Final count: (183/0/0) ended 00:07, Thursday,
December 8, 2005 (UTC)
BD2412 (
talk·contribs) – BD2412 is a great Wikipedian. He has been here since February and since then has amassed a whopping
32,763 edits! He participates a lot in VfD and has written (or participated in writing) many law-related articles which have reached a quality that I envy. He is civil, intelligent and I know that he would use his SysOp rights very carefully. I'm sure he would make an excellent administrator.
Izehar00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With gratitude to
Izehar - and everyone else who has offered - I accept this nomination, and hope for the approval of my peers.
BD2412T00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Even stronger support. Didn't think he was an admin, but knew he should be. All due apologies to the community for not having nominated him sooner myself.
TomerTALK05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
(after five edit conflicts, this isn't funny!): Oppose, not enough edits. No, seriously, Strong support, extremely active Wikipedian, has a ton of substantive edits to the Project namespace, and I seriously thought he was an admin when I was a newbie.
Titoxd(
?!? -
did you read this?)00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Support; he's a ridiculously dedicated editor who I've seen around, and been impressed by, many times. For months I've thought this was long overdue. --
Idont Havaname00:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support This is only a formality, and a long overdue one at that. This will greatly enhance Wikipedia's quality level.--
MONGO02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
OH MY GOSH, BD's becoming an admin! Super-super-super-super-super-super SUPPORT Yeah, I sorta think he's qualified. ;)
Xoloz05:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, I guess I can't really add much other than to say that I also very much respect BD's judgment and look forward to his help in admin tasks.
Dmcdevit·
t06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Hey, I honestly thought he was one already. I've had much positive experience with him. He's a sure candidate. —
JIP |
Talk08:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support - I too must join the "I thought he was one already" bandwagon. Lets see if he can get 100 support votes - he sure deserves them.
Thryduulf09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support: This has been a looooong time coming. He is the epitome of deserving. I've joked with him before that he kept delaying a nomination so that he could set the record for most supported nomination. I suspect the joke might become true. 59 support votes in ~13 hours. Wow! --
Durin13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. 32000 edits in 9 months is silly, I want proof that he isn't some editing-machine... Bah, see as though it's nearly the holidays, I'll Support.
Rje14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Why havent I supported yet? The old clichè, I seriously thought he was a senior admin. Great guy, great editor, (will be) great administrator. Banes20:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems like good admin material, and I've encountered this user many times while reverting vandals. Wait, that didn't come out right... Honestly, another person who I already thought was an admin. :/ --
Syrthiss21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, BD2412's green sig has been followed by too many eye-catching sigs, also I suspect that this vote was conceived only to catch as many support votes as possible, hmm.
feydey00:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
EXTREME SUPPORT! I thought BD2412 was a bureaucrat already....wow. How can you have that many edits and not be an admin? :-D I'm glad (and downright proud) to have this support in my contributions list, and to have the opportunity to support you, BD. --
WikiFanaticTalkContribs 22:44, 1 December 2005 (CST)
The first time I can truly say I THOUGHT YOU WERE AN ADMIN! Now all those awkward glances and strange discussions make sense. :) —
BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:06
I don't usually bother voting when an Admin candidate already has a clear majority, but in this case I'll make an exception. Support, support, support! --
Angr (
t·
c)
17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I never thought I'd utter the cliche RfA words "I thought he was already an admin," but I'll be damned. 108 votes, I love it (go for the record!) -
Mysekurity00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, I thought I had done so after he checked with me on my talk page re our dispute before. I think BD is often a pain in the butt, but usually in a good way. He can be reasoned with and he keeps things cool until the details are worked out. A good editor, no reason to expect he won't be a good admin. --
Gmaxwell07:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Even though we may have some differences of opinion in other RfAs, I bear you no ill will and think that you'd be a welcome and wonderful addition to the Admin ranks. At this point I think we can call it unanimous and a landslide. LOL --
Martin Osterman15:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, when your RfA is 37k long with nothing but support votes, you must be doing something right. Support — unnecessary, but shall we shoot for that 208? :-)
Hermione198001:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. While I don't usually post to an RfA where the support consensus is clear and I would have voted support anyway, I also have a policy of always supporting users I am very familiar with and have had good interactions with. This is one of them. Bonus points for the Sinatra ref in your answer as well. :)
Turnstep19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. He is an enthusiastic communicator and the green signature has become a beacon for vital and quality discussion. If you'd asked me what his contributions are I'd say he was a full time
WP:DPL repairer, his enthusiasm with the project is unparalleled. Take the new
link repair sub-project, the slightest breath of life from BD has resulted in one of the most fulfilling projects I have particpated in. I read above and see that's a minor part of what he does here, amazing. --
Commander Keane19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Well I would have supported had you needed it, so I won't not support simply to avoid giving a me too vote. A vote with grammar contortions just short of "the cat I had had had had..." :) Thanks, I'll be here all week, er a long time, er whatever -
TaxmanTalk19:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I ought to oppose it just to keep it from looking like and election in the The People's Democratic Republic of Elbonia, but he's definitely one of the good guys.
RandyKaelber02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually, I've closed quite a few, once I found out that was allowed (see response to question 1), and continue to do so from time to time.
BD2412T18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Pile-on support. I also suggest that this be shown as a link rather than being transcluded. Anyone wants to vote on that? ;) --
Gurubrahma10:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. He is one of the most helpful, hard working editors I have come across. The way he works has been so thorough and skillful I thought he was already an admin, and surprised to find his RfA! :-) --
BorgQueen22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I intend to accept this nomination - but I've said time and again that I will not stand for an adminship until December, so I'll accept as of 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC). Until then, cheers!
BD2412T05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
See disputes below, I was mistaken as to the source of the quote and was wrong. BD2412 did an excellent job-clearly explaining the reasoning behind leaving the quote- and I support him fully.
Prodego17:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the compliment, but it's really no great accomplishment - it's funny, but what does it do to advance the encyclopedia? Also, it needs pictures - some real Dante's Inferno type stuff.
BD2412T05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Ahh... more proof that RfAs tend to get more support now than before. I remember when 30 or 40 support voters was considered extremely high, and how some people passed with only a dozen support votes... :-)
Flcelloguy (
A note?)
17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I think it translates into "pure guess". I highly doubt the final tally will approach that mark - the regular RfA voters have already cast their votes.
BD2412T04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
OMG. I was thinking I could really use a beer, or 18...but then I just came to read BDA's RfA, and laughed so hard, I think I'll be good for a while w/o any... :-)
Tomertalk05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
A. I’ve already been closing AfDs (
within my limitations) for a while, so as an admin I’d be able to do that for those that run in either direction, and the same for categories, images, redirects, and miscellany. I have also had a number of occasions to bother admins with requests for page moves, and would like to be able to handle those myself. I have no compunction about blocking an obvious vandal – I was recently reminded of one time when I really wished I had administrative powers, when my friend
Hamster Sandwich was being spoofed - twice in two weeks - by a vandal who signed up with punctuated variations of his user name.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Outside of law, I've also been a regular on several projects, particularly
disambig fixes – I’m sure I’ve done at least ten thousand by now. I have several a regular offenders on my user page which I check every few days to correct new links as they pop up. I’ve done a lot of work on
Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, and on the Encarta missing articles project before it was deleted over copyright concerns. I prodded
Beland to start
Wikipedia:Templates with red links, and I also made and maintain the
MiniAWFP, which I’m delighted to see is now a stock feature of the
Wikipedia:Community Portal.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.Conflicts? I've had a few… but then again, too few to mention. I did what I had to do, and saw it through without exemption...
I've had several articles nominated for deletion (mostly early on), and each instance was upsetting, since I obviously thought them to be valid topics. In the early cases, I had failed to source or develop the articles sufficiently, or had written from a POV. I guess I resolved those pretty much by learning to write the encyclopedic way. I was too snippy when
Self-induced abortion was so nominated (though it was resoundingly kept), and I apologized for that.
I had all kinds of controversy regarding
Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina, which I started as a sponge for "alternative" theories and conspiracy theories that were getting stuck in more mainstream articles about that event. It was nominated for deletion and came through about 50/50, but it raised some other disputes. One with
Gmaxwell about the
global warming materials, and the other with
Prodego regarding his desire to censor some rather nasty quotes. Both were resolved through talk page discussion – with
Gmaxwell, we just had a miscommunication – he was opposed to claims that global warming caused that specific disaster, while I was just trying to demonstrate that such claims were being raised in the context of Katrina, not that they were true. With
Prodego, I just had to lead him to understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and now we get along fine.
Most recently, I've been in a running dispute with some tax protesters over articles such as
Tax protester,
Income tax in the United States,
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
Irwin Schiff. I've worked in a federal court and seen the consequences of tax evasion imposed firsthand. I doubt many people are coming to Wikipedia for tax advice, but I still think it's dangerous to allow certain such theories to be put forward without pointing out that courts have, in fact rejected these theories at every turn (and people who follow them may go to jail, and will definitely end up paying those taxes). I and a few other editors have been reverting the wholly unsupportable assertions, and neutralizing the POV inherent in the claims that sound reasonable, but are based on erroneous statements of law. Of course, as I'm involved in these disputes, I would never use the power to block an editor or protect a page as a tool to forward my position there.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Final count: (183/0/0) ended 00:07, Thursday,
December 8, 2005 (UTC)
BD2412 (
talk·contribs) – BD2412 is a great Wikipedian. He has been here since February and since then has amassed a whopping
32,763 edits! He participates a lot in VfD and has written (or participated in writing) many law-related articles which have reached a quality that I envy. He is civil, intelligent and I know that he would use his SysOp rights very carefully. I'm sure he would make an excellent administrator.
Izehar00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With gratitude to
Izehar - and everyone else who has offered - I accept this nomination, and hope for the approval of my peers.
BD2412T00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Even stronger support. Didn't think he was an admin, but knew he should be. All due apologies to the community for not having nominated him sooner myself.
TomerTALK05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
(after five edit conflicts, this isn't funny!): Oppose, not enough edits. No, seriously, Strong support, extremely active Wikipedian, has a ton of substantive edits to the Project namespace, and I seriously thought he was an admin when I was a newbie.
Titoxd(
?!? -
did you read this?)00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Support; he's a ridiculously dedicated editor who I've seen around, and been impressed by, many times. For months I've thought this was long overdue. --
Idont Havaname00:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support This is only a formality, and a long overdue one at that. This will greatly enhance Wikipedia's quality level.--
MONGO02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
OH MY GOSH, BD's becoming an admin! Super-super-super-super-super-super SUPPORT Yeah, I sorta think he's qualified. ;)
Xoloz05:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, I guess I can't really add much other than to say that I also very much respect BD's judgment and look forward to his help in admin tasks.
Dmcdevit·
t06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Hey, I honestly thought he was one already. I've had much positive experience with him. He's a sure candidate. —
JIP |
Talk08:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support - I too must join the "I thought he was one already" bandwagon. Lets see if he can get 100 support votes - he sure deserves them.
Thryduulf09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support: This has been a looooong time coming. He is the epitome of deserving. I've joked with him before that he kept delaying a nomination so that he could set the record for most supported nomination. I suspect the joke might become true. 59 support votes in ~13 hours. Wow! --
Durin13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. 32000 edits in 9 months is silly, I want proof that he isn't some editing-machine... Bah, see as though it's nearly the holidays, I'll Support.
Rje14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Why havent I supported yet? The old clichè, I seriously thought he was a senior admin. Great guy, great editor, (will be) great administrator. Banes20:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems like good admin material, and I've encountered this user many times while reverting vandals. Wait, that didn't come out right... Honestly, another person who I already thought was an admin. :/ --
Syrthiss21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, BD2412's green sig has been followed by too many eye-catching sigs, also I suspect that this vote was conceived only to catch as many support votes as possible, hmm.
feydey00:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
EXTREME SUPPORT! I thought BD2412 was a bureaucrat already....wow. How can you have that many edits and not be an admin? :-D I'm glad (and downright proud) to have this support in my contributions list, and to have the opportunity to support you, BD. --
WikiFanaticTalkContribs 22:44, 1 December 2005 (CST)
The first time I can truly say I THOUGHT YOU WERE AN ADMIN! Now all those awkward glances and strange discussions make sense. :) —
BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:06
I don't usually bother voting when an Admin candidate already has a clear majority, but in this case I'll make an exception. Support, support, support! --
Angr (
t·
c)
17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I never thought I'd utter the cliche RfA words "I thought he was already an admin," but I'll be damned. 108 votes, I love it (go for the record!) -
Mysekurity00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, I thought I had done so after he checked with me on my talk page re our dispute before. I think BD is often a pain in the butt, but usually in a good way. He can be reasoned with and he keeps things cool until the details are worked out. A good editor, no reason to expect he won't be a good admin. --
Gmaxwell07:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Even though we may have some differences of opinion in other RfAs, I bear you no ill will and think that you'd be a welcome and wonderful addition to the Admin ranks. At this point I think we can call it unanimous and a landslide. LOL --
Martin Osterman15:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, when your RfA is 37k long with nothing but support votes, you must be doing something right. Support — unnecessary, but shall we shoot for that 208? :-)
Hermione198001:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. While I don't usually post to an RfA where the support consensus is clear and I would have voted support anyway, I also have a policy of always supporting users I am very familiar with and have had good interactions with. This is one of them. Bonus points for the Sinatra ref in your answer as well. :)
Turnstep19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. He is an enthusiastic communicator and the green signature has become a beacon for vital and quality discussion. If you'd asked me what his contributions are I'd say he was a full time
WP:DPL repairer, his enthusiasm with the project is unparalleled. Take the new
link repair sub-project, the slightest breath of life from BD has resulted in one of the most fulfilling projects I have particpated in. I read above and see that's a minor part of what he does here, amazing. --
Commander Keane19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Well I would have supported had you needed it, so I won't not support simply to avoid giving a me too vote. A vote with grammar contortions just short of "the cat I had had had had..." :) Thanks, I'll be here all week, er a long time, er whatever -
TaxmanTalk19:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I ought to oppose it just to keep it from looking like and election in the The People's Democratic Republic of Elbonia, but he's definitely one of the good guys.
RandyKaelber02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually, I've closed quite a few, once I found out that was allowed (see response to question 1), and continue to do so from time to time.
BD2412T18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Pile-on support. I also suggest that this be shown as a link rather than being transcluded. Anyone wants to vote on that? ;) --
Gurubrahma10:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. He is one of the most helpful, hard working editors I have come across. The way he works has been so thorough and skillful I thought he was already an admin, and surprised to find his RfA! :-) --
BorgQueen22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I intend to accept this nomination - but I've said time and again that I will not stand for an adminship until December, so I'll accept as of 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC). Until then, cheers!
BD2412T05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
See disputes below, I was mistaken as to the source of the quote and was wrong. BD2412 did an excellent job-clearly explaining the reasoning behind leaving the quote- and I support him fully.
Prodego17:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the compliment, but it's really no great accomplishment - it's funny, but what does it do to advance the encyclopedia? Also, it needs pictures - some real Dante's Inferno type stuff.
BD2412T05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Ahh... more proof that RfAs tend to get more support now than before. I remember when 30 or 40 support voters was considered extremely high, and how some people passed with only a dozen support votes... :-)
Flcelloguy (
A note?)
17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I think it translates into "pure guess". I highly doubt the final tally will approach that mark - the regular RfA voters have already cast their votes.
BD2412T04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
OMG. I was thinking I could really use a beer, or 18...but then I just came to read BDA's RfA, and laughed so hard, I think I'll be good for a while w/o any... :-)
Tomertalk05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
A. I’ve already been closing AfDs (
within my limitations) for a while, so as an admin I’d be able to do that for those that run in either direction, and the same for categories, images, redirects, and miscellany. I have also had a number of occasions to bother admins with requests for page moves, and would like to be able to handle those myself. I have no compunction about blocking an obvious vandal – I was recently reminded of one time when I really wished I had administrative powers, when my friend
Hamster Sandwich was being spoofed - twice in two weeks - by a vandal who signed up with punctuated variations of his user name.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Outside of law, I've also been a regular on several projects, particularly
disambig fixes – I’m sure I’ve done at least ten thousand by now. I have several a regular offenders on my user page which I check every few days to correct new links as they pop up. I’ve done a lot of work on
Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, and on the Encarta missing articles project before it was deleted over copyright concerns. I prodded
Beland to start
Wikipedia:Templates with red links, and I also made and maintain the
MiniAWFP, which I’m delighted to see is now a stock feature of the
Wikipedia:Community Portal.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.Conflicts? I've had a few… but then again, too few to mention. I did what I had to do, and saw it through without exemption...
I've had several articles nominated for deletion (mostly early on), and each instance was upsetting, since I obviously thought them to be valid topics. In the early cases, I had failed to source or develop the articles sufficiently, or had written from a POV. I guess I resolved those pretty much by learning to write the encyclopedic way. I was too snippy when
Self-induced abortion was so nominated (though it was resoundingly kept), and I apologized for that.
I had all kinds of controversy regarding
Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina, which I started as a sponge for "alternative" theories and conspiracy theories that were getting stuck in more mainstream articles about that event. It was nominated for deletion and came through about 50/50, but it raised some other disputes. One with
Gmaxwell about the
global warming materials, and the other with
Prodego regarding his desire to censor some rather nasty quotes. Both were resolved through talk page discussion – with
Gmaxwell, we just had a miscommunication – he was opposed to claims that global warming caused that specific disaster, while I was just trying to demonstrate that such claims were being raised in the context of Katrina, not that they were true. With
Prodego, I just had to lead him to understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and now we get along fine.
Most recently, I've been in a running dispute with some tax protesters over articles such as
Tax protester,
Income tax in the United States,
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
Irwin Schiff. I've worked in a federal court and seen the consequences of tax evasion imposed firsthand. I doubt many people are coming to Wikipedia for tax advice, but I still think it's dangerous to allow certain such theories to be put forward without pointing out that courts have, in fact rejected these theories at every turn (and people who follow them may go to jail, and will definitely end up paying those taxes). I and a few other editors have been reverting the wholly unsupportable assertions, and neutralizing the POV inherent in the claims that sound reasonable, but are based on erroneous statements of law. Of course, as I'm involved in these disputes, I would never use the power to block an editor or protect a page as a tool to forward my position there.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.