Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox 2

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

Final (65/11/9); Closed by Rlevse at 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) – Well, it's been three months since I filed my first RFA, which went down in flames because of a very unfortunate edit summary [1]I had left only a few weeks before submitting my RFA. The community was very worried that this poor choice might represent a pattern that would result in my biting users with the power of admin tools backing me up. It was a fair objection, although one incident does not make a pattern, I was essentially asked to prove it by going three months without making a similar error. I believe I have done that. In the intervening three months I have had a few close encounters with trolls, been the subject of personal attacks, and dealt with numerous new users, and nothing like the incident that sunk my first RFA has occurred. In brief, the reason I stated at my first RFA for wanting to be an admin is that almost every single time I ask for an admin to do something, they do it. I figure that means I have the judgement necessary to wield the mop myself, and I can reduce the admin workload in the areas I work by eliminating the middleman. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: At first, I would restrain myself to the areas in which I already have a good amount of experience, namely speedy deletion, vandal fighting and problematic usernames. I would very slowly wade into Articles for Deletion as well, only closing the more obvious cases for the time being.

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

A: I made a point at my first RFA of mentioning that I don't have a lot of bright and shiny things to point at because I tend to focus on new and neglected articles. That is still the case, and what I plan to continue doing whether or not this RFA succeeds. However, fate has handed me two opportunities in the last three months to learn about some of these processes. There was a wildfire in my area and I created Shanta Creek fire and successfully pulled a DYK out of it. During the Good Article sweeps, my adopted hometown's famous Eagle Lady was put on hold. I took a look at the list of problems and decided to tackle them, and the article retained GA status as a result of my efforts.

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: It's pretty darn rare for me to actually feel stress over something from Wikipedia, my one infamous incident aside. If you are going to edit here, you have to accept that you are sometimes going to find yourself in conflict with other users, and sometimes, no matter how right you just know you are, things are not going to go your way. Usually, if I find myself on the losing end of a debate over an article I will simply not edit the debated content anymore. If I thought the article shouldn't exist at all and it ends up being kept, I take it off my watchlist.I try to make WP:STICK and WP:BRD my guiding principles.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. When is the last time you told a lie? What were the circumstances, and do you regret it?

A:I'm a really bad liar, I've never had any skill at it and almost always get caught. Except when I'm on the phone at work. My work often requires me to "bend" the truth ever so slightly, usually in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings. So, I don't feel regret about those tiny work related lies, but I almost always end up regretting lies told in my personal life. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Unionhawk

5. I see that this was brought up at your last RfA (and it's what cost you dearly). How would you handle a situation like that differently?

A: I sort of answered that in my nomination statement, but basically, I would make the same edit, but not leave that unfortunately worded edit summary. As I've said, it was something that happened only once, I completely understand why the community objected at my first RFA, and I have not made a similar error since. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from @harej

6. As an administrator, what would be your approach to tendentious editing? In other words, what would you do to defuse an edit war? How would you react to editors behaving like jerks and losing focus of the original problem in favor of insulting each other? Do you like Steely Dan?

A: I suppose it would be basically the same as it now. The only way to defuse an edit war is to make both parties understand why edit warring is counterproductive. The best way to do that is to explain it to them, either yourself or with {{subst:uw-3rr}}. Hopefully that will spur conversation as opposed to edit warring. I often encourage editors who are at odds to pursue a third opinion or a request for comment period. All that doesn't always stop the edit warring, and then we move on to short blocks to stop the disruption of the article. This also usually has the effect of convincing folks that further edit warring is not a good idea. Sorry, but I've never cared for the music of Steely Dan.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

7. Does a sign have copyright? When can a Wikipedia image include a sign, or conversely when would a sign appearing not be appropriate? ^ref

A: Generally anything on public display is fair game. I suppose a sign that was not made for public display might not be something we should reproduce here without a good fair-use rationale. A logo on a sign may be copyrighted, but if the image is used to illustrate the subject of an article it probably qualifies as fair use. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

8. Can a fair use image be used to decorate or illustrate an article in Wikipedia? ^ref

A: I would say that based on my understanding of fair use, illustrate=yes, decorate=no. There has to be a valid rationale for use of any image on Wikipedia that can't be released under a free license. Images of living persons are subject to more stringent restrictions as it is assumed it is possible to get a free version as long as they are alive. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. I am puzzled that neither the candidate nor anyone else has noted Beeblebrox's work at WP:WQA where he/she is one of the more prolific contributors along with editors such as Bwilkins, neonwhite and Eusebeus. How come? Follow-up question for candidate: Do you agree that any effectiveness that WP:WQA has in large part stems from the fact that the people giving advice there are non-admins? If yes, will you pledge to stop commenting at WP:WQA if you are made an admin? Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I haven't brought it up because I haven't been active there lately. Like Wikipedia itself with it's open editing, the best thing about it is also the worst thing about it. WQA works on the concept that users acting in good faith to identify and resolve civility issues can succeed without the threat of blocking. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it's just a stepping stone to WP:ANI. I found that nearly half of all reports there were either in the wrong place, were unfounded, or the user making the report was actually the one causing the problem. I do think that it is a worthwhile endeavor to try and resolve issues without the pile-ons that often occur at ANI, and without the threat of a block looming over the involved users, and I may comment there more often again in the future. I don't think that an admin hanging around there would fundamentally change anything except to maybe more quickly deal those problems that escalate beyond the scope of what WQA can handle. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Gigs

10. You mentioned you'd like to work in UAA. What would you do if User:RFACo were reported to UAA, and they had made no edits? Would the answer change if the user had just finished creating Real Fast Animal Company, filling it with very promotional material?

A: Generally, unless the name is so blatantly offensive or disruptive that there is no chance they are here to help, no edits=no block. The current consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy, which I have been somewhat involved in, is that only the most blatant promotional usernames warrant a block. In this case, the name itself is not blatantly promotional, and indeed if they were reported before they edited I would feel the need to have a talk with the reporting editor about being trigger happy in asking for a block. If the article is not on a notable subject and is hopelessly promotional, it can be speedy deleted. If the subject is notable and the article is not too horrible, it can be cleaned up with more neutral language. If the user persists in spamming, they will be blocked for that regardless of the username. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from kotra

11. Sorry in advance for this question, as you probably feel like you've addressed it enough already. I see you have characterized the infamous edit summary as a "poor choice", an "error", and "unfortunately worded". However, I am still unclear on how you see the "why". If it's not too much trouble, could you explain why you feel the edit summary was a mistake?

A: No need to apologize, it's a fair question. When it was first brought up, I admit my initial reaction was that it was not such a big deal. I'm an adult, and I use "four letter words" in my day to day conversation, and I've always thought of edit summaries as a sort of "muttering under your breath." (indeed I have an odd habit of almost always trying to make a lame joke when creating an archive page) Then it was pointed out that this was an IP talk page, and a different, completely innocent user could edit from the same ip and see this edit summary, and even though it had nothing to do with them, they would feel "bitten" by it. When I realized that this had utterly failed to occur to me at the time, I also realized what a thoughtless and potentially offensive thing to do it was and that it was probably going to ruin my chances at RFA as well. Even though the original poster identified his oppose as "weak," others did not see it as a weak reason and it quickly became clear to me that this was not the sort of thing that would be tolerated from an admin, or anybody else for that matter. I also realized I had failed to follow what I consider one of the most important things when dealing with banned and disruptive users, which is WP:RBI. I had been fairly religious about taking this approach with this particular banned user, as I do believe it is the best way to handle them, and now because of this one edit summary, I had reversed a lot of the effect I had previously worked to achieve, and given them exactly the sort of attention they wanted. I slapped myself with a Wikitrout over it, and added an image to my userpage [2] to remind myself not to do such things again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Goodmorningworld

12. In your answer to question 6, I am struck by the absence of page protection as an essential tool in the admin arsenal. You write, "All that doesn't always stop the edit warring, and then we move on to short blocks to stop the disruption of the article." That seems like a mighty quick jump to what is the most devastating club that admins wield. Blocks handed out to editors with a long track of making good contributions often drive them away forever, irrespective of whether policy allows an admin to do so. Might you see your way to including page protection as an alternative, and indeed preferred, method of handling edit warring? (You may also want to look at how candidate Chamal N answers Question 6 in his RfA.) Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: In retrospect I may have been in too big of a hurry when I answered that question. (The RFA process makes me a little antsy and I feel like the questions can't wait even if I have somewhere else I'm supposed to be) Of course page protection is a an excellent way to force combatants to stand down and use the talk page to resolve a dispute. In fact, I've asked for this several times, but I don't recall ever requesting an editor to be blocked for 3RR. My answer may have lacked that tool, but in actual practice I am more than willing to use it. I would add that of all things in the toolbox I may soon have access to, blocking makes me the most nervous, as it seems so easy to make a terrible mistake. I think at first I would probably only be blocking in the areas I have the most experience, bad usernames and persistent vandals. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Chzz

13. In light of some of the oppose reasonings, I would like to know how you intend to proceed with CSD in the future - ie, how certain will you need to be before you delete an article, and under what circumstances would you seek the opinion of other editors?  Chzz  ►  10:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Well, one thing that has become clear is that I somehow missed the point that an infobox is enough content to avoid A3, so I won't be tagging or deleting articles like that as A3 in the future. I'm well aware that deleting articles is a serious business, in that many new users find it very discouraging when "their" article is deleted, even if it is a clear and obvious candidate for speedy deletion. As far as how certain I would need to be before deleting, I would say in the case of speedies you should be absolutely certain that it either fits a valid criteria, or, in rare cases, has problems so obvious that it should be deleted despite not fitting a specific criteria. I stress that such cases are rare, but I have had occasion to use {{db-reason}} one or two times. If I had just a little doubt, I would ask another admin or bring it up for discussion at the CSD talk page. I have a a little more doubt, I would just decline the speedy just as I would now, and leave a note for the tagging editor that the nom has been declined, and that they should pursue PROD or AFD if they feel strongly that the article should be deleted. If it is an obviously wrong-headed tagging, I would again do what I already do, make sure to inform the creator of the article of this fact and ask the tagger to review the criteria. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

14. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A:I think that WP:N is not a perfect standard, but at the moment it's the best we've got as general guideline. The RFC to decide it's fate from a ways back showed that consensus favors leaving it where it is, not a policy, just a guideline that is open to exceptions. I don't agree with the idea that any particular type of article is automatically notable, or the converse argument that particular types of articles are automatically not notable. I'm very much a "case by case basis" type of person. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. As an administrator doing new page patrol, would you delete A1/A3/A7 candidates on sight or give them a little time to develop? That is, how old would each of these article types have to be before you deleted it?

A:Again, case by case basis, especially with A7. Some articles so blatantly fail that criteria that there is no need to wait. In the case of G3 articles (actual cases not my mistaken taggings of the past) I've always been puzzled as to why a person would create a page without anything on it. I don't think much time is needed if there is no content whatsoever, as nothing is being "lost" anyway, although tagging the page as opposed to going ahead and deleting it would give the creator a chance to say something and maybe that something would be enough to avoid speedy deletion. A1 would also depend on how bad it was. If I thought I might be able to pull some context together myself with a quick Google search of he term I might try that. Generally I don't think there should be any specific threshold for how old an article has to be before it can be deleted if it undeniably meets any of the CSD criteria, that's why we have them after all. Although I am an active CSD tagger myself, I acknowledge there are quite a few NP patrollers who are too hasty. It's somewhat understandable and I've certainly been caught up in it myself on occasion. There is a feeling of urgency, to find the "bad" articles and tag or delete them, then move on to the next before it slips past unnoticed. I've had to make a conscious effort to slow down and consider whether I might be able to fix the problem myself. Of course, half the time when I go off to search for sources, I return to discover that someone else has tagged the article for CSD, or even that it's already been deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. I looked at your recent speedy tags and the majority were 1-2 minutes after the article was created. Do you feel there is a rush to evaluate new pages as quickly as possible? Have you ever tried patrolling from the back of the queue as Special:NewPages suggests?

A: As you have surmised, this is solely a function of the way I view new pages. I do old-school RC Patrol. I don't use anything but the recent changes page and twinkle. I quickly glance through the most recent 100 changes at that moment and see if there are any obvious problems. Most of the worst content blanking, obscenities, and the like gets picked up right away by ClueBot, so I usually don't bother chasing after that kind of thing. I look for YELLING IN ALL CAPS or using insults or profanity in their edit summary, or sometimes just someone who didn't use one at all. Clues like that can sometimes lead to very sneaky vandalism. I look for short new pages, or anything with an anti abuse tag on it. I check those to see if they meet any of the CSD. If there's nothing like that on RC, I look for any registered users without a talk page who have just made an edit. I leave a welcome message on their talk page and briefly check their edits for vandalism or anything they may need help with. I deal with that and hit "recent changes" again. I like working this way as it is highly variable in terms of what you come across, it keeps Wikipedia engaging for me. As I stated in my answer to your last question, I have made a conscious effort to be less hasty, but I have not always succeeded. Therein lies the difference between tagging and actually going ahead and deleting. Speedy deleting an article requires careful consideration if it is not for one the vandalism related criteria. It's often worth asking if a few minutes, or in some cases seconds, might be enough for you to just fix the problems yourself. There is also a big problem in the perception of how the whole family of A7 and A9 tags are to be used. Many users do not understand that any remotely plausible claim to notability is all that is required to avoid speedy deletion for non-notability. Proof is the standard required at AFD, but a reasonable claim of notability is all that is required as far as CSD. What is a reasonable claim is of course open to interpretation, which is why we have admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

• I just looked over my own stats again, and it occurs to me that some might wonder why I have so many user talk edits. This is because I deal with new users a lot, either welcoming them or giving them the unpleasant news that the article they just created qualifies for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I noticed that last time, there were some CSD concerns. Would one of the CSD regulars be willing to perform a review of his deleted contributions to see if there are still any issues with that? NW (Talk) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have checked many of the nominations, most I checked looked OK, with A7 nn, G10 attack page, G3 hoaxes, G2 tests, G12 copyvio all labeled OK. For A1's (context) the situation is not so good and could do with some improvement: eg My travel A330 I would not have labeled A1, but given a prod instead. Department of Applied Physics is also a strange case of an A1 nomination. He has even been the victim of declining a speedy delete and then having it deleted anyway. eg muchly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Also Erik Lyle Waldahl is the classic case of an article only consisting of an underconstruction template, being labeled for deletion by our candidate within one minute of creation. This was probably going to be an A7 case if anyone waited for it. Hazara Democratic Party was also tagged with A3 while under construction, when it already had an info box. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, thanks. And just double checking; you mean G2 tests and G3 hoaxes, right? NW (Talk) 12:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Without being able to see those, it's hard to address as I'm not sure I recall some of them, but the main thing I would say is that I feel there is a big difference between tagging something and actually deleting it, and I wouldn't actually delete an article unless I was sure. As you pointed out, I've declined my own speedies on occasion after taking another look. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's really not quite fair. I looked at them, and even I find that most of them ultimately deserved to be deleted, except for Hazara Democratic Party, which was kept in its second version, so there was no harm done. I copied the history text to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox 2#From the deleted contributions so the candidate can comment on it. If other admins see concern in any other deletions, please copy them in the same section. — Sebastian 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that should have been G3 and G2, sorry. ammended. Is more detail needed on the no context taggings? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Solid editor that has established he can be trusted with the tools. A fleeting lapse of imperfect judgment should not be held against him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yep, I trust him. I can only attribute that troublesome edit summary to the presumed presence of Beeblebrox's belly button. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. I cant see any problems or reasons why this user should not become an admin. Also, it seems theyt have learnt from their mistake from their last RFA. AtheWeatherman 19:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Beeblebrox has learnt from his mistakes. He also has significant content contribution. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Agree with AtheWeatehrman, and Axl. He has learned from his mistakes. It was a few months ago, and I believe it can be forgiven. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. One edit summary in response to a banned chronic vandal is not a reason to oppose. I see 24K edits, great work, a mature demeanor, and a trustworthy user. I don't need June Cleaver wielding a mop; I want George Washington - who occasionally told little shits to stay off his talk page. Tan | 39 23:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. I'm happy now.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I would prefer Thomas Jefferson rather than George Washington, but since neither man is available I am very happy to support Beeblebrox. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This isn't going to break down into a debate of late 1700s American politics, I hope? 'Cause if so, John Adams is my man. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I was always partial to Benjamin Franklin myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support Even the best of editors is allowed a slip up or two. Where Bambifan is concerned, I have great sympathy. I see no evidence that you would not be able to handle the tools, and therefore, you have my blessing. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - Candidate has learned his lesson. We all make mistakes every now and then. Would make another good admin.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 01:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - My own interaction with this candidate has been positive and looking over his contributions/talk pages I think he'll do well.Shinerunner (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Good luck. America69 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I thought he should've passed last time. Ray^Talk 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Of Course! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. →javért ^breakaway 02:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - I'm confident that Beeblebrox will benefit from the tools and use them well. As for the 1 edit summary out of tens of thousands of edits, he has shown that he learns from his mistakes. Also, Tan put it together perfectly, although I would be more comfortable with Abraham Lincoln, who had to deal with many "shits" while behind the wheel :). Good luck! Airplaneman ^talk 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. I don't see why not. @harej 04:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support fully And here I thought he already was an admin. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2009(UTC)
19. Support - A shame the first RfA descended into Wikidrama Francium12 (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, the candidate will make a fine administrator. No concerns on my end. –blurpeace ^(talk) 08:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support I was going to support last time around. Now I can.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support And a note regarding Francium12's comment above. The last RFA did not descend into wikidrama at all. Rereading it, a great many of the oppose / neutral comments were "per Pedro" or similar - all around the "infamous" edit summary. I don't see any drama at all, and indeed respect to the candidate in the way he handled the RFA and respect to all those who commented in it. Anyhow, the key thing is that the community fairly clearly said "one bad edit summary does not mean you'll never pass RFA, but it's to recent to be overlooked.". The candidate clearly took the message on board and has learnt from it. Further Beeblebrox did not become discouraged but has worked ever harder. Both excellent traits, and I have full confidence that it was indeed a minor aberation. As there are no other concerns I'm happy to support. Pedro :  Chat  13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support The candidate's speedy deletion work reveals some hastiness in taggings before trying to fix the problems (e.g. this A1 without checking history and several G11 and A7 where they declined themselves afterwards which they should address if this request is successful since any tagging, no matter if removed afterwards, can be quite bitey. Also, the candidate exhibits a misunderstanding of criterion A3 (for example here and here) as A3 explicitly says that infoboxes count as content and it's usually very easy to add text if you have an infobox to draw from. That said, the candidate's other work is quite solid and unlike many, they show a willingness to fix problematic articles, even if only after tagging them. But if they can continue to fix before deletion as an admin, I see no problems and I am convinced that they will be able to be less hasty in future handling of CSD. As for the other concerns of the first RFA - well, Pedro says it best. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DGG's oppose gives me pause (and it's quite unusual that I support when he opposes over CSD issues). You should really take those concerns to heart if this request passes and handle speedy deletion very carefully. Since I think you can do so, I will not move to oppose though. But requesting some help from someone with more experience in that field whenever you are not sure will probably be to the benefit of everyone in the end. Regards SoWhy 06:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25. Support, looks like a good candidate that would have a positive effect on the project if given the tools. --Taelus (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support No qualms here. hmwitht 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. I didn't get to say "per Pedro" last time, but I am now. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Spent some time going through your contribs. I see nothing major to worry about, just don't bite newcomers. Aditya (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Looks like a fine admin candidate, on balance. Any disappointment with the candidate's views re: Steely Dan did not factor into my decision. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And in any case, that would be outweighed by Ben Franklin fandom. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30. Support Yes, Benjamin Franklin is the correct choice. Good luck! Drawn Some (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Good content creation. No other problems rising to level of oppose.--SPhilbrickT 17:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support, problems I've found are minor and are strongly outweighed by Beeblebrox's excellent contributions and attitude. I'm generally getting the impression of a user who works hard to rectify issues, both with articles and with his own editing. Good admin material, in my view. ~ mazca ^talk 18:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support The misapplied speedy deletion templates are a sufficient cause for concern and I hope Beeblebrox will be more careful in the future. But I've had numerous experiences with him and all have been positive. His article contributions are certainly sufficient and I think he's addressed the concerns from the previous RfA. -- Atama頭 19:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support As per track and concerns of earlier RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, but try and be careful with those CSD's. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, good maintenance work, more editors like this are needed. -- œ^™ 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. The main reason your first RfA failed was Pedro's diff. You've clearly matured since then; even Pedro supports you now. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I supported last time, I think you would have been a good admin if you'd had the mop then and see no reason to change my mind now. ϢereSpielChequers 23:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support While I would have liked a more decisive answer to my UAA question (IMO an apparent single-purpose promotional account should be blocked once promotional edits are made), the conservative route chosen is OK with me as well. I see no reason to oppose. Gigs (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Moved from Neutral. Good editor, and would likely be beneficial as an admin. I had unsure inklings previously, but it's good to see that the primary issue at RfA #1 won't be repeated. I no longer have concerns, and the answers are reasonable, so here's my support. JamieS93 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Clearly learned from past mistakes, and no reason to think that Beeblebrox will abuse the tools.--Res2216firestar 03:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. <--- Ha. Keegan (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Supplement, the user is frood, I supported last time. Keegan (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps instead of a mop, I should ask for "the towel" Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool and froody! :)Shinerunner (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean you don't already know where your towel is?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The towel's in the washroom

    woven on a real loom

    helps ya when ya wanna groom

    for an RFA with no doom ...

    ... well, there was ... ahh... some recent RFAs ... that ... ahhh...

    ...<Ched blushes, looks around meekly, then tries to leave unnoticed>.. too late. Sorry Beebs. — Ched :  ?  16:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <.<... what?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

43. Need more sysops. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Got good heads on his shoulders. Mild incivility long past, our last perfect admin retired long since anyway. Mistakes in tagging don't worry me, people learn and they do better. This ought to pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support: I supported the last time around, and I haven't seen anything that persuades me to alter my views. Beebs appears to be a polite, knowledgeable, and dedicated Wikipedian. I've found nothing to indicate that they would mis-use the tools. Best of luck Beebs. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Opposed last time, support this time. The answer to my question (#11) could not have been better for me; I'm convinced they will not make the same mistake again. The slightly BITEy interactions with new users mentioned in the Oppose section aren't exactly ideal, but I'm encouraged by the measures they have taken to correct. Should be a good admin. -kotra (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support per the positive comments above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support based on candidate's track record and interaction with editors at this RfA. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Like any editor, Beeblebrox has room for improvement. But he has a good head on his shoulders and I trust him to wield the mop properly. He'll be fine. faithless (^speak) 08:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "...a good head on his shoulders" or two, perhaps. Keegan (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50. Support. I remember your RfA from last time. Though I opposed last time over the civility issue, that is obviously in the past and you have vastly improved. Best of luck. Valley2city^‽ 18:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Read through this entire thing. Can't see any reason why he wouldn't make a fine admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by *Kat* (talk • contribs) at 18:34, 26 August 2009
52. Support Not perfect, but improving. Sincere. Learns from mistakes. Examined contribs, and see lots of value and encyclopedia-building. --StaniStani  22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Beeblebrox has clearly learned from his mistake, and I have no problem granting him access to the admin tools. Timmeh (review me) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Beeblebrox. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Sufficient improvement since last time. Acalamari 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. In my humble opinion, evidence of common sense and a willingness to learn say more than no one having caught you out in the months prior to RfA. We need more admins and Beeblebrox strikes me as a sensible choice. WJBscribe (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. It has been three months, and since you've kept your cool for three months I don't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Not perfect, but will be a good addition to the project. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. Admins do not have to be perfect. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - Solid contributor. AdjustShift (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. (Moved from neutral) Beeblebrox speaks for the bird lady. Some content work, so I'm giving you the BOTD. ceranthor 12:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support, per reason No.1 above mostly, but the other ones as well. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. This editor seems like a trustworthy editor to me. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 19:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support, don't see any problems. Wizardman 16:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - Seems to have learned his lesson. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 17:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I consider the many mistakes in speedy tagging noted above as unacceptable. When that is added to the frequent failure to notify beginning editors, I conclude he's nowhere near ready in at least one key area, & one in which he wishes to work. It surprises me that people find them, and still say support. Nobody is perfect, but too many of these are blatant and recent. The best test of how someone will do in the future is how they have done in the past. RfAdmin is not a test of general editor quality, but rather of knowledge and ability to apply it in certain areas essential on the one hand to maintaining quality, on the other to not discouraging new editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm a bit taken aback by your assertion that I fail to notify new users, as that is something I try and make sure I always do, and Twinkle usually does it for me anyway. Could you provide some examples? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I had a quick look at your speedy notifications - I picked a sample of ten or so taggings from the last month, and the only case where you hadn't notified the creator was at Talk:Shady jeff. An IP created it with a one-sentence statement, and you correctly tagged it as a G8 - but Twinkle does not, by default, notify creators of their pages being G8ed because it tends to be noncontroversial cleanup. In this case, perhaps, you should have - but I did not personally see any pattern of non-notification. ~ mazca ^talk 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I've removed the notification part. The incorrect nature of the speedys left is sufficient in my eye to disqualify. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Weak oppose I had a really fruitful conversation with Beeb a few months ago, when he put something up for deletion. He then picked a day for an AFD study I did. Beeb was very courteous and seemed like a really nice guy. I came to support, and was about too, but DGG's comments gave me pause, moving me to neutral, but Graeme Bartlett comments above were what moved me to oppose:
   "Also Erik Lyle Waldahl is the classic case of an article only consisting of an underconstruction template, being labeled for deletion by our candidate within one minute of creation."[3]
   We lose editors this way. Sorry Beeb, not this time. Ikip (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose As per DGG. Although his answer to question 4 was pretty cool, my vote goes to oppose. No more incivil admins please; I believe there are still some months to go to learn from his mistakes. Logos5557 (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - User wants to work in CSD, so concerns like those expressed by DGG have a lot of weight in regards to this application. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak oppose - I like how the candidate proactively brought up the last RfA's problem. But his behavior towards new editors strikes me as impatient, at least in the Hazara Democratic Party article and the Erik Lyle Waldahl article (see copies of edit history here): In the first case, the new user does a commendable effort in improving the article at 18:13, May 3, 2009 and adds ".::Under construction::.". Two minutes later, Beeblebrox writes "fine, but it better get good soon", then improves the article a bit, and less than 6 hours later requests speedy deletion. Just as I wrote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/7#Oppose, I think it would have been more appropriate to help the new user, who comes from an area that is underrepresented here. But the candidate helped with version 2 of that article, and there are other examples for such help, which is a good sign. After the experience of some previous RfAs, I want to say that I generally consider it as a good sign when a candidate replies to an oppose vote. — Sebastian 10:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak oppose Per above, really. In addition, Q6 kind of worried me. There might be a chance that he simply forgot about page protection as an alternative, which is perfectly reasonable, but the fact that his mind at least subconsciously thought of warnings and blocks over page protection seems troubling. However, the candidate is still overall, fairly good, and so I shall be watching to see how this RfA develops. NW (Talk) 12:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   On one hand, I am pleased that the candidate has never been blocked, but by contrast does have some barnstars and a DYK, but per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, I still have to go with a weak oppose due to weak "arguments" in AfDs, such as WP:JNN (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina), WP:ITSCRUFT (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SingStar_(PlayStation_2)), and WP:PERNOM (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C'tan (2nd nomination)). The candidate has some better arguments in other discussions, but I cannot support anyone who ever uses the nonsense non-word "cruft" as justification for anything and nor do I trust judgment of closers who are too tied to the subjective and heavily disputed concept of notability. So, some silver lining, i.e. "weak" oppose rather than regular or strong. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Those AfDs range from February 2008 to July 2008. While I appreciate and share your distaste for weak arguments in AfDs, I personally got the impression that the candidate's arguments have definitely improved recently - do you feel that bad arguments more than a year ago still disqualify him today? I'm just wondering - I do agree that poor AfD arguments are a valid opposition reason. ~ mazca ^talk 20:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, yes, if it were or is clear that he would never close based on "cruft" style of rationales carrying weight, then sure, I would reconisder and yes, I of all people realize that we can improve how we edit and are not necessarily the same editors as we were, i.e. yes, we or at least some of us can and do grow over time and that should be considered. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't wish to badger you over this, but these are the exact items you cited at my previous RFA, and then it only pushed you into the "neutral" category, even with the recent "black spot" on my record, so I'm a little puzzled as to why these same, very old items moved you to oppose this time. I think a close review of my contribs and talk page comments will show that I respect consensus, even when I don't happen to agree with it. Also, as I said in my answer to Q1, I intend to only close the most obvious AfDs for a while, and leave the more complicated cases where consensus may be hard to judge to more experienced persons. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You know, it may just be subconscious or general frustration as an article rescuer who continually has to contend with rapid fire WP:PERNOMs or WP:ITSCRUFTs that either do not address improvements, consider other options per WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE. I do not mean to take out that frustration on you and will indeed reconisder and likely switch to neutral (I am not feeling too well tonight...tired, headache, etc. so my concentration is a bit off as I type; hence why most of my edits over the past few minutes have just been welcome templating those who edited pages on my watch list), but anything that discourages WP:PERNOMs or WP:ITSCRUFTs just feels all the more necessary now as we desperately need editors to engage with actual sources and considerations of developments to the articles under discussion. If I do not re-comment here in the next day, i.e. if I am actually getting sick here, you have my permission to move my post to neutral. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. I'm not fully convinced the candidate has full grasp of the CSD criteria. On August 17, Beeblebrox tagged Brenda Hatfield for speedy deletion, despite the fact that there was a claim of notability. A more recent one, a speedy was declined just over a day ago. I would like to see a better understanding of the CSD criteria before I can comfortably support. — Σxplicit 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Assertions of notability at Brenda Hatfield shouldn't necessarily come into it - it was tagged by Beeblebrox as a G12 rather than an A7. From what I can see it was indeed a pretty blatant copyvio at that point, and could have quite correctly been deleted. I should also note that after the A3 speedy decline you mention, Beeblebrox took action to clarify his knowledge of CSD, via this thread at WT:CSD. Apologies if it appears I'm responding to lots of opposes here, I just want to make sure there aren't misinterpretations! Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Way for me to misread the tag! I've stricken the former. As for the latter, the problem is, he should have been more familiar of the criteria before his RfA; the fact that he mistagged the article is concerning, even more so in the middle of an RfA. — Σxplicit 21:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose - Cannot support with the answer to Q7. Basic copyright knowledge is something I see as essential for an admimistrator. — neuro^(talk) 23:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a legitimate concern, but in my defense I would say that the conversation on the talk page makes it clear that this is not a "basic", copyright issue, but a rather involved one with substantial grey areas. There is nothing I could find in our image policy that deals specifically with regulatory signs in public places. (I also don't plan to do any admin work with images.) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It's right answer wrong reason. The notion of what is or isn't a substantively creative work is truly a gray area. but stating "it's in public, so it's pd" is not correct. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fine, take out 'basic' or whatever. I see the answer as insufficient knowledge in an area I consider essential. — neuro^(talk) 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Isn't knowledge easily acquired, and if Beeble is otherwise suitable, shouldn't you support? We're kinda short on perfect admins right now, our last one seems to be on wikibreak, he reported he saw a sign outside saying "You've achieved Nirvana, enter by Gate B" and he was going to take photographs (he didn't say if the sign qualified as pd) and we've sent out search parties for him and the sign and no luck, we're really worried, if anyone hears from him, please let us know. Anyway, in the meantime, we have to muddle long with imperfect beings like you, me, and Beeblebrox.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is probably one of the worst parts about RfAs. If you go against the majority by opposing, you're going to get mauled by supporters. Alan16 (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If this is what mauling is, I'm going to go pet some lions. -kotra (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. opppose Concerns by DGG are serious. I'm also concerned by the answer to Q7. "I don't know, I'll look it up" or something similar would have been fine. I am however deeply concerned that someone would answer this way where they think they have understanding of something and clearly do not. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Per DGG. BejinhanTalk 02:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose: Q1 - If you don't think you're ready for so many things, get some experience before applying. Q6 - Besides not considering protection, a template warning rarely defuses anything and often makes things worse. Q7 - Public display ≠ public domain. Q10 - Even if the user isn't blocked, if they create the article, they're still clearly here for promotional purposes and should, at minimum, be warned about COI and they should be asked to change username so as not to imply any authority over the content or a role account. Mr.Z-man 04:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not entirely convinced that the concerns from RfA 1 have been addressed completely. Will watch the RfA and possibly support or oppose later. iMatthew ^talk at 19:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Can I just ask which ones? I feel that they have been adressed, certainly in the most part anyway. Regards. AtheWeatherman 20:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral - awaiting answer to question--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 21:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to Support--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 01:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral pending further investigation. This candidate has certainly learned his lesson with edit summaries, and I'm quite satisfied that that particular episode won't be repeated, but there's still a fair bit of talk page drama surrounding this user. Mild talk page drama could be a good thing, indicating a user who's inclined to roll up his sleeves and do the things we need an admin to do—but I just want to spend some time checking in more detail. I may also ask an AfD-related question given the candidate's stated ambitions.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   After a lot more examination, I think I'll switch to straight support.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not sure about this one, I'll have to do further investigation. I don't see any major flaws, really, although the last RfA was less than three months ago and I believe a few things about the user left me uncomfortable. JamieS93 00:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved to support. JamieS93 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. I am not convinced with the answer to the question about the sign in public view. Speedy deletion tagging for everything apart from the no context ones is OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (discussion thread moved to talk)

3. I don't know. I really don't know.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not sure yet. Leaning support. answer to Q7 is flat out wrong, btw. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Leaning to support, but I noticed the same thing that Protonk just pointed out (no other big concerns)Skier Dude (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry for this-but, going through the above concerns, you do not seem to fully understand A1 of the CSD. I do not know whether you are just confusing A1 and A3, as it is not clear from above, but this is a relatively small concern. Therefore I'm neutral. ceranthor 11:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You know what... I'll give you the BOTD. ceranthor 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Really unsure. Seems like a collection of some really good editing, and some pretty bad editing. I don't want to oppose, so I'll stake my tent here. Alan16 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Pending answer to q.13; if an editor has a 'mix of good and bad edits', I tend to lean towards opposing in RfA - but I see here mostly good, so I could perhaps be persuaded if they are prepared to exercise the tools with caution.  Chzz  ►  10:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't know if that is a direct response to me or not, but I said something similar, so I'll respond. His (I believe it is a man) article edits are very good, but Q7 answer is wrong, and the whole edit summary thing just sticks a bit. I feel that he would probably be a good admin, but there are concerns, and they are enough for me not to support. Alan16 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Switched to neutral per valid criticism of my original oppose by candidate. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I have some concerns over a possible hastiness to delete new articles before they have a chance to develop. However, the answers to my questions were sufficient to push me from oppose to neutral. If this passes (which seems extremely likely at this point), I urge Beeblebrox to stick by his statement that he won't delete article as fast as he has historical tagged them (except for attacks & copyvios). There is a real danger of scaring away valuable new contributors who have "their" highly imperfect but good faith attempt at an article deleted 2 minutes after they create it. It is far better to personally notify the user of the problems and at least give them some chance to correct them before deleting. There is no urgent need to remove (most) bad articles instantly and a little human interaction can go a long way towards turning someone who starts off wrong with a junk article into a valuable long term contributor. New contributors don't arrive knowing our policies and shouldn't be expected to create perfect articles on their first tries. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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