Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


[edit] Badlydrawnjeff

Final (81/26/6) ended 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) – Badlydrawnjeff has been around since February 2005, and his activity levels have increased steadily over that time. The quality of his edits is generally good and often very good, but I think he's best known for his presence on WP:AFD and WP:DRV, where he is a staunch defender of articles, always from a basis of policy. I think it is safe to call him an inclusionist, but never to the extent of defending uncited or unverifiable or non-neutral content. AfD regulars won't necessarily have noticed his steady work in the background chipping away at the uncited and biased. He has around 4,800 edits, including 2,000 main space edits and has also done much to promote the WP:MEMES draft guideline. He has a sound working knowledge of policy and guidelines and appears capable of being firm without being aggressive. For the record I disagree with him on just about every AfD and most of his political opinions as well! But this is supposed to be No Big Deal, right? And I have no personal doubts about Jeff's sincerity or his commitment to the project. Just zis Guy you know? 17:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I sincerely and humbly accept, and I especially appreciate JzG's kind words, as we have clashed many a time on deletion issues. I'll be glad to answer any extra questions people have as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Support
#Meets my standards, as far as I can see. NSLE 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Changed to oppose. NSLE 15:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Great contributions, especially to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:talk namespace. Combine that with nice answers to the questions and 2000 article edits, and you have an admin. AdamBiswanger1 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Badlydrawnsupport I've been hoping to see this RfA. Good work on AfD! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support Having a dedicated administrator so interested in championing "ugly duckling" content will be a great boon to Wikipedia. Plus, he's a kind fellow. Xoloz 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Hey, I wanted to nominate this guy. Anyway, I agree with Jeff on some things, I disagree with him on others. But every encounter has left me with the impression that he is reasonable, will always discuss things calmly, and is willing to listen to criticism and dissenting views, and actually wants to understand them, rather than just disagree with them. Should make a good admin. --W.marsh 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support One of the most active guys at the AFD. Excellent user overall. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I normally don't agree with Jeff, especially on notabily on sports articles, but I personally believe he won't abuse the tools so Easy Support Jaranda wat's sup 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per all above. Roy A.A. 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - per all above -- Tawker 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, absolutely. bikeable (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Reviewed User talk: and Wikipedia: contributions and approved of them. — Vildricianus 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support nice guy - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Great user...everything I've seen has been thoughtful and level headed. Rx StrangeLove 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. I dunno, doesn't know the difference between "flair" and "flare"... oh, what the hell, seen this one around, support. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Never, he'd make a terrible admin. --Rory096 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    In case anyone is wondering, this is a support. --Rory096 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Regardless of whether you agree with his AfD positions or not, you always get the impression he's taken the time to consider them carefully, and he's open to discussion, which are two of the most important qualities in an admin. Very sound grasp of policy, generally polite, so I'm happy to support. Good luck! Ziggurat 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support with cliche "I thought this person was an admin!" I've seen this editor a lot, and while I too have disagreed with some of his positions on AfDs and such, I've also agreed with him on a lot of them as well. Produces good work and highly likely will be a good admin. Good nom, Guy! Agent 86 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support passes my rfa criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. DarthVader 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Naconkantari 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Pepsidrinka supports. 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support seems like he would do well to have the extra tools and a pledge to stay away from issues where he might have a POV (some XfD's) shows an honest self-analysis and a good show of responsibility hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. I may not always agree with his opinions, but I can't find fault with his wikiwork. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. digital_me(TalkˑContribs)
    Support See him around a lot. changing to neutral below Dlyons493 Talk 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support absolutely. I disagree with his stance on many AfD's, but this user is committed, works hard, and is openminded. Wholehearted support -- Samir धर्म 01:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support --Jay(Reply) 03:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support—looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Indie Support Good record, solid civility, and a degree in history to boot. Teke 04:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Having looked over the comments given, I believe this user is worthy of adminship. Chacor 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Good user, will be great admin. Yanksox (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support ... and all this time, I thought he was already an admin. BigDT 07:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support. A pretty radical inclusionist, yes, but probably won't misuse the tools. That arbitration case looks extremely one-sided so far (against 8bitJake.) Meets my criteria. Grandmasterka 07:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Great user and will make good use of the tools. TigerShark 09:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Badlydrawnjeff is wikipedian whom I don't know well, but he meets all of my criteria, and is a very nice user to work with. The Halo (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. Cliché "I thought he was one" support Will (message me!) 10:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. Merovingian {T C @} 10:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. Keep Pretty far into the inclusionist camp, possibly even the most inclusionist regular contributor on AfD currently. It's commendable that Jeff has remained staunchly true to his views without becoming dogmatic or confrontational about them. While it's safe to say that we don't always agree, I think Jeff will make a good admin. Welcome aboard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support have seen loads on xFD. Am very confident in his skills! Computerjoe's talk 13:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per the contributions I've seed on AfD and the answers to the questions. Great admin candidate- Peripitus (Talk) 13:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  39. Strikes me as having all the right stuff somewhere. robchurch | talk 13:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Add me to the list of folks who don't always agree with Jeff in AFD, but respect his dilligently researched arguments, his civility, and his awareness of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support From what I have seen, badlydrawnjeff would be the perfect admin. joturner 20:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, great editor, very active on AfD--TBCTaLk?!? 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  44. More candidates like this one, please!TM Support Sorry to be cliched, but I seriously thought he was one already. He's more inclusionist than I am, if such is possible, but well reasoned, not rabid. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support solid editor and professonal in that he uses summaries and avoids starting conflict. — Deckiller 04:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. SushiGeek 05:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support good work on AfDs, also per the support of several above --Deville (Talk) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 11:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Thoughtful, well rounded user. His work in AfD has seriously impressed me. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support.Agoodperson 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. SupportWhether or not you agree with his inclusionist/conservative leanings, you must agree that his edits put the improvement of the project above all else. He first gained my respect when he took the initiative on internet memes, even if I did not completely agree with him. He will most certainly be fair-minded, objective, and disciplined in his use of the buttons and will all the while whack vandals with the proper balance of the carrot and the stick. It is truly an honor to be a small part in his promotion this discussion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. I don't always agree with Jeff myself (despite the fact that I would possibly be described as a moderate inclusionist) but that's a matter of personal philosophy, and per the excellent answer to Q1 isn't an issue here anyway. What is important is that he is always sensible and polite, and that he genuinely seems to care about the issues at hand. Strong support. Badgerpatrol 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. Like a lot of people, I don't always agree with him, but I can't fault his work here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. - Merzbow 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support (changed to neutral) passing observations of user has left a positive impression; contribs look fine.--Kchase02 T 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support for sure!  Grue  11:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support for he has shown to be a fair and reasonable contributor with positive history. Yamaguchi先生 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Badlydrawnjeff and I probably disagree on 90% of the AfD's we both participate in, but that is simply a difference of opinion and I have found that even then he tends to be fairly reasonable. If I could level any criticism against him, it would be that he should take a deep breath and try and be a bit more WP:COOL before getting involved in AfD's of articles he feels strongly about. Still, inclusion/deletion leanings on AfD should not be a qualifier here; what matters is if there is a reasonable expectation that the admin will execute his/her duties based on the current guidelines and procedures and not based on personal feelings or opinions of said procedures, and I think it is reasonable to expect Badlydrawnjeff will do so. I would also hope that based on Badlydrawnjeff's comments about CSD:A7 that he would simply recuse himself from closing, editing, or modifying anything listed speedy A7.--Isotope23 18:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support as per Just zis Guy you know?, we need more reasonable folks like Jeff. Silensor 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support great editor, hell if Isotope can agree to support someone he opposes this much of the time, the guy must be at least somewhat good at remaining neutral :)  ALKIVAR™ 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  61. Welldrawn Support Seems like a good guy. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  62. I have to agree with various things said above. I disagree with his position on AFDs and DRVs constantly, but that is no reason to oppose. The answers to the questions allay most of my cocerns. Though, I could go for less badgering about WP:SNOW on DRV. Kotepho 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. --Myles Long 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support, good work. bbx 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support — Nathan (talk) / 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Good nom from JzG, who I never agree with either, except this time. --JJay 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support. I see this user on AfD quite a bit. Like many others, I've disagreed with him on occasion, however I believe he acts in good faith and maintains considerable calm compared to others who have been on the losing end of so many discussions (that's really not intended to be an insult). I am also encouraged that says he will not be involved in closing XfDs, as I do believe that would either present a conflict or exclude him from an area in which he is active. If there is any criticism I have with this user, it is that, on occasion, he will argue a minor detail past the point of usefulness. His answers to the questions below indicate to me that this will not be an issue in administrative duties, and I hope that this will indeed be the case. ScottW 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support Good and continues contributions to Wikipedia content and also active participations and engagement in Wikipedia internal and external things --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support without hesitation --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 08:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support Joe I 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support per nom. the wub "?!" 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  72. Strong Support per nom, glad to see this nomination actually. --Strothra 02:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support - the amount of work done is sufficient imho. // Gargaj 15:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  74. Strong support - I really like what I have seen of this editor. I respect anyone who isn't afraid to go against the flow in AfD, even passionately. Ultimately, I see this editor using logic in his interactions with other users, which I think it valuable for admins. I have no reason to suspect he would abuse admin tools. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support per nominator. Polonium 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support as per the nominator. RFerreira 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  77. Weak Support Great nomination by an unexpected nominator. As per below, I don't think his reasoning on AFD is always sound - but it seems to be always in good faith, and you can't ask much more than that. The idea of him closing AFDs spooks me slightly, but then WP:DRV seems to handle all cases now so that allies my fears a bit. RN 23:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support -Lady Aleena @ 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support per JzG's well argued reasons. I beleive he can be trusted to use his powers safely within policy and guidelines, even if/when he wishes those guidelines and policies were different. --Rob 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support per nominator. Dori 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support Weak support: I've looked through some discussions and they indicate a willingness to engage and strength to not be silenced for convenience alone. Although more inclusionist than me on notability, support for supremecy of policy eg WP:V and civil disgreements I have encountered lead to support. Stephen B Streater 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't feel I'll have any problems interacting with this user as an admin, but others have had problems and this tempers my support. Stephen B Streater
Oppose
  1. Oppose Is this a joke? I can't think of a single user that is less qualified to be an admin. He is petty, loves to wikistalk, is prone to edit wars, and enforces a heavy right wing POV in almost every article he graces with his "Edits". He is a troll and I don’t use that phrase lightly.--8bitJake 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    ...And as such, I would like to see examples, preferably in the form of diffs. Grandmasterka 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I have had the misfortunes of knowing him due to his questionable edit wars on
    Christine Gregoire Henry M. Jackson Dave Reichert Morgan Spurlock Debbie Schlussel and His alliance in edit wars with former user "FRCP11"
    He is a perfect example of “The Great Failure of Wikipedia”.--8bitJake 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    User:8bitJake is currently involved in an arbitration dispute with User:Badlydrawnjeff. Naconkantari 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    So I guess that qualifies as being involved in disputes, despite the the minor notability of the Arbcom.Sarcasm per my disclaimerTeke 05:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    My vote still counts just as much as anyone here "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to express their opinion, including the nominator"--8bitJake 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Your vote does indeed count as much as anyone's, in that the closing bureaucrat is free to discount or weight anyone's votes as he/she sees fit. the wub "?!" 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)--8bitJake 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Nice quote, and I see your point in context of what's been said about your dispute. However, it is not the votes so much as the reasons given while voting. Oppose or support votes should give reasons why; that's the weight Bureaucrats and Admins judge votes on. If I just said "Oppose" or "Support" with no reason, my vote doesn't really matter- concensus does. You have been heard, even if the result is not what you wish. Happy editing to you 8bitJake, and I hope a good resolution for your dispute. Teke 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Both for temperament and for his stance on the include/exclude of articles. Geogre 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    This must go on record as one of the very very few occasions where I disagree with Geogre :-) I don't see inclusionism as incompatible with adminship, especially when assessing speedy deletions. I usually err on the side of caution, and will more likely userfy an nn-bio than delete it; in the end there is pretty strong consensus that speedy should be used with great caution, and I believe some admins are a bit too gung-ho, substitution no notability for no assertion of notability. I don't believe Jeff would wheel-war, and I don't believe he will abuse the tools (if he does I will be at the fornt of the lynch mob). I do believe he will be cautious about speedy deletions, and that is a good thing IMO. I will continue to disagree with him at most (probably nearly all) AfD and DRV debates. Finally, there seems to me to be a systemic bias towards deletionists in the RFA process - the "trusted, seen at AfD" people are generally deletionists like me. I could be wrong about this, of course, but that's how I see it. I'm not going to try to persuade you here, but I wanted to make it plain that I have a broadly similar view of Jeff's opinions (i.e. disagreeing with pretty much all of them) but this does not lead me to believe he would be a bad admin. Just zis Guy you know? 08:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    I do not want to lead a parade or convince others, and I do not mean to impugn the editor. I will elaborate with the candidate and/or nominator, if desired, but I felt it necessary to state my view. I certainly wish him well and have no animus. Geogre 15:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    For sure. It comes down to whether we think Jeff would use the tools wisely or not; I think generally yes, you think maybe not. That's a legitimate concern. Maybe I'm an admin inclusionist :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above concerns --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose for pretty much the same reason as Geogre cited. Also, he vigorously defends articles that make Wikipedia look very, very foolish and frivolous. I think he's about as fit to be an admin as I am, and me being an admin is probably a horrifying thought to most people. I don't want to accuse him of wikistalking, because I don't have conclusive proof, but I've gotten the distinct sense in the past from both his edit history and messages to me that he follows me around and closely watches what I do and actively tries to cancel out what I do. I suppose that's his right, but I don't like it, and I fear that if he were an admin, he'd be even more aggressive in this behavior. I've also found him unwilling to compromise. I'd be willing to be more accepting of his ideas on internet fads if he'd quit almost singlehandedly sabotaging so many of my deletion proposals that I feel very strongly about. He has harshly criticized my attempts to delete foolish and ridiculous sexual articles, accusing me of being prudish or anti-sex without even asking about my views on sex. He makes a lot of assumptions and jumps to conclusions about me in that area. I'm actually very open-minded and have had diverse experiences, but I dislike slangy dicdefs and anecdotal or word-of-mouth type sourcing for articles. I think sexual articles should be held to the same rigorous standards as medical articles, because that's essentially what they are. He seems to think that sexual articles should be filled with current mass-market media or "pop culture," which I think trivializes a very important aspect of human behavior. He was also pretty nasty to me in the talk page for Hogging because I tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost. He accused me of tagging it after he'd begun working on it, which is completely false. In fact, after he fixed the article, I voted on AfD to KEEP it because he brought it up to minimum standards, and I couldn't ignore that, even if I thought an article on the concept was more suited to a slang dictionary. He openly ignores policies such as WP:WINAD and thinks that pretty much any published newspaper or magazine is a reliable source. Having been a journalist, I know otherwise. He strongly opposes CSD A7, which as an admin he would be duty-bound to enforce. I imagine him getting very creative in finding assertions of notability to get around deleting under CSD A7. He spent an indordinate amount of time and effort trying to save an article on "cock blocking," a concept better covered by something like Urban Dictionary. He scoffed at me for nominating a completely obvious dicdef, Dust bunny. He's had a pretty negative impact on my overall Wikipedia experience, and I fear that if he becomes an admin, it will become even worse and I will have to quit contributing under my name, get another account, and focus on radically different things that he doesn't follow, like biomedical science, clinical laboratory medicine, pharmacology, linguistics, and classics, subjects I know but don't want to completely restrict myself to. I dread seeing his signature and avoid him whenever I can, but it seems that he always turns up. I apologize for being so negative, but I'm trying to be honest rather than offensive. Brian G. Crawford 07:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    If Brian actually IS trying not to be offensive, then this is indeed a rare occasion for celebration- see e.g. here, [1] and here. He admits to using multiple socks and there is some doubt as to whether edits made from this account are genuinely him or not- [2]. All in all, strange. Badgerpatrol 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    His reasoning above seems genuine and well-written. He's like Jekyll and Hyde lately. Could they even be separate people? Grandmasterka 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Guys, this speculation has no place here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm strongly opposed to CSD A7 (my userpage has looked the way it does for at least 6 months by now), and I'll be continuing to work to get it changed or removed. However, it should go without saying that it is the way things work here right now, and I'm not going to intentionally sabotage it for the sake of doing so because I might be able to. It would be woefully inconsistent with my attitude toward other parts of policy and guidelines, as my record has shown at hundreds of AfDs and in the discussions at other project pages. As for the rest of Brian's reasoning, that's his opinion and he's welcome to it, but I, again, would hope my record in such matters would speak for itself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Very strong oppose. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of this user gaining the mop, following this conversation where he argued for an AfD closing statement to be changed in order to rewrite history because he did not like the reasoning behind the close (he wasn't arguing against the closure, just seeking a different reason to be given). That makes it hard for me to trust him with the tools as they allow for some degree of actual rewriting of history. Also, if a user feels so strongly as to argue that another user tell lies to fit with their personal policies, I'm unhappy about the potential for using powerful admin functions and then lying about how and why they were used. Sorry. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to very strong oppose after this (albeit small) changing of the words of another editor on this AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see any "changing of the words". I see a link to a discussion. His edit was no different from your edit removing the link [3]. --JJay 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    I will point out that I was not asking for anyone to "rewrite history," as it is framed, but rather to refrain from using non-policy rationales for closes that continue to be controversial as well as violations of actual policy and guideline. My position on WP:SNOW is extremely clear, and I'll continue to point out when it is cited incorrectly, as well as never use WP:SNOW if I end up getting the mop. At no point did I ask anyone to lie - I simply asked for them to do the proper thing. If this singular instance was enough for Redvers to oppose me, I have no qualms with that, but I stand by my comments - there was no reason to abandon policy or guideline in this situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    I have to support Badlydrawnjeff's position in the matter. As someone who has spent a lot of time in AfD, I occasionally see admins closing AfD's with remarks that cite odd reasons for closing it one way or another. Sometimes they are odd because they are essays. I realize that deletion review can be used in cases like this, but I also don't think it's unreasonable for someone to request that the admin edit or strike his remarks. The reason is that people often refer back to those remarks, both using them as precedent (even though they aren't supposed to) and citing them in future AfD's for the same articles. If an admin closes an AfD with a remark that does not simply summerize the consensus, I don't think it is out of line to ask them to consider changing it. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Changed to oppose from support, per above but mainly per Redvers. He brings up a very strong point, and I don't think you being an admin and acting this way will help the current situation with disruptive admins any more. NSLE 15:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strongest Oppose Possible per BLP is just a guideline, so we can break it.Strong Oppose per question 4, which states, in practice, that we should not block individuals who tenaciously edit to reveal personal information about non-notable individuals in an attempt to harm careers. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    [4] without further comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose A7 is a wikipedia policy that you have to live by, I also seen several incidents in deletion review which I didn't like, I just can't trust this user with the tools, sorry. 64.12.116.131 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Anonymous votes are invalid. Struck. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I had to think about this long and hard. I trust JzG, and when my gut tells me to disagree with him I always rather just say nothing. But the only user to ever have gotten under my skin was Badlydrawnjeff and I cut down my time here to nothing for a couple of months because of it. After a disagreement on an AfD he went through all my edits for days. I didn't feel stalked so much as bullied; how dare I argue against him. It's my $0.02, for all that's worth nowadays. Ifnord 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Geogre and Redvers. Jkelly 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. JzG and Geogre have said a lot of what I want to say, but being opposed to Wikipedia policies and inclusionist to the point of (what I consider) ridiculousness - see what Brian G. Crawford wrote above. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Changed to neutral.
    Strong Oppose Every interaction I've had with him has been negative. (Do we really want another admin who is quick to resort to incivility? We have enough already) If he cleans up his civility, I'll be happy to support him. — Nathan Changing my vote per this.
  10. Oppose, somewhat reluctantly, per Geogre and Brian above. His inclusionism is of a particular stripe that I think does actual harm to Wikipedia--not "what encyclopedic value can we discover in this article?" but, in his words, "Why shouldn't this article be here?" This has led to frankly ridiculous articles either being kept or dragged through prolonged discussions on AfD--his stance on "internet memes" in particular leads to a loss of selectivity that I find troubling. This is not to say he will misuse thhe tools, but in places where admin judgment comes into play, as in AfD closings, I just don't have the solid trust in that judgment I would need to support. That said, he's a good editor and seems like a nice person, and we agree on a lot of issues--strong opposition to WP:SNOW among them--but I just don't feel that he is admin material. · rodii · 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, as per rodii above, I don't agree with the nominee's take on a what an encyclopedia is as demonstrated by his activities at AFD. No big deal ? Well neither is being an admin. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong oppose. Question 3 indicates, I feel, that he is too contentious, but my biggest concern is the answer to question 5. Actions outside policy take extra time, frequently, because of opposition on principle rather than disagreement with the action. Thus Jeff seems to be saying that such things take time because he helps make them take time. Following the letter of policy is almost always good, but I fear that an editor with such a straight-jacket view of policy will do the wrong thing (or war with those who are doing the right thing) in the few cases where it's not. We need admins who put the goals and purpose of the wiki first. -- SCZenz 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    I feel the need to respond to this. It's not because I "help" them take time, but rather because they do. The continuing userbox debacle is an excellent point - if processes were a) followed, and b) crafted with consensus in mind in that case, we wouldn't have ever had to worry about any sort of German solutions or months of RfCs and RfArs and other nonsense, it'd be done and over with. If policy is in conflict with what's best for the wiki, then policy needs to be changed to fix that, but I'd undoubtedly think that an editor who thinks policy is something entirely arbutrary and need not be followed is much more dangerous with tools at his/her disposal to use than someone who sees policy as a limit on power. I'm incredibly puzzled by the implied/inferred rationale that appears to state that policy use leads to power abuse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    In brief, my concern is that your view that process should always be followed to the letter, regardless of the desirability of the outcome, may lead you to do undesirable things with your buttons. To clarify some things I said earlier... On DRV, I've seen you object to a deletion because people were going to object and it would take more time, not because you thought the outcome was bad; that's what I mean by you helping to make it take extra time. I agree that policy is an important limit on power, and should not be arbitrarily violated. But I think admins need to aknowledge that there are cases where action in defense of the core goals of the wiki trumps certain areas of written policy (although these cases are extremely rare and I've never done it myself); but if you don't aknowledge that, then I'm concerned that you'll use admin powers to hinder those who do. -- SCZenz 08:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well, if that's how you feel, I have no idea how to assauge those fears, mostly because I can't even come up with a theoretical situation where that would occur. So I'm sorry you feel this way to the point of opposition. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per rodii. As a regular viewer of AfD, I have to say I don't really trust his judgement on what is suitable for an encyclopedia. WarpstarRider 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strongly Oppose. The only experience I had with this user was on the Scoop Jackson article discussion page. He was very difficult to engage with, very petty and quite frankly offensive. He seemed to be of the view that if you disagreed with him, you were a vandal. These type of admins are about as necessary on WP as an extra dollar is to Bill Gates.Bazzajf 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    For an example of Bazzajf's good-faith edits to the Jackson article, see this morning's now reverted mass-blanking of sourced, consensus information, performed without discussion: [5]- Merzbow 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    As someone has opposed my Wikifying of the section in question, here's the talk page in question. Ciontext is key, feel free to review and make your own judgements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Bazzajf is now blocked for a month, for his seventh block in June [6]. A bit amazing that he managed to voice an opinion here. --JJay 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong oppose. This editor does not appear to understand the basic issues surrounding WP:BLP - he appears to be endorsing the inclusion of information which is damaging to the subject of the article, but which is trivially important to the article here. He lacks an understanding of policy and he is willing to act in a way that has the potential to hurt the project. He does not appear to be admin material. Guettarda 01:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Question 4 deals with my actual understanding of WP:BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Your (recent) actions are not in keeping with your answer. In your answer to Q4, you said that "[you] don't support allowing people to harm careers", and yet I see you arguing just the opposite. So does this mean that you understand policy and choose to act contrary to it? Maybe I should change my position from "strong oppose" to "very, very strong oppose". Guettarda 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    This is not the venue for discussion on the specific issue at the article you linked. I don't believe I am arguing the opposite, in any case, and I feel my record shows quite a clear understanding of WP:BLP. If you need to know where I stand on it, I've made myself abundantly clear below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well, you say one thing here and do the opposite elsewhere. People try to give the "right" answer to questions here. The point of deciding whether to support or oppose is to weight those answers in the context of your actions. If someone does the wrong thing and doesn't know better, then you hope that they will learn. When someone knows what wrong is and what right is and chooses to do wrong anyway, that's a real problem. When their answers appear to be designed to deceive, that's an even bigger problem. I hate to oppose an RFA, but this seems especially egregious. BLP is far too sensitive (and dangerous) to have admins who do the sort of things you are endorsing. Guettarda 02:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose behavioral issues raise questions as to suitability for conflict amelioration.—Perceval 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Guettarda re BLP. Phr (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong oppose, partially per Bryan G and Guettarda, but also because Jeff tends to rub people up the wrong way with his often aggressive stances on AFD, and at this time, I do not think giving him the ability to close AFDs would be suitable. We see enough AFDs closed as 'no consensus' due to blind keep voting despite failing kinda important policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NOT as it is, and Jeff's pro-everything, ignoring-policy stance on AFD (examples - here, here, here, here - "I know full well he doesn't meet WP:BIO, but it's verifiable", here, just in the last few days) leads me to believe he would - even if he tried not to - fail to apply policy correctly. Proto///type 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'm going to respond to this since he cited specific instances where I allegedly ignore policy and guidelines: Johnny Drennen, the first one, was a minor league baseball player who hit a home run off of Roger Clemens during his rehab start, and WP:BIO's notability guidelines (although being discussed) allow for professional athletes to be included, which Drennan easily qualifies for, as well as meeting basic verifability and research guidelines due to the press it recieved. On "Fed Up," Proto fails to note my conditions on the keep, which involved the verifiability. Certainly, an album by Kevin Federline (husband of Britney Spears) would be notable IF VERIFIED, which is what I based my conditional keep on. Alofoque, I felt, met the guidelines spelled out at WP:MUSIC for an international tour, as they've played the east coast of the United States and the Dominican Republic. Seven Seconds of Love has a notable member in the band, the guy who does Rathergood.com and is responsible for some of the bizarre VH1 commercials from a couple years back, and I felt that gave the group enough notability under WP:MUSIC. I fully agree with Proto's views, however, on my vote on Clark W. Roberts, where I said as much that WP:BIO could possibly be abandoned for historical interest. I spelled that out in my rationale, and dind't pursue it further. I'm disappointed that Proto is opposing me when we typically agree on a lot of these things and, somewhat ironically, feel the same way about those important policies when weighing our decisions, but that's ultimately his perogative. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Not to be pedantic or pound on oppose voters, but there's really nothing stopping Badlydrawnjeff from closing AfDs as keep/no consensus now - you don't have to be an admin to do that. Notice his answer to question 1 - "One area I will be avoiding, for the record, is the closing of controversial XfDs" - and that's exactly what I'd suggest he do. Admins aren't required to close XfDs, some probably never have or ever will, and people with strong, vocal opinions one way or the other probably shouldn't anyway. He indicates that he will concentrate on other tasks, so I don't think it's fair to oppose him over his hypothetical actions in situations he plans to avoid in the first place. --W.marsh 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per Redvers. Sorry. Dr Zak 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - An involved editor and passionate Wikipedian will get involved in some controversy. However, I am concerned over the amount of controversary, the number of people involved, and the heated nature of the clashes. A head-strong and opinionated person is great as a general Wikipedian, but not as an Admin. Considering the candidate's history I am somewhat surprised at the nomination. Also, given the candidate's independent nature, I am surprised he accepted the nomination. SilkTork 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Redvers and NSLE. Brownlee 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose, I believe that badlydrawnjeff acts in what he believes is the best interest of the project. However, I also believe that he is overly argumentative, not due to malice, but due to his passion for Wikipedia. Someone's keep vs. delete "voting" record on AfD is not of much interest to me. What is of interest is the person's grasp and usage of policy, especially against his or her own interest, his or her open-mindedness to the other side's point of view and his or her ability to compromise. I think that badlydrawnjeff's strong inclusionistic beliefs has lead to some questionable AfD judgments, especially in the determination of whether articles meet or don't meet policies and guidelines (speedy criteria, notability guidelines, WP:NOT), and that he has not put due consideration into the arguments of others. In an AfD discussion, you're not supposed to simply try to win others over to your side, you should genuinely listen to what others have to say, and not just in order to counter their arguments. You should always consider the possibility that you are wrong or biased. Finally, there comes a time when it is clear that the continuation of an argument is pointless. The other person almost always gives clues that they want to discontinue the conversation at this point. Pay attention to these clues and then simply agree to disagree, no matter how illogical they are being. No matter how long you persist, you won't "win" and the person will feel harassed, even if you are calm and reasonable. -- Kjkolb 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I find myself convinced by the above arguments.--Poetlister 11:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose I disagree with the candidate's stance on inclusion, I also disagree with the candidate's stance on SNOW and policy-mongering. Appears to be involved in a number of conflicts at present. I agree with Kjkolb's well thought out comment. MLA 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per Encyclopedia Dramatica adminship. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    Interesting. Not that it should matter, but I also haven't edited there since early February, and haven't edited there regularly since October 2005. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Oppose per Geogre, Redvers, and Rodii et al. Too contentious, applies the wrong reasoning, combative for no apparent reason other than obstinancy. No need for the tools, and unfortunately likely to cause more discord with them. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Neutral
  1. Neutral per question four and per Redvers Jaranda wat's sup 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Changing to neutral after reading the oppose votes. Mostly meets my criteria, but a few respected editors are alleging harrassment now and that cannot be ignored. Also, despite assurances that the editor will not abuse the tools towards inclusionist ends, I can't ignore my gut feeling, which is now not to support this candidate. Grandmasterka 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Changed to neutral per answer to question 6. I still can't support someone who I am so far at odds with in policy and inclusionism terms. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Reluctantly neutral - I've been watching this one for days trying to figure out how to vote, because I like a lot of what jeff has to say and do. However I keep getting cramped fingers when I try to support him, so consider this an encouraging neutral. I might vote support on a future RfA if this one doesn't succeed, otherwise I wish him well with the bucket and/or mop. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral (changed from support) I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with his inclusionism, but I don't think that's a good reason to oppose.--Kchase02 T 17:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral (changed from support) - admins need to be closer to policy than this. Dlyons493 Talk
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Badlydrawnjeff (over the 4857 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 467 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 23, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 13, February, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 92.78% Minor edits: 95%
Average edits per day: 31.6 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 264 edits) : Major article edits: 99.47% Minor article edits: 97.4%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4857 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.37% (18)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 9.68% (470)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 22.52% (1094)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 58%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1752 | Average edits per page: 2.77 | Edits on top: 8.21%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 52.09% (2530 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 17.15% (833 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 7.99% (388 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 15.77% (766 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 41.18% (2000) | Article talk: 11.26% (547)
User: 3.34% (162) | User talk: 7.21% (350)
Wikipedia: 25.74% (1250) | Wikipedia talk: 6.59% (320)
Image: 4.04% (196)
Template: 0.56% (27)
Category: 0.04% (2)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.06% (3)

Username Badlydrawnjeff
Total edits 4858
Distinct pages edited 1883
Average edits/page 2.580
First edit 01:11, 13 February 2005
 
(main) 2000
Talk 547
User 162
User talk 350
Image 196
Image talk 2
Template 27
Template talk 1
Category 2
Wikipedia 1251
Wikipedia talk 320

Is this a joke? I can't think of a single user that is less qualified to be an admin. He is petty, loves to wikistalk, is prone to edit wars, and enforces a heavy right wing POV in almost every article he graces with his "Edits". He is a troll and I don’t use that phrase lightly.--8bitJake 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll only note, for clarity's sake, that I've had a number of conflicts with 8bitJake which have resulted in the unfortunate need to open a Request for Arbitration that is still in process. I'm confident to allow my record to speak for itself further in this particular dispute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that Badlydrawnjeff is the worse example of an editor that I have encountered on Wikipedia. It would be a massive mistake to give him Admin rights.--8bitJake 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Along with helping out in any backlog situation that could occur that I'd be an asset, I'd be most interested in pitching in with Speedy deletion and prod, which often gets backed up as I've noticed from time to time. I'm also interested in becoming much more energetic in dealing with copyvio, and a mop will help tremendously in working in that area. Help over at WP:3RR and related areas is always a good place to help out as well. Perhaps the future will bring me into a great mediation/dispute resolution role as well.
One area I will be avoiding, for the record, is the closing of controversial XfDs, as I'm a) usually involved in them, and b) know that I have a deserved reputation of being a hardline inclusionist, so I don't want there to be any question about using any possible powers for my own agenda.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I make a lot of stubs, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Of my 2000+ mainspace edits, almost 10% of them are new article creation or rewrites. My most major project thus far involved creating articles for The Elephant Six Collective, and creating a template for a collective of musicians that lacked any sort of centralized source. The project, of course, is still ongoing.
For specific articles, I'm currently in the process of making The Reputation into a Good/Featured Article-worthy entry, and I'm pleased with the work I've done on Kroger Babb, as well. I'm also fairly happy with how Mark Eitzel has come out so far, considering it was a day away from being deleted via WP:PROD when I found it.
Finally, I'm also someone who's not afraid to dive into political/controversial articles. I was able to deal fairly well with a situation a couple months ago revolving around Lew Rockwell and Joseph Sobran, and I feel I've made positive contributions in articles such as Michael Moore as well, where tempers and POV issues can flair up in a moment's notice.
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: Oh, absolutely. If I have one major personal downside in my WP history, it's probably the types of conflicts I end up getting into.
Some have worked out well, or at least according to whatever guidelines are laid out. Early on, conflict at Karl Rove was worked out fairly harmoniously, I've had some decent conflict resolutions at articles like Debbie Schlussel, and I've had to go to mediation/RfAr for one situation that the typical "try to work it out" method didn't solve, and have been more and more open of late to using requests for comment.
Others, not so much. I still regret how some issues with User:Nathanrdotcom went, I wish things weren't so continually tenuous with at couple other users, I know full well I haven't always handled my issues with WP:SNOW to the best of my ability, and I sometimes speak up in a knee-jerk fashion when approaching people regarding articles I feel strongly on at AfD. It's something I'm always aware of and always working on, and the longer I'm here, the more I'm using the tools available to reach the best result for the greater wiki, even if it doesn't end up the way I want it to.
Either way, I'm very fond of using talk pages, I have recently started using IRC and it has greatly benefited my ability to work through policy/guideline issues. Communication is key, and that's what I'm trying to stay focused on.

Optional Question from Hipocrite

4. You recently wrote "nor do I see anything that would allow anyone to be "blocked" due to a disagreement regarding your interpretation of a guideline, not a policy." Could you explain what you mean more substantially? Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean that the specific situation that you link to above, as it stands, does not warrant your threats of blocking at the AfD in question. As the relevant blocking policy notes: "Editors who repeatedly insert critical material into the biography of a living person (or its talk page), or into a section about a living person in another article (or its talk page), may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy if, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the material is unsourced, or incorrectly sourced, and may constitute defamation." My question to you, which prompted this "strong oppose" as well as the question at the AfD, was how your changes constitute anything written at WP:BLP, or anything at the blocking policy that would qualify. Obviously, if a biography violated such provisions, perhaps such threats would be in order. At the moment, I see nothing to indicate that this specific biography does, and your misstating of my position on the matter doesn't help. Thank you for striking the original thought, although I don't support allowing people to harm careers. I agree with the tenets of the BLP guideline and the blocking policy. I simply disagree with the rationale you provided at the AfD as a matter of a judgement call.--badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
5:How do you define policy? When, if ever, are administrative actions not covered by policy allowable? Do you find it ironic that of the three articles you voted to delete (that I found at a quick glance) two of them were kept, including one where you were the nominator and citing non-notability as the reason? (Mr. Butch) Kotepho 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I define policy as what's listed as policy on the wiki. It's got the policy tag for a reason, it means it has broad acceptance of the way things should be done. I can think of very, very few times where ignoring policy should come into play, and that would be in something where quick action is entirely necessary, and even that's something that I can't come up with a concrete example of. I know plenty of people disagree with me on this, but if we abandon the basic tenets of what makes the wiki run, the policies and guidelines and standards that we've come up with over the years, then we're going to get nowhere.
As for my two delete votes, you had to dig for Mr. Butch, eh? hehe. I don't even recall what the other delete votes were, but Mr. Butch was entirely an error in judgement on my part, and I admit as such on my userpage - I was wrong. My attitude about AfD has changed considerably since I started going there daily, and I'd say my last 4 or 5 months is more reflective of where I'm at regarding AfD than what I was up to when I started. I'm also sure that if I went back through my AfD discussions over the last year, I'd probably cringe at some of my keep votes recently as well. I'm not perfect and don't claim to be, but I at least try to stay honest and up-front with my rationales, to varying results.
Adding after the fact, this doesn't mean that there aren't policies that need to see some change, or that all policy is inherently good. But we also hae standard processes for changing policy, and there's nothing wrong with keeping things on the up-and-up instead of abusing things for the sake of abusing them. As I noted at WP:SNOW, much to the chagrin of some others, often the process will get the desired result in a faster fashion than ignoring the rules, as ignoring the rules often results in a plea for a change, an in-process appeal, and then a re-running of the process. Thus, the article you wanted deleted on AfD on 1 June is still up and running, but is in line to be deleted anyway on 15 June because of all the appeals. It hurts nothing, saves a lot of strife, and it's why I'm such a policy monger - it just makes life more simple and harmonious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
6. You are frequently on record as disagreeing with several Wikipedia policies, most notably some of the CSDs like A7. If you are made an administrator, will you commit to applying all policies, not only the ones you like? Stifle (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Opposition to policies is no reason to skirt them, and I feel i've more than demonstrated that during my time here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Please define Primary Source, and justify [7] this edit. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
For the purposes of what we do here, we go by the relevant guidleine, which shows that a primary source is a source providing "direct evidence," or that is close to a situation. My edit, in my view, is an example of a third party source in line with our position on organizational websites, which the bio of this specific person is listed. This is part of an ongoing discussion over at the talk page of that discussion, and I'm perfectly willing to engage you on it further over there.
No, I think we'll talk about it here. Please review WP:BLP and show how a conference atendees list is not a primary source. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Badlydrawnjeff_7fc3.html"