don't have any reason to oppose this nomination. While perusing his talk page archives I turned up an old, unsigned, undated 3RR warning from a couple years ago, but when I looked up the article in question I didn't see any clear 3RR violation, unless you call adding a reference or repairing a broken header a revert. I'm sure Bbb will be a great administrator. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
60. Oppose. Candidate looks well-qualified but I can't really approve until the nomination statement is purged of its unnecessary Italian.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

    Vaffanculo, S Marshall, at least until you find me a better translation of sprezzatura. I'll purge this when the cows come home! Drmies (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

61. Support Decent enough editor. No major concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. Answers to Q1-3 show Bbb23 understands the purpose of the questions. I'm troubled with "I don't go beyond 3 reverts and will often stop at 2. I then open a discussion...." WP:3RR is not a right. Q4 shows B understands restraint is desirable. I've noticed him around. I hope he will not lose too much sleep this week. Glrx (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

    I don't like inundating a candidate with questions, but I'm not happy with A17 and A21. I'm not sure how to read the last paragraph of A21: why would a block even come up for a single revert -- especially one where the sources improved in response to the tag? I'll assume that Bbb23 is being overly thorough. I disagree with the WP:OR label; outlining an algorithm and giving an example is not research; anything that is not sourced is not automatically OR; the issue is whether sources exist. There's no claim that the writing was poor, the notation too arcane, or the example inappropriate. I'm left with a purely technical deletion in an esoteric article with no belief that the material is wrong ("maybe all of it is accurate"). Bbb23 did not claim to make a quick search for a source. The claim that this discussion at RfA caused the sources to be improved is a rationalization. Glrx (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

63. Support, but it should have happened sooner. :) Ishdarian 02:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
64. Support. I recall arguing with this editor about the structure of a political article a couple of years ago, and it was one of the most pleasant arguments I've had. We need more admins who can disagree with someone without being a giant (Redacted) about it. 28bytes (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

    'Oppose, too many edits. Er, wait... support, more than 1000 edits, no evidence that administrator tools will be abused. —Kusma (t·c) 05:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

    Striking support per vandalistic (AGF) totally clueless-looking edit to simple precedence grammar. —Kusma (t·c) 14:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

65. Support. Swayed by the co-noms and some of the answers to the questions. -- œ^™ 05:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
66. Support. Great editor. I'd trust him with the mop. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
67. Support Trusted and good answers. Also opposes' aren't convincing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
68. Strong Support I've had the pleasure of dealing with this user at AN/I, and he is very helpful and acts like an Admin there. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
69. Support I am not familiar with Bbb23, but his co-nomination by three of Wikipedia's most respected and active administrators is more than enough for me. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
70. Support I am familiar with Bbb23 from his work at different noticeboards. I would trust him with the tools and I believe he will serve the community well as an admin.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
71. Support He's given superb answers to most of the questions, and the oppose !votes have failed to move me in any significant direction. Looking through his history, it feels like he almost acts like an admin already (in a good way). Full support. Nomader (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
72. Support Have been waiting for this request. Since I've had BLPN watchlisted, I've observed this user do the heavy lifting on complicated cases that lazyboneses like me usually walk away from. Demonstrates a high level of competency on a daily basis. Despite their receiving some significant abuse from BLP belligerents, I have yet to see this user lose their composure (and they often inject a much-needed dose of humour into debates that have become unnecessarily serious). I trust this user's judgement. Excellent candidate. The Interior (Talk) 15:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
73. Support - 31K edits, over 19K to mainspace, tenure a bit borderline at about 18 active months fully adequate at 24 months, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Seems to be a quality control worker rather than a content creator and a bit of a deletionist at AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
74. Support - Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
75. Support - I see no problems here--Cailil ^talk 16:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
76. Support. Candidate shows ample ability. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
77. Support I keep forgetting he's not already an admin and this must be fixed for the sake of my ego. Zad68 17:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
78. Whenever I see this user around, I've only seem good things. Certainly trustworthy enough, and I think someone who has the ability to avoid unnecessary drama, which is always nice in an admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
79. Support. I have to be honest, I really don't think I've ever come across any of Bbb23's work prior to this RFA. Since transclusion, I've spent some time doing some research and looking over his/her contributions. The well-thought out answers to the questions above reveal an impressive ability to reason and apply community policies and guidelines. While I generally look for a significant number of articles created, I am confident that this editor will add value to the project as an administrator. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 20:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
80. Support - I've never heard of this user nor I have I seen his edits. However, I am very pleased by the level-headed answers he gave. His willingness to admit a mistake in an area of this site known for being very harsh is commendable and I think if he were to act as he has said he will he should be a fine admin. Toa Nidhiki05 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
81. I just wanted to cancel out the stupidest oppose vote I've ever seen. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
82. Support - I am happy with what I see reviewing contributions, I like the answers to the questions, I like ability to own up to a mistake. A rational user will make a rational admin (in theory), I see no reason for Bbb23 to be the exception. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
83. Strong support Many reasons, but mainly Wikipedia can well use him as an admin. Collect (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
84. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
85. Support - everyone else stole my reasons! Excellent editor, wonderfully communicative, has a clue, and gave great answers that show his thoroughness and thoughtfulness. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    Support Per Question 16. Well thought out reply. I look forward to working with you in the future!Keystoneridin (speak) 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC) - Move to oppose.Keystoneridin (speak) 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose or neutral?[4] -- KTC (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

86. Support Good editing history, plenty of clue, some great answers to questions. I see no reason why adminship should be a problem. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 07:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
87. Support Can be trusted with the mop ... Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 08:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
88. Ma sì, dài. I trust you'll be a net positive, if mopped. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
89. Support I can't remember coming across this candidate, but with two beautiful nominators (plus Dennis), some good answers to questions, and being able to admit to a mistake, I can't see any problems. Peridon (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
90. Support per Peridon, minus the bit about Drmies being beautiful (Mrs. Drmies would have questions...). I am not concerned by the diffs shown below, as Bbb23 was bringing Sean Parker back in line with proper grammar and wikilinking policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
91. Support, good guy for the job methinks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
92. (e/c)Support, seems to be a very fine user. Mind you, I prefer to support selfnoms rather than candidates appearing under that silly "co-nom" banner. I have a high opinion of all three nominators in this case (and am disillusioned to learn in the Support comment just above that Drmies isn't beautiful), but why not simply record your support under "support" like everybody else? Adminship isn't a snobbish country club where supplicants need high-ranking "sponsors" to get in.) All selfnoms get brownie points from me as showing proper independence, which I love to see in an admin. However… the gaudiness of an RFA with co-noms is hardly a big deal, when put in the scale against the good things I've seen from this candidate on ANI and other places. Bishonen | talk 14:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    You have a point there... 3 co-nominations suggests that the candidate is an insecure, status-obsessed egomaniac. Or so I've been told... :P MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    I'm sure that's not what Crisco meant--he owes me, anyway. I'll get someone to put up some doctored images from Wikimania to prove my case. I guess you have a point about the nominations though, but I never thought about it that way. I was happy enough to have fooled the Lady into nominating me and at the time I couldn't afford to bribe any other big shots. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Hmm? Well, if you have long flowing black hair and hourglass figure you may be beautiful, I guess... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

    You mean like Nemi? Peridon (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

93. Support Haven't had much interaction with the candidate, but a reasonably exhaustive search yields no reason to oppose. Good luck. -Scottywong| gossip _ 14:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
94. Support Good answers to questions, appreciate ability to admit mistake and (hopefully) learn from them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
95. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
96. I'm late to the party, but at the risk of piling on I wanted to express my strong support. I've been very impressed with Bbb23's maturity, level-headedness, and cluefulness and I've seen him deal constructively and scrupulously with a range of controversial topics. In fact, I'd have nominated him myself if I wasn't so lazy. He'll be an excellent admin; we need more like this. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
97. Tentative Strong Support while I await answer to my question above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    Question answered to my satisfaction, striking "tentative" and replacing it with "strong." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

98. Support. I trust this user with additional tools. BusterD (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
99. Support Excellent answers to most of the questions - Anbu121 (talk me) 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
100. Support and horribly pissed-off that I'm not #100. Feck. I spent too much time reading the damned answers. Feck. Feck, feck, feckity, feck. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

     No, you were the person who put him over 100. :) LadyofShalott 00:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

     Pay me $5 and I'll withdraw my support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

     Well you are now... Congratulations? Kennedy ^(talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

101. Support - I'll join the dogpile! This editor gives solid services and is always clear and civil. Excellent admin material. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
102. Support for three reasons. First (and most importantly), he's qualified. Where I've run into this editor, I've found his comments and edits helpful. Second, I believe we need as many admins as possible - hundreds more (as per Jimbo Wales' suggestion) and whenever any capable editor is nominated and has no clear reason for opposition, xhe should be given the chance. Third, because I'm growing weary of the opposers who say, "we shouldn't give admin privileges unless they've done more". In many cases, they're doing all they can with the permissions they've got. They may not be creating a bunch of new articles, but at some point, we actually need to realize that with nearly 4 million articles, there are going to be fewer new articles to create than there were five or six years ago. So, unless a) there's a genuine need and b) an individual has some degree of subject matter expertise in that topic, we shouldn't expect them to create articles as a condition for adminship. If they have shown experience in editing or contributing to articles beneficially, then lack of article creation is not, IMHO, a reason to oppose. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 03:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

     You confuse creating articles with improving articles, but submitting them to some kind of independent review process such as GA/FA is the only way you get to know about the appropriate standards for content, so it's not at all an unreasonable requirement for an admin. Sure, Wikipedia has 4 million plus articles now, but 99.999% of them are simply an embarrassment, along the lines of "XYZ is a village in PQR". And anyone who swallows the guff about there being no more articles to write really hasn't been paying attention. I really do have to take exception though to your wild comment that Wikipedia needs as many admins as possible. What it needs is as few as are necessary, unless your idea of Heaven is a police state. Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

     That is a huge misunderstanding Malleus: if you restrict Adminship to the tiniest elite, then you'll have a police state. If everyone can be an admin then you have a democracy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

     I don't think so. The truth about the admin thingy is that it's just become a convenient bag to thoughtlessly put every new user right into. But I digress. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

     • According to WP:GA, a little over 0.5% of our articles are GA or FA. That doesn't include the FLs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

     "...as few as are necessary"--I agree. I believe that article #4 million was indeed a village, beating (by consensus, because no one likes Idaho) an Idaho highway to the claim--but this is all gossip from Wikimania, of course. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

     Interesting rephrasing of what I said, and [snarky comment about whether or not I'm confused deleted]. I do agree that many (most) articles need work, and such could be a valid requirement for a candidate, but that's not the comment I made. However, since it was also (for some reason) raised as a debate to my opinion, I don't believe that having more admins will lead to a police state. In fact, when power and authority are consolidated, it more often leads of that situation than when power is widely shared, because when power is shared there's a more natural check-and-balance. We have ~1500 admins now... at what number do we encounter this overwhelming control by the overlords? (I'll leave the remaining discussion of how broken the RfA process is for Jimbo's talk page and other locations as appropriate). If it makes you happy, just change my entry to Support - he's qualified and I'd rather not give any other feedback so I can avoid an argument. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

103. Support. One of the first candidates in a long time that I can say something about, and I've been impressed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
104. Support - Never came across the user before but took a look at contribs and happy to support. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
105. Support Has my support. No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions}
106. Support Well-qualified candidate, good answers, seen them around and was impressed. --John (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
107. I'm surprised I managed to even click 'edit', given the sudden case of the giggles I am still suffering from after reading Tamsier's oppose rationale. Support, good editor who I've only seen bits and pieces of but all of what I've seen has been positive. Daniel (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
108. Support I've seen good things from this user. No reason to believe he would abuse the tools, as they used to say. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
109. Support the identity of some of the opposers speaks as well for the candidate as the wall of supports. If these are the people who don't like you, then you're doing quite a lot right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

     That's pretty much a BATTLEGROUND argument, isn't it? Shouldn't this be about the positives and negatives of the candidate and not about friends and enemies? Carrite (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

     Even by RfA standards, that has to be one of the most bizarre and objectionable rationales ever. I don't see a single opposer who's not a net positive, and most of them rank within our top 20 best editors. Theres the Colonel, about the closest we have to an in house Polymath; the phenomenal WSC; Malleus, one of our most beautiful writers and very helpful to newbies; Tamsier, one of the best for countering systemic bias with his quality work on African topics... I could go on, but this and other recent events have distressed me so much I think I need a fairly long wiki break. Kindly try to avoid disrespecting our best editors with this sort of despicable side-ways attack! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

     While I have - obviously - come to a different conclusion than the opposers, I can't let this stand without comment, lest it seem tacit approval. The list of opposers includes some editors I admire, and I do not think being opposed by them is a reason to support the nominee. (I have, of course, already given reasons I do think the nominee is worthy of support, but I respect the opinions of those who disagree.) LadyofShalott 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

     When have I ever suggested that I don't like the candidate? Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

110. Strong Support Although technically I authored BLPCRIME and placed it in our BLP policy, I actually consider Bbb23 the true author of this policy as his critical assessment and follow-up were the main reasons for this policy's inclusion; I really think he's being terribly modest above by mentioning that he tightened the policy. An empathetic and most wonderful human being with an outstanding character. Wifione ^Message 03:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
111. Support - No concerns from me; so I support. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
112. Support nominated by three people good people, one of whom (LadyofShalott) I have a great deal of respect for means I can only support this nominee. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
113. Support user is not a divvy. Adminship is no big deal. Therefore of course he should be an admin if he would like to be. 15:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egg Centric (talk • contribs)
114. Support, the user answers the questions well enough to be an administrator, so why not? Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 17:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
115. Support Probably not enough nominators but I suppose if you can't muster six then three will do :) In seriousness, I do understand that too many nominators is contentious (obviously!), and I also think some in opposition make some perfectly valid comments that are worthy of consideration. I do disagree with them however. Good answers to the questions, gnomish activity is always welcomed and an WP:NETPOS. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
116. Support - solid, competent editor with no serious strikes against them. We need more like this one on the Mop-and-Bucket Squad. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
117. Support - he's qualified and I'd rather not give any other feedback so I can avoid an argument. -— Isarra ༆ 22:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
118. Support excellent contributor, even-tempered Joefromrandb (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
119. Support A very good choice to become an administrator. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
120. Support My general impression of Bbb23 is very good, and that, along with the quality of the three co-nominators, is sufficient for me to support his candidacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
121. No red flags. Plenty of competence-vouching from trustworthy editors. The usual grab-bag of garbage opposes (half of which are purely ideological and have nothing to do with this specific candidate, and most of the rest of which are simply petty retaliation for some previous interaction) that any itinerant editor attracts over time. If the worst that nearly 150 of his peers can come up with is that he's more prone to removing unsourced material than most (a purely editorial decision which has nothing to do with tool use) then I doubt he's going to burn the place down. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
122. Support This user gave thorough explanations of their intentions to contribute to Wikipedia and no one has raised any concerns which I evaluate to merit opposition. Thanks for supporting Wikipedia, Bbb23. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
123. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
124. Weak support. I admit to being very conflicted on this, and I think a lot of the more recent opposers have raised valid issues about the candidate's propensity to delete content. I'm making a judgment call that I think the candidate is smart enough and has enough good will that they are learning from the feedback in this RfA and will not use the tools to enforce their personal editing preferences. Please prove me right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
125. Support. Qualified editor. We definitely need more such editors as admins.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
126. Support. Really good with the administrators noticeboard.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 06:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
127. Support. Has the right temperament for admin work, and has contributed very well to a number of admin-related areas. Possible over-enthusiasm with respect to removing unsourced content needs to be noted, but it's certainly not a deal breaker, and I expect Bbb23 will act on what people have been saying below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
128. Support Very reasonable to work with, and will use the tools approtiately. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
129. mabdul 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
130. Support #Support I'm conflicted about this. On first glance, the idea that material should be deleted merely because it has been unsourced and tagged as unsourced for a long time seems a bit extreme and I was planning to stay out of this (I'm not going to oppose a candidate nominated by drmies now, am I!). But, on looking at the examples on this page, I see some method in this madness. The Simple precedence parser ([5]) text that was deleted was technical and, since we have a responsibility to ensure that any material included in Wikipedia is correct, it does seem rational to remove any material that is abstruse and unverified. Better, I think to err on the side of less and verified than on more and unverified. Still, I don't know enough about the candidate to know clearly his thinking behind these deletions so I'm a weak supporter. --regentspark (comment) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
131. Best of luck with the admin tools - just be careful :-) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 20:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
132. Support. I have watched Bbb23 on the noticeboards and I feel he is a net positive influence to the project. Most of the behavior brought up in the oppose section actually made me even more supportive of this RfA. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
133. kinda assumed you were one! GiantSnowman 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
134. Support. Active, thoughtful, experienced editor. I disagree with him on many things, in fact the main issue raised by the opposers is probably another area where we would disagree, but what I do know from interacting with Bbb23, is that when discussing disagreements, he keeps his cool and is open to discussion and to others' views, rather than jumping in with both feet. We need more administrators like that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
135. Support Always happy to support potential candidates. Every good faith and capable contributor/editor who has demonstrated and showed that they are trustworthy and knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be made an administrator provided fair and genuine reasons are given. Bbb23 has given fine answers to most of the questions above. They also have a quite satisfactory history of contributions. Just because if a user makes a few mistakes does not mean that they are not eligible for becoming an Administrator. Every one is a human here and no one is perfect in everything, even in those areas where one is knowledgeable and experienced as people can still make mistakes unknowingly. The user will make great use of the community's Administrative tools to further improve the project and there isn't any strong valid reason as to why that won't happen. Best Regards Bbb23. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. User personally comments regarding other users - and doesn't create any content - going to add more detail as this progresses - Youreallycan 23:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC) I will strike and add a clarification as to why I oppose this user at this time as I am being nudged about it - I posted it whilst a little heated after a discussion - Bbb23 does not make unduly personal comments - To clarify, my oppose - I have been closer to Bbb23 and his contributions than any other user, I know him and his contributions better than anyone - for well over a year - he has some good aspects and some not so good ones - edit warring to 3rr is one of the not so good - he won't need to do that when he is an administrator , he will be able to just protect the article or block his opposer. He has none of the usual experience we usually expect/require of candidates - if he was to move to get some experience of those tasks for a few months I would be much more willing to support - we can see only yesterday he did not understand WP:Prod - and the user has little to no experience in Wikipedia:CSD As there is little to nothing of WP:NAC there is nothing to show he has a grasp of WP:consensus closing either - that is what my oppose is based on. - Youreallycan 12:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
   • He's created as many articles as I did before I became an administrator, and there's no way I did much (if at all) more content work before becoming an admin. As long as someone can demonstrate basic writing skills, what's the huge deal? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
     • Plus he has made lots of edits in article space. I thought that you, as a BLP tiger, would appreciate that he wrote a properly referenced and neutral BLP. I don't know what you mean with "personally comments": Bbb, as far as I know, is not in the habit of attacking other people--I assume that's what you're talking about, not the friendly and helpful comments he has made often enough to editors. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
     • I am unsure what you mean by "User personally comments regarding other users". Can you clarify? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
       • The user made a personal comment about me - that is not a primary reason why I don't support the user being an administrator - they have no admin related experience at all - they have no non admin closes - none of the usual things we expect a candidate to have done - nothing - almost no content creation at all - no vandal reporting at noticeboards - nothing - ow Jonny seems like a nice guy - lol - I have had close interaction on wiki and off wiki with this user and they need experience in admin type fields - they have none - at all - and I don't/can't support them - they have strong opinions that they revert war to the limit - imo - if and when they have extra buttons they will use them to force their opinions through. I have seen far more qualified candidates rejected here. I only can opine - the result is apparently a forgone conclusion - Jonny is a good guy - anyway - he's WP:INVOLVED in regards to me so happily I won't get any problems with his advanced status - Youreallycan 15:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
         • I've seen him do adminy stuff at ANI many, many times, including closing. And I've seen him in dispute resolution, as often he has asked me for review, and while I might have had suggestions, I've never had to "correct" him. As for closing AFDs, I can still count how many I've closed on one hand, pre and post admin bit, but his voting record in AFD is dead center of normal, telling me he doesn't pile on and isn't "out there" with his idea of consensus. He has twice the skills that I have at creating prose, and more substantial content edits than I, so a shortage of new articles doesn't worry me. I respect your opinions, but I've been on the outside looking in and think he is perhaps a bit more balanced than you perceive him to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
           • Hell... I didn't do my first non-admin close until after I no longer was an admin, and I still don't do all that many of them. I'd say that's a poor measurement of admin potential. Trusilver 02:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
             • Surely the answer to my question, proves that Bbb23 has a good grasp of policy and know how to implement that policy. Who cares if there is very little content creation, I can make crappy content (and help people with content creation) and don't have to be an admin to do it - surely we should be looking a whether Bbb23 can make an effective admin (doing admin tasks) than as a confirmed editor. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated.
     • The Blade of the Northern Lights, please stop putting yourself forward an an example of how non-content-creating admins turn out well. How can anyone who values the development of this encyclopedia over the enforcement of rules possibly think that the best thing to do with an unsourced article about a former interior minister of Madagascar is to tag it for deletion rather than take a minute or two to find and cite a source? This is just the latest of many such absurdities that you have perpetrated since becoming an admin, so you are a perfect example of how lack of experience in content creation is strong indicator that an editor may not become a good admin. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
   • I can clarify. See the interaction between Bbb23 and Youreallycan at the bottom of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stephen M. Cohen that occurred half an hour before this. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
     • Thank you Uncle. Please don't let that Cohen issue take over your wikilife! Drmies (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose - No content creation to speak of, habit of making personal attacks ... a more detailed rationale to come. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose - I cannot support any nomination instigated by Drmies because this editor has shown to lack civility and tact when it concerns issues relating to Sub-Saharan Africa. Their systematic bias is especially when it relates to African issues, and their dismissiveness as if they are above every body else as you can see above is self evident. I was going to ask Bbb23 some questions but there is not point wasting my time or his. In English Wiki, there also appears to be a lot of nominations by other administrators rather than by the old simple non-admin Wikipedian (the people who actually write most of the articles and make Wiki what it is). This is a concern, and it does not help with the admin clique perception some people have of English Wiki. This is a big concern. Something I have never come across in French Wiki. I wish Bbb23 all the best but I strongly oppose this nomination because I certainly do not want a clone of Drmies. I actually deal with African articles and some of which are senstive articles where everyone (figuratively) appears to have an opinion but cannot point to Africa even if you give them a globe. No offense to Bbb23. Strong oppose. Tamsier (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Maybe you hold your off on judgement and have a look at Bbb23's contributions and ask those questions. You have no idea of what Bbb23 is like, opposing because the nominee was nominated by a person you don't like is NOT a reason to oppose. Ask the questions and have a look at this user's contributions, then decide if you will support or not. If it's not worth your time to be involved in the RfA process and don't be involved and withdraw the oppose. I had never come across Bbb23 before, but I had a look at their contributions and asked a question. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Perhaps I have missed something, but I have never noticed newly-approved admins to drastically change their styles so as to be like the users who nominated them. We generally look for well-rounded users who have already carved out a sense of identity as Wikipedians; it is this sense of identity that we discuss here as we judge who has the qualifications and good sense of judgment to be admins. This isn't to say that an approved administrator may not look to another administrator for advice, but to assume a user will be a certain way because of their nominator is a bit of a stretch. It's important to judge nominees' merits - not the merits of their nominators. Michael (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Admins set the standard on Wiki. Some of course do not uphold to that standard but that is the general believe. I have no idea how Drmies managed to be an admin and frankly I do not care. What I care about is that, whilst I am here, I would endeavour my utmost within Wiki policy and ensure we would never have an admin like Drmies again. Just look at how he insults another editor who happens to be an opposer right in the middle of an RFA calling them a "Vaffanculo". Also see their behaviour above. Is this the character of a good administrator? Is this how things are done in English Wiki? Perhaps you do things a bit differently then than in French Wiki. I mean no disrespect to Bbb23. I wish him all the best and I really mean that. But I cannot back this nomination because I am suspicious of this nomination. Sadly for Bbb23, I believe he is wrongly served. Tamsier (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Which once again is a nominator not the candidate, I urge to to ask some questions, to go through the candidate's contributions or have a civil chat on their talk page. I quote the following from the editnotice on this page: "Providing diffs for any specific critique of the candidate's editing (whether your are supporting, opposing or neutral) will help other editors in evaluating the merit of your comments." If this is such a clear case find evidence of the candidate doing what you say they will do. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Tamsier, you are aware that the oppose you are referring to is actually in the support section, and the word oppose is actually a joke, right? From what I have seen your only significant interaction with Drmies is in this ANI thread where he said that you should be kept on a tight leash (as it was after a diff was presented where you nominated Islam for speedy deletion, I [and I am sure most] would be inclined to agree with that assessment). Regardless, I am sure that the closing bureaucrat will give this oppose it's due consideration as this RfA is for Bbb23, and not the Doctor. If you have any other issues with him, you should bring them up on his talk page, not here, I am sure he would gladly oblige. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   You forgot to mention his swearing remark I referred to above. That was my main point. Not who is oppossing or supporting. I don't believe RFA is a joking matter, obviously you do. I have had more interactions with Drmies than your copy & paste. Though I may have been a bit over the top in the nomination of the Islam at the time, I believe it to had POV issues & I was not the only apparently, look at its talk page. However, your link above actually reaffirms my position about Drmies now than ever. I believe in that old saying : 'Birds of a feather... Anyway there is nothing to add to that, so let's just leave it at that. Like I said, I wish Bbb23 all the best. If he doesn't make it this round, at least next time when he is ready and on his own merit. Tamsier (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Tamsier, if it weren't for Kelapstick's useful remark I wouldn't have a clue who you are. On the other hand, I do know S Marshall, with whom I started working many years ago. You may have noticed that S Marshall's !vote contained an element of humor, and I responded in kind; you may not have noticed that S Marshall is in fact supporting this RfA. If, however, S Marshall objects, I will gladly strike it and don a a hairshirt for the duration of this RfA.

   I looked at the diffs and the ANI thread: thank you Kelapstick. Tamsier's characterization of my work here is far off the mark (I am not involved in editing articles on Sub-Saharan Africa) and am wondering now if I wasn't too lenient in November 2011 by merely commenting on this diff, for instance. "I may have been a bit over the top in the nomination of the Islam" is, frankly, mind-boggling. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Tamsier, I didn't mention the profanity because I am not a twelve year old who giggles every time someone says "fuck". If you get offended every time someone says a word you don't like you should perhaps choose a different hobby because honestly, I am offended by your sensitivity. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   I've just (belatedly) found this, and I would just like to clarify that my !vote appears in the section I intended it to appear in, and should be read with your humour-detectors switched on. But whatever I've got to say to make Drmies put the hair shirt on, I want you to pretend I said, because, muhahahaha!—S Marshall T/C 18:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

   Kelapstick, your remark just reminded me of the kid in my middle school health class who couldn't stop himself from giggling every time he had to say the word "penis". And then one day, the teacher finally told him that he could use a euphemism if it would stop him from wasting class time. He chose "ding-dong". I'm really not sure why I'm writing this on Wikipedia, but if "fuck" is really that offensive, then as my teacher would say, "Go eat a ding-dong". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yum! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   Strongly Oppose - I can foresee that giving this User Adminship privileges will cause endless problems for WP, as he is a controversial choice. No ammount of vandalism by his supporters will end this. 86.12.129.2 (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   Unregistered user cannot vote. Sorry--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   A controversial choice?! Since when is 78–2–3 controversial? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose Bbb23 has a severe case of owning articles. Portillo (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
   • That's a serious charge, but it needs to be supported. Ideally you need to give diffs so that we can judge whether we agree with you or whether we think that Bbb23 is merely keeping an eye on a contentious article and repeatedly removing the same sort of inappropriate addition. At the least you could name the articles so that others can check your assertion. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
   • My amazing clairvoyant powers tell me that we should be looking at this, this, this, and this. Uncle G (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
     • Good examples, thanks Uncle G. I have concerns re other aspects of the candidate hence my question 17, but as regards those articles Bbb23 is already functioning as an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'm not liking the drive-by disruption such as this recent example. Warden (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
   • What disruption? Per WP:V: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   • WP:V states "However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." Removing all the content from an article without any talk page posting or other interaction with the article is disruptive because it "disrupts progress towards improving an article". Content is more difficult to cite if it is no longer there. If no talk page entry is made then other editors may not realise what has been done. The manner in which the candidate took this action was therefore too crude and unpleasant. It relied upon other editors observing what was happening by patrolling recent changes or using their watch list and such vigilance is not reliable. Such behaviour is what we see with bull-in-a-china-shop editors like DreamGuy or TenPoundHammer. Such editors are not usually trusted with admin tools. Warden (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   • Taking casual swipes at other editors in this context is a very poor idea, Colonel Warden. Especially as you're living in the past as regards DreamGuy, who is a good example of a previously incivil (though always useful) contributor who has cleaned up his act. His last block was in 2009. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

   I have nothing against Bbb23, but that still doesn't make it a good idea. Did Bbb23 have any reason to believe the information to be false? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   What I find more disturbing is that someone accepted the WP:BURDEN by restoring but did not add citations or provide some reasoning on the talk page. The content lacks adequate context and is overly technical to know what is being said as it currently stands. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

   Let's consider the parallel case of the simple precedence parser. In that case, the candidate blew away most of the content and marched on without looking back. In that case, no-one has picked up the burden but is this an improvement? Before the candidate's action there was a fair amount of nicely-formatted technical content which provided good context and detail for further work. Following the candidate's action, there is a bare stub and there are still no references. How does this help our readership or the work of potential editors? The issue of whether the content is accurate or not is still not addressed. And no pointers or clues have been left on the article's talk page. Such action seems to be scorched earth and just as disruptive. What I look for in an admin is someone who has enough clue to assist in the construction of the encyclopedia, rather than just making work for other people. Finding a source for this topic is quite simple - see Principles of Compiler Design, for example. Perhaps the topic needs the attention of an expert? The editor who wrote most of this content seems quite expert but is a Spanish speaker and so perhaps needs some help working in a foreign tongue. The WikiProject Computer science might help but they have yet to even rate the article. Perhaps they need a nudge to take a look. Initiatives of that kind seem constructive; just cutting a swathe through our content does not. My oppose stands. Warden (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

   Simply blanking that page was a very bad idea, no matter what WP:V says you're allow to do. "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." is mainly a great troll-whacking device, a not a good way to deal with articles on obscure topics. There was already a "needs more references" template on the article—quite sufficient to warn unsuspecting readers—and could simply have asked for some specific references at WikiProject Computer science. —Ruud 18:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Editors stance on BLPCRIME would prevent us from mentioning that OJ Simpson was accused of murder. I have asked clarifying questions above and am willing to be persuaded. Hipocrite (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Strong Oppose part of the white-washing, PoV support problem at WP:BLPN. Hipocrite (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

   Wouldn't OJ satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN that was mentioned in the answer? KTC (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose I'm very sick of Northern Lights' self-important schitck. Keepscases (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
   • How does that relate to the nom? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

   In all fairness, it's no more ridiculous than one or two of the other opposes. Trusilver 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose The prod tag removal and warning is not good. The bigger thing for me however, where is the apology to the person you improperly reverted and warned? You didn't even go back and at minimum srike out your warning and explain yourself. (I will move to neutral if you can show me that I missed the diff, but I'm not seeing it.)--Cube lurker (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose Generally a good editor and human being, who should come back after 6 months and try again. The content-side seems limited overwhelmingly to consist to very short edits (not all "minor") on popular culture, rather than on conventional encyclopedia content. The razing of a stub on automata theory without notifying the author and similar edits (documented by others) raise concerns about impulsivity or deletionism. Reflect on the official opposes and the unofficial opposes ("neutrals"), learn what you can and ignore the rest, and come back in 6 months, please. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 10:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

   May I draw your attention to William G. Tapply? Having read that the very short edit comment seems a little harsh. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for the correction. Please notice my clarification, above. That article emerged well referenced and well written from the first edit by the candidate. A similar article was also mentioned by Drmies. (Such editing habits would account for the low edit numbers on articles.) Thanks again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

9. oppose I've seen him around a lot and find him to be generally reasonable and I came here expecting to support. But answers to 17 and 21 show what I view as a fundamental misunderstanding. There is _massive_ amount of uncited work on Wikipedia. We don't delete it unless we believe it is likely to be challenged (or known to be wrong). We certainly don't pat ourselves on the back because by stubbing something we strong-armed someone to come in and add sources. That person would likely have fixed something else but instead had to put out the fire you created. Not conducive to getting or keeping editors. And if the sources matter that much, add them yourself. I do think this will cause him to create problems as an admin if he thinks this is a good way forward so I must oppose. Errors in policy (like the misunderstanding of prodding) can be fixed. Opinions like this are significantly more problematic in an editor and more so in an admin. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Not because I have any particular grudge against the candidate, but because I am fundamentally opposed to the idea that "we need as many admins as possible", and the clear implication in many of the support votes that this promotion would be some kind of reward for good service. Many of us have done good service, with no reward. Malleus Fatuorum 04:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

    At the risk of badgering, I'll give you one place where we need some willing admins: Wikipedia:An#Requests_for_closure. Bbb is one editor/admin I would trust in that area, given that he's demonstrated a very decent knowledge of guidelines and policies and that he has, in my opinion, the temperament and the balance to do some work. Then again, the current admins, and that certainly includes me, probably should be more active--but it's not a fun field to work in. BTW, I am a great fan of badgers, thanks also to S Marshall. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

11. Weak Oppose the candidate has the tenure and experience and many other positive aspects including a commendable focus on BLP issues. But as we saw from Q17 there is a pattern of treating unsourced uncontentious non-BLP content with almost the same intolerance as unsourced contentious BLP content. I checked a lot of the candidate's edits and never once saw the addition of a {{fact}} tag as opposed to removal of unsourced content. Of course its possible that at some point in the future we will shift from a policy of verifiable to a policy of verified and require each addition of fact to be sourced. But if we and when we do that I'd expect to see the user interface changed to inform editors of that and prompt them for a source. In the meantime there is a huge difference between reverting from unsourced to sourced versions or removing unsourced contentious content. So to a large extent I share Hobit's concern and partially Kiefer and Colonel Warden's concerns, and I also agree with Cube Lurker. There are some other opposes that I would wish to disassociate myself from and Malleus' one which I would respectfully disagree with. We do need more admins, if I thought this was just a reward for good service I'd not be commenting. But this involves entrusting the deletion button to someone who shows signs that they might be heavyhanded with it. Weak because you've got the smarts and the experience and have shown you can be diplomatic in communicating with others, if this succeeds please prove my fears misjudged. If it fails please come back later this year having taken some of this on board. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Hobit. I never thought I'd find myself in this oppose section for this candidate but I too have a problem with these deletions of unsourced non-controversial non-BLP material. What is in the best interests of building an encyclopedia, as opposed to blindly (imo) enforcing WP:V in the strictest sense? We have Fact-tags for a reason. I try to source everything that I add and also enjoy adding references to unsourced material that I find in articles, from time to time. It's how we build things. I'm really opposed to this content blanking. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • • I always hate facing an article like this, worried that if the information is wrong, you can do damage by giving people the wrong technical data, and that is worse than no information at all. Particularly since no one has bothered to source any of it in over a couple of years. I'm not arguing your concerns which I completely understand, but it is a bit of a no-win situation unless you can personally verify the information, and most of us are simply not capable of doing so on such a complicated topic. I won't be so bold as to say you should or shouldn't in these limited circumstances, but I can see why someone would, or wouldn't do what Bbb23 did. It would be my opinion that this single example, while informative, is less than optimal to determine how he would react to something that is reasonably easy to verify or disprove. IE: Measuring by this atypical example, it is difficult to judge his actions in a typical situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree actually. If this were just an example of an error and not what appears to be an intentional philosophical stance I'd be fine. But it's a stance that is significantly out of line with our policies and generally expected (and observed) behavior. If he agreed to stop doing things like this, I'd move to support in a heartbeat. I'd still support him here if he stated he was going to try to change policy to support this kind of action (though I'd strongly argue against that change) as long as he agreed that this type of action isn't something the community currently supports... Hobit (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
          • He can't make a promise here as it would look like pandering, as I'm sure you understand. He isn't perfect and he knows it. All I can go by is the many conversations I've had with him, where I've presented different ideas and he has always been receptive to doing things differently, way before RfA was on the menu. This is one of the reasons I wanted to nom him to begin with, because I prefer an admin that doesn't think they are perfect and can listen and take advice to heart, and honestly, he has always been this way with me. I guess it would take a degree of faith for you if you haven't had the kind of detailed policy discussions with him that I have. But not everyone knows that side of him, so I understand the hesitation and I know you voted in the best of faith, which I respect. If you followed him around a bit after RfA, I think you would see what I mean. He isn't a slave to old ways and will listen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I am uncomfortable giving deletion tools to anyone who essentially feels that all unsourced content should be removed (which is what the answers to 17+21 tell me). Policy does not require referencing for every fact, and in practice many many clearly correct things are unreferenced at current. Wholesale removal of uncontentious material is not helpful - we have {{unreferenced}} and {{fact}} tags for a reason. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
14. I agree with WereSpielChequers' comments. There seems to be a somewhat aggressive editing approach to removing content, which could be an indication of the potential for aggressive admin actions that push the limits of policy. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
15. We all agree WP content must have sources. The proper approach to dealing with unsourced content in general is to try to source it, if it appears reasonable. If its a field one can't work on, there are thousands of other editors. Content should be removed if it is unsourceable, but one can only tell that after making an adequate effort. This is much harder to do that one would imagine if one does not have experience actually looking. It's necessary to remove content that is unsourced negative allegations about living persons, but even here if it quickly sourceable, that's even better. The difference is that if it is not quickly sourceable, instead of leaving it for someone else to source, we remove it. We need admins who know the difference, and it's a matter of practice as much as policy.The over-rigid application of BLP policy is frequent a cause of biased writing as the over-lax interpretation of it. The need for sourcing is one of the reasons we should require significant article writing experience in admins--so they will know in practice how to find sources. The justifications given here for removing content leave me with the feeling that the candidate is coming here with a cause to bring about his own interpretation of policy, and intends to try to shift consensus. The way to shift consensus is not by admin actions: admins need to act according to the ordinary consensus, and if there need be a change, let the community decide it, either explicitly, or by a shift in the result of decisions. We need more good administrators. We do not need more administrators we are unsure of and will have to watch--we have all to many of them already. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Weak Oppose First of all, I would like to say that I am really conflicted by this vote, but I feel that this area is the best place to place it. Per the sentiments of ϢereSpielChequers, and DGG (who actually took my unintentionally took some of my argument), I have to oppose. A lot of our articles contain unsourced content. The fact that we allow for it to exist is because we assume that someday some editor will come along and magically source the content, or the information being there is something which will help the average Joe discover something about something, and make a great discovery as a result (okay, maybe not this far, but I hope my point is being made). Some of the many edits that are made here add some very valuable material, for which there is literally no source that is acceptable, because it could be an oral history that is backed up by photographs, but not a book. I really feel uneasy about giving you the tools only because you have indicated that you might be more inclined to delete unsourced material than others, but that does not mean that I find fault in the rest of you. I look forward to working with you in the future, regardless of where you end up. At this point, I know that my vote won't change anything, but I do trust that you will take every vote to heart once you get the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Reluctant Oppose per WSC & DGG on sourcing. Unfortunately, mainly because of lack of editors, our tagging of sourcing has long been out of control, and is as likely to reflect the prejudices of some other editor as any actual issue with the statement. Many tagged statements are in fact covered by references, which sometimes can be easily established. Equally, actually dubious or plain wrong statements in articles are usually not tagged. Not a good situation, but not one improved by the regular removal of tagged statements. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Moved from oppose as this candidate looks much bettter now in light of the strength of the support statements.. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

   So you say that you !opposed original without analyzing his edits? mabdul 13:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

   I should think it was incredibly obvious that this user looked at nothing beyond this page, blatantly copied anotther users comment and then changed positions when it became clear the RFA as trending in another direction. I sincerely hope this was a learning experience for this user and that in future they will make at least a minimal effort to have an actual informed opinion instead of playing follow-the-leader. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

   Actually, I have had negative interactions with said user were I did not think they acted as an admin should, and I thought they were already an admin they were so hostile and bossy. Should I move back to oppose out of principle? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   "I thought they were already an admin they were so hostile and bossy" — ha, quote of the week! I'm a put that one on my talkpage. :-) Thank you, Gabe. Bishonen | talk 13:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

   And I'm going to block you for them, since they are an unbearable insult to me and my colleagues. I'm being oppressed! Drmies (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, I figured I would catch hell for that, oh well. I just meant they were acting like they had authority over other editors, is that better? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   No, no, you've got me wrong. My appreciation of your comment was perfectly serious — I took it as a dig at admins and adminship (i. e. not so much at the candidate), and, as an ex-admin myself, who turned in the tools because of objections to some of the company, I enjoy such digs, when well-turned. Not to generalize too wildly, but certainly I think there are cases where power has corrupted, and your "hostile and bossy" nailed 'em perfectly. You can now admire your own immortal words at the top of my talk. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

2. Neutral moved from support - Despite excellent record in area of major contributions and good answers to questions here, I can no longer support given Bbb23 apparent failure to hold a basic understanding of the Proposed deletion policy.[6][7] Even though we are talking about an area where the candidate is acknowledged not to be experienced in, I would expect an administrator to have a grasp of WP:CONTESTED. I'll refrain from opposing what appears to be an otherwise qualified candidate on the basis of one mistake though. -- KTC (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   While I agree the readdition of the PROD template is in error, the template is vaguely worded. It says it (emphasis added) "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced" (rather than must not be replaced), vs. the policy page which explicitly says "If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag - see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." The template also recommends (but doesn't mandate) that a reason for the removal took place. While the reverting of the removal was a mistake, I can see how someone who doesn't do much in the way of PRODding could read the template as "if a reason isn't given you can re-add the template" if they went by what the template says rather than what the deletion policy says. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   I see where KTC is coming from and I hope you (KTC) don't mind my answering. Yes that is an explaination (and a good one), but I would expect an admin to know the rules for PROD, and to have completely read WP:PROD before they make a run for adminship. Since this happened yesterday it is a reasonably big thing (and I intend to ask a question about it). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   I respect your concerns here, more than you might know. I had to agree to 3 months of CSD mentoring during my RfA to get the support of many people, so I am very willing to overlook minor deficiencies as I still have plenty of my own. I borked up closing an AFD just a week ago and Bbb23 had to fix that for me, for example. I respect Bbb23 not for his "perfection", but rather the way that he handles and admits his imperfections. Honestly, Wikipedia is a large, complex place and none of us knows everything. Many people never PROD at all, and just go to AFD for a discussion, which is arguably a better venue as it actually puts eyes on a borderline article. Any person that has the humility to admit their own lack of experience in one area, and the determination to properly rectify it, yes, that is the kind of admin I want around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

3. I have interacted with and observed Bbb23's conduct several times; and was impressed with his eloquence, tact, and clue. However, I am concerned from aspects apparent after close scrutiny of contributions. I am therefore, neutral. I wish Bbb23 the best. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral No actual reason to oppose yet, but I feel uncomfortable about the nomination. Will monitor.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   The nomination is not likely to change, Wehwalt; not much to monitor. If this is another case of disliking the nominator, I would be saddened: a quality editor like yourself knows to judge a nominee on their own merits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for that, but overall, perhaps not quite as welcoming as I would like to see. That does not seem that unusual, for this RFA, on oppose an neutral views. I was wondering what the nominee's views are as to that?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

5. There is a lot to like about Bbb23, however I am concerned at his tendency to use the revert tool rather than discussion as a means of resolving issues. I am particularly concerned that he comes in as second reverter in disputed situations - as in the Prod case already mentioned, and in Black Swan. The revert method of dealing with potential errors in others has led to a number of complaints on his talkpage, and for him to be brought to dispute resolution. While I accept that he sometimes is dealing with awkward and argumentative editors who are in the wrong - there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of dealing with these matters. One way educates the user, leaves them with their dignity intact, an understanding of the issues, and they may become a useful contributor in future. The other way antagonises the situation, creates heat and drama, wastes other people's time, and will often lead to an editor leaving Wikipedia. Indications in comments above are that Bbb23 is understanding this, and that is a good sign, so I will not oppose. But I feel it's worth highlighting this issue for Bbb23 to take forward. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   You have highlighted one of my concerns. It is worth adding that many of the reverts should have been labeled as "good faith" edits, but were not. I haven't seen one example where a reversion was ever labeled as good faith. That is a concerning omission. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

6. neutral The speedy delete nominations were not so bad, (posted at discussion) even the declined ones were later deleted for different reasons to the original speedy nomination. However on the logs side I see no image uploading, and only a few moves. There are a reasonable number of patrols however. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   And a small log history is bad, because...? mabdul 14:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   Because it shows limited experience. I like to see a broad range of experience, as in trying out the different features available. Not every area is needed (I don't expect a nomination for the spam white list for example, or a request for a mediawiki: page update). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

7. Neutral Candidate seems competent, but I'm not impressed by the badgering and defense by proxy that his supporters/nominators are carrying out above. A weak oppose will be evident to any closing 'crat without an unnecessary pile-on by supporters. Intothatdarkness 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Neutral Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystoneridin (talk • contribs)

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.