Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bradv

Bradv

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (73/4/0); Scheduled to end 13:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Bradv (talk · contribs) – I nominate Bradv for adminship permissions.

Uncontroversial but not dull, quiet but not afraid – Bradv has a long record of demonstrating good judgement and character. Many of you will recognise Bradv's signature as belonging with some sensible or helpful comment in a discussion. Bradv joined the community in 2008, reactivating in 2016 after a hiatus. Outside our noticeboards and processes, Bradv is usually found improving articles or participating in article-related discussions. He has wrote or significantly expanded nearly a dozen articles, mostly biographies. Bradv also has a number of specific roles, as an arbitration clerk, a talented script writer, and the operator of one bot. Brad is spending an increasing amount of time submitting requests that admins do things.

I commend him to you on this basis and propose giving Bradv a mop. AGK ■ 08:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Members of the community, it is my pleasure to join AGK in presenting Bradv. His contributions to Wikipedia are wide-ranging. In the content space, his has written several biographical articles about academics, as well as a GA about the children's book author Derrick Barnes. You will also frequently see Bradv reviewing article submissions at WP:AFC, patiently interacting with new editors in the process. Outside of his content work, Bradv is one of our active technical editors. His Superlinks script is a great tool to integrate into your Wikipedia workflow, especially if you seem to find yourself opening too many browser tabs. Additionally, Bradv serves as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. In that role, Bradv also operates User:ArbClerkBot, where he is working on automating some of the more mundane procedural tasks of the arbitration process, such as noticeboard announcements.

Above all, I admire Bradv's ability to stay calm and reasonable in difficult situations. He understands that he is not infallible—if you think he has made a mistake, then Bradv will not hesitate to take a step back and talk with you about it. He will make it his goal to understand where you are coming from and reflect on his own position carefully and rationally. Some of you may remember his Strickland incident essay, which was published in the October 2018 edition of The Signpost, as a great example of this sort of introspection. For these reasons, I think Bradv will be a great administrator, and I hope that you will join AGK and me in supporting him. Mz7 (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, with gratitude for the kind things said about me by my seniors above. I'll also provide here the customary disclosure that I have never edited Wikipedia for pay, and never will. – bradv🍁 13:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would likely continue to work in many of the areas I already do. AfC and NPP can both benefit from more editors with admin tools, especially access to deleted material. As I gain more experience I would like to help out at AIV, RFPP, and CSD. I also enjoy closing discussions, so I hope to increase my participation in this area as well. Having access to the tools would also help with my work at ArbCom, as occasionally there are pages that need to be protected or blocks that need to be issued.

Regardless of what new areas I venture in, I plan to ask others who are experienced in the area for advice before taking action, and always ask for a second opinion whenever I feel unsure.

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

A: I joined Wikipedia because I believe in the idea of a collaborative encyclopedia documenting the sum of all human knowledge. I am grateful for any opportunity to help, whether it's directly related to content, helping other editors contribute productively, or doing behind-the-scenes stuff that readers will never notice.

I enjoyed writing Derrick Barnes. This is not in my usual area of editing, but it was a fun article to put together and it even made it to GA status.

I am also happy with the Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks script I wrote. It started as an idea by a fellow NPP reviewer, and it turned into a tool that has improved my workflow considerably in every area of the project.

But my best contributions to Wikipedia are the opportunities I have had to help editors settle disagreements and edit productively. These are mostly small things, like spending extra time to close a discussion with a thoughtful rationale, providing a third opinion for two editors who are talking past each other, or helping someone write something they're passionate about. Above all, I'm proud of the encyclopedia we're building together, and I'm thrilled to be a part of it. I try to make that come through with every edit.

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: About a year ago I performed a routine decline of a draft article on someone who would later win a Nobel prize. This incident attracted a fair bit of criticism both on- and off-wiki, and I tried to respond to questions and comments thoughtfully and carefully. I wrote an essay about it shortly after the news broke, which I think helped to put the events in perspective and provide a way forward. The discussion around all of this had a profound effect on me as an editor, and I have certainly learned a lot from the experience.

I also serve as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, a role which I have found quite rewarding. In my work as a clerk I am acutely aware of the fact that many of the people I interact with are under considerable stress, and I have tried very hard to have a calming influence at every interaction. I believe that my efforts have been well-received, and I look forward to continuing in this role, whether or not I am entrusted with the extra tools.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from PCN02WPS

4. Have you ever dealt with a problem on Wikipedia in a way that you now regret? If so, how would you now resolve the problem differently?

A: I referenced this essay in my answer to Q3, in which I expressed regret that I missed the opportunity to write about a Canadian physicist who would later become famous. But apart from that, there was a situation when I first started as a clerk where the conversation went a little differently than I expected. I paid close attention afterward, and now wish that I had worded things a little differently, or refrained from interacting altogether if I wasn't confident my contribution would have the desired effect.

Additional question from LessHeard vanU

5. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, of course, and you are already an arb clerk and article contributor. Sysopping will potentially cut into the areas you are presently active; where do you see yourself withdrawing to any extent? ps. RfA is not comfortable, but then neither is adminship sometimes - if you are able to withstand this, then you were correct in accepting the nomination.

A: I am hoping that I won't have to withdraw from any of the areas I currently work in, but I know that's not entirely realistic for everyone, which makes this a pertinent question. My goal in volunteering for this role is to continue to increase my level of participation in the project, and the extra tools will primarily help in the areas in which I'm already active.

I have already !voted, but my question was primarily to make you aware that you may have to consider how to manage workloads in the future. All the best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Reyk

6. What is the most important policy on Wikipedia, and why?

A. If Ignore all rules were less provocatively named, it might be called something like "Do the Right Thing". Combined with policies like NOT, NPOV, and V, which together define the goals of the project, this really should be all we need. That said, I generally try to follow policies and guidelines quite closely, as they reflect the consensus established by many editors over the years.

Additional question from Ritchie333

7. Some of your AfD !votes seem to be to be a bit slapdash and don't have as much detail as I would have expected from an experienced editor. I'm particularly thinking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School of Artisan Food, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuelle Waeckerle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Maness (where you say the subject's own CV is "not a reliable source" whose literal reading would imply you think Maness is a compulsive liar who can't be trusted about anything), but quite a few comments seem to be little more than "Not notable, fails GNG, get rid". How much time do you spend thinking about what comments to make at an AfD, and what work do you consider doing on the article before making a decision?

A. You've identified three very difficult AfDs that I participated in. The first is a case of undisclosed paid editing where the author has been blocked; the second was created as a copyvio, likely with a conflict of interest, which was later substantially reworked; and in the third case the author requested deletion which was largely ignored by the keep voters at the AfD. I'm still not convinced we got the last two right, and the first has not yet closed. I'm aware that not everyone has the same opinion about notability, but I try very hard to do my own research and comment based on what I feel is in the best interest of the project. I also try not to hassle people who disagree with me, as it is more important to me that we get it right than that I get my way, and we all contribute to that consensus together. To the last part of your question, I try to do a full BEFORE search before commenting, including checking the subject matter against any applicable guidelines. Editing the article itself doesn't make a subject more notable, so I don't usually take that approach unless the article is being proposed for deletion for reasons other than notability.

Additional question from MarginalCost

8. You stated in your Strickland incident essay that As an academic, the relevant guideline for establishing notability is WP:PROF. The general notability guideline does not apply to this article, but the rest of the notability guideline, including the section on requiring verifiable evidence (WP:NRV) does apply. If a professor were to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, but did not meet any of the specific criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC, should that article be created/kept?

A. In general I would probably say yes. I know there are some editors who view WP:NPROF as both inclusive and exclusive, but I'm not aware of any broad discussion that established consensus for either position. If a biography meets the basic criteria, that is a suitable argument for inclusion in my view.

Additional question from RadioKAOS

9. How is it considered a net positive to the encyclopedia when editors specialize in a particular content or project area and their editing activity suggests that they have no clue or could care less about the encyclopedia as a whole?

A: It's probably fair to say that the encyclopedia is predominantly built by specialists who focus on particular content areas. There are plenty of obscure topic areas which I know nothing about, and I'm grateful for the contributions of the subject matter experts who do.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. With the reasoning in my statement. AGK ■ 08:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Strong support all around great editor, has a clue. Praxidicae (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Support: Very strong candidate. Knows his way around some of the back-of-house stuff, as well as how to write an article. Love to hear that he is interested in closing discussions - we could use some help in that area. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Excellent candidate for the corps. scope_creep^Talk 13:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Without doubt. Lourdes 13:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
7. Support I trust them, from what I've seen. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
8. Support An excellent candidate. Thoughtful ahead of time. Reflective after the fact. These are great qualities in a sysop in my mind. Has a clear need for the tools. I am so pleased to see him here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Support - Passes the TonyBallioni test with diamonds and oakleaves. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
10. Support - very competent candidate and by being an admin could help out further. Already trusted in some high-risk areas. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
11. Support Very high comment to edit ratio, indicating communication is a premium tool. Is also an Arb Clerk, but never mind... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
12. Support I've known Bradv for a number of years now and consider them to be a capable and competent editor. They've experience of writing content, which is always a definite advantage; they've taken Derrick Barnes to Good Article status, it's always nice to be able to judge a potential new administrator by assessing their work on a recently written/expanded BLP, it's all in order, so that's a very large plus point. There's also some DYK contributions, which are also nice - there's more to writing than just GAs and FAs, so some other contributions are good to see. Their actual administrative ability has been ably demonstrated in their ArbCom clerking, a difficult field at the best of times, but particularly challenging with the virtual collapse of the committee this year and the significant dramatic events which have unfolded during the period Bradv has been clerking. I will admit to being particularly impressed with the DeltaQuad RfB too, where Bradv politely but firmly challenged a user (Foxnpichu) for their double standards - firm but polite and fair discourse, of precisely the type that will be necessary when trying to handle a dispute with intransigent users on both sides. The sort of behaviour honed by time clerking for ArbCom, in fact. The general maintenance tasks and the ArbCom clerking will make good use of the administrative toolset. In short, Bradv is competent, polite and will use the tools, a significant asset to the community, very much a net positive for the project. Nick (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
13. Support Very competent user with lots of experience, can be trusted with the mop. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
14. Support - Net positive for WP. Most of the areas they want to contribute in, could use some helpful admins.—NØ 14:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
15. Support per nom clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
16. Seen them around, have no concerns that they'd be anything other than a net positive as an administrator. I looked into the Donna Strickland incident quite deeply after it occurred; I cannot really fault the candidate for their role in it. AfC reviewers face a consistent and daunting backlog; that the candidate made a decision based on the information they had at the time isn't black mark against them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
17. Support per nominating statements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
18. Support, I have seen good things, and I was particularly impressed that the candidate wrote about the Strickland incident in so much detail, and with several good ideas about improvements to our processes. —Kusma (t·c) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
19. Support learns and improves from past experiences. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
20. Happy with what I see after reviewing the candidates contributions. Statement by nominating editors compelling, haven’t see anything that leads me to believe that the candidate would be anything but an asset with the mop and bucket. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
21. Support Not so much a case of "I thought they were one", but I'd been wondering for some time why they weren't. Strong net positive, --jerk, ++clue. Let the mopping begin. CThomas³ (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
22. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
23. Support no brainer candidate with clear need for tools. It'll be nice to have another admin dedicated as an arbcom clerk. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
24. Support per User:Bradv/Strickland incident. I'm impressed by the amount of work that went into explaining the thought process behind a controversial decision, backed by relevant guidelines. Bradv also included what he learned from it and tangible ways to move forward and make the process, and ultimately Wikipedia, a better place. This is exactly what I'd want to see in an admin, and am enthusiastic about offering my support. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
25. While I'm not happy with AFC and its stricter standards than apply in mainspace, I'm not going to oppose a qualified candidate who is active there. Also the Strickland incident certainly means the candidate is stress tested, and lastly, I enjoyed reading Derrick Barnes. ϢereSpielChequers 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
26. Support - looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
27. Support As the nomination suggests, I've seen Bradv around the place a lot, usually making helpful comments in a polite manner. He does a lot of good work here (free plug - I particularly appreciate his 'superlinks' script), and I have no doubt that he could do good work with a mop. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
28. Wholeheartedly support. I've had the great pleasure to work with Bradv this year as an arbitration clerk, where he's been one of the most dedicated, thoughtful, competent, and diligent editors I've ever seen. As the clerk who facilitated the appointment and confirmation process, I know my fellow clerks and arbitrators feel the same. I know he is willing to heed advice, and I also know he's never afraid to tell me when I'm wrong. He has exactly the right temperament, experience, empathy, and broad perspective to be an administrator. Bradv has my implicit trust and I know he will be one of our very best admins. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
29. Support seems sensible/level-headed, and not seeing any compelling reason to oppose — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
30. Support . Editing has been more than just a bit sporadic over the years but it looks as if Brad will stay around if he gets the mop. Otherwise, fully qualified and trustworthy. The Signpost article is more than enough alone to demonstrate that Brad is no new kid on the block looking for something to brag about in the schoolyard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
31. Support seems sane enough. stwalkerster (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
32. Support Seen Bradv around for years and never in a bad way. I'm sure they can be trusted with the tools. Number 57 18:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
33. Support Full of clue. Exactly the attitude we should be looking for in administrators. GoldenRing (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
34. Support I've seen enough of their work around the project to implicitly trust Bradv in the tools, and I'm not concerned about the one incident in the slightest, as I would have done the same. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
35. Support No concerns. (I honestly thought you were one.) Nihlus 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

    Comment - did you mean to put Support above, Nihlus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs)

    Yes. Fixed. Nihlus 22:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

36. Support - Even when we've disagreed, they have shown a civility and level-headedness in their deliberations. I think they will be a tremendous addition to the admin corps.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
37. Support - Thought they were already an admin. Based on discussions I have seen in which they have participated, they are thoughtful, knowledgeable and overall respected. S0091 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
38. Support I'll be frank, already thought Bradv was an admin with their level of maturity and experience. Its my pleasure to support them for admin! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
39. Support. A fellow proud Canadian! Welcome aboard :) -- œ^™ 19:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
40. Support. Question 7 is a good question that caused me some hesitation. But I'm with the candidate on those three AfDs. In particular I recall myself investing about 20 minutes of time doing research on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuelle Waeckerle and was planning to !vote delete before getting distracted by a waffle or something. That AfD was wrongly decided--not by the closing admin but by the community--and The School of Artisan Food is an ad that should be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
41. Support. Helpful and competent. Haukur (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
42. Support, an asset to the project. bd2412 T 20:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
43. Support, has the skill and experience, and has a strong commitment to WP. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
44. Support The Strickland incident was, from my observations, very well handled by Bradv. The fact that he reflected on this very incident shows at least a level of maturity that I appreciate in people. He could've just as easily waved it off and said "I'm right" and leave it at that. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
45. Support. The only thing I could fault Bradv for in relation to the Strickland article is that in reaction to the statistic of 1/3 of new Nobelists not having Wikipedia entries at the time, he didn't comment on the paradox that Wikipedia, a review of knowledge, has much stricter requirements for articles on the people that research new knowledge than for film stars or people sufficiently famous-for-being-famous-and-nothing-else to be WP-notable. I don't see any easy solution to the paradox, which is why I'm only pontificating on this here rather than making a concrete proposal at WP:PROF. Getting more articles on how-many-angels-fit-on-the-head-of-a-pin-ologists who are well-known within the head-of-a-pin-ological community would not necessarily be a good development. Boud (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
46. Support I have encountered him a couple of places at AfD, and I believe he has the temperament appropriate for adminship. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
47. Support I tend to think the reaction to the Stricland incident on Bradv specifically is a little unfair. There should have been an article on her, but to blame Bradv for this---and to not support him as an admin because of this---I think is a stretch. Both with this and outside of this, I've always seen a level-headed, knowledgeable, skilled editor. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
48. Support Finally! I'm certain Bradv will make a great admin; all my experiences with them are positive and I regard them as a highly trustworthy and reasonable editor. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
49. Strongly Support – I've seen Bradv around; seems to be a great person. Experienced, well-qualified candidate with no serious behavioral concerns that I've come across. I also concur with the opinions of other editors above. Bradv will make a great admin. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
50. (edit conflict) Support with no convincing arguments in the opposition. You can't predict the future of a BLP you decline at AfC, and it was an okay decision anyway. The bar is higher at AfC than AfD. J947^{'s public account} 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
51. Support especially with two strong nominators. I'm sure Bradv will be great in an admin position. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
52. Support. I would have said Brad was already an admin, if someone had asked me in a closed-book exam. Clearly, from everything we read in the nom statements, and my own expericne of the editor, t ey are a clueful and experienced Wikipedian. Just the sort we need dishing out large dollops of soapy water with a nice shiny mop.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
53. Support - Candidate took some heat, much of it probably unfair, for the Strickland incident, remained calmer than I probably would have, and has been reflective about it. Satisfied with response to Q8. MarginalCost (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
54. Support - No qualms. An unimpeachable name to see on one's watchlist. Thanks for your service. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
55. Support as co-nominator. Mz7 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
56. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 22:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
57. Support No use wasting bytes, so I'll just say "Per all above (And likely per all below)". Squeeps10 23:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
58. Support Looks good to me. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
59. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
60. Support. This is an absolute no-brainer. I have known for quite a while now that Bradv was not an administrator (I checked), but prior I had always assumed he was. I have enjoyed working with Bradv as an editor & look forward to (hopefully) working with him as an administrator as well. Best of luck with this RfA, though I'm sure you don't need it/will be fine. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
61. 100% --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
62. Easy support here. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
63. Support mainly contra User:Catfish Jim's oppose below, which I think is most unfair. Bradv got it wrong here, as he is all too well aware, but I hope most of those who have delved in the Strickland affair - not as straightforward as the press stories make it appear - agree his actions were reasonable given what he knew, & his subsequent self-examination extemplary. Where he was at fault was making a judgement call about an area he didn't know well enough to appreciate the citation index for that field, and the significance of the presidency of the Optical Society (not the non-notable fellowship). Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
64. Support – An administrator in all but name. Time to change that. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
65. Support. Was sure he was one. Exceptional candidate. El_C 01:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
66. Support per Diannaa and Kevin. Excellent work as an ArbCom clerk assures me that they'll do a good job with the mop. Miniapolis 01:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
67. Hell yes. SQL^{Query me!} 01:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
68. support per nominator statements and other rationales stated above. More than meets my standards. Since when do we accept information controlled by a subject as a reliable source? Please see WP:42.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
69. Support I don't see a reason not to support. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
70. Support, per nominators, and pleased to see the nomination. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
71. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
72. Support Should have been one a long time ago. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
73. Support knows enough about content creation and our quality processes, the nominators vouch for his maturity, has demonstrated insight regarding his missteps, has an existing track record as a clerk, and has a need for the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You say the Strickland incident attracted a fair amount of criticism. That's one way to describe it... another would be to say it was one of the most damaging incidents in Wikipedia's history, played out in the highest-profile, international news media... "Wikipedia criticised after it emerges female Nobel laureate had page rejected", The Independent, October 5, 2018; "Donna Strickland's treatment on Wikipedia shows how women have long been excluded from science", The Independent, October 6, 2018; "For Just the Third Time in 117 Years, a Woman Wins the Nobel Prize in Physics", New York Times, October 2, 2018; "Wikipedia rejected an entry on a Nobel Prize winner because she wasn't famous enough", Quartz, October 2, 2018; "Donna Strickland had no Wikipedia page before her Nobel. Her male collaborator did.", Vox, October 3, 2018; "Nobel prize winner Donna Strickland wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia", The Times, October 4, 2018; "Physicist Donna Strickland Had to Win a Nobel Prize to Get on Wikipedia", The Observer, October 4, 2018; "Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry", The Guardian, October 4, 2018; "Wikipedia rejected an entry on a physics Nobel laureate right up until she won, saying she wasn't famous enough", Business Insider, October 4, 2018; "The Nobel prize winning scientist who wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia", The Irish Times, October 3, 2018. An administrator needs judgement and credibility, and I don't think you are suitable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose as does not meet criteria. Not enough created content to be an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 19:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Not the best fit. CLCStudent (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   CLCStudent, would you mind gracing this RfA with your reasons why you feel the candidate is 'not a good fit'? Otherwise the bureaucrats will most likely accord very little weight to your vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Kudpung, are they going to give the same weight to those that support the nomination with the same amount of justification? Or is it just those who oppose a nomination that have to explain themselves? GregJackP Boomer! 00:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

    Bureaucrat note: this is not the place to discuss this. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   Primefac - I don't have a problem asking the same question to those who support with the same amount of justification, if that's what you would prefer. Just let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   I would prefer if neither side got asked that question; the 'crats know how to weigh consensus. At almost every RFA we just spin around the circle of "blank oppose - badgering about the oppose - everyone else jumps in and comments on how unfair it is that supports can do it but not opposes". It's getting old. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   I agree, it's old, but I'm also getting tired of people trying to intimidate me for my criteria and going to my talk page to threaten me with ANI, etc., merely because I decide to participate in an RfA. PS, I have no complaints with the 'crats. GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose I’ve not been impressed by most of Brad’s participation at admin boards. This recent uninvolved, one sided, and unnecessary AE filing shows Brad cares more about arbitrary rules than substance. Participation in other dispute resolution areas doesn’t give me confidence. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

General comments

Unnecessary commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I vote, I would like to bring up this. I feel that you were not listening to anything I had to say, and simply defending the more "popular" user (if that makes any sense, I'm not a needless attention-seeker, but get annoyed at behaviour that comes off as snobbish). If you were to become an admin, would this happen again? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Foxnpichu, first if this is a real question you want answered you should ask it above in the place for questions. But just so I'm clear what you're asking bradv is whehter he would defend a more popular user again? Because what I see there is one now blocked user who was very rude to you and bradv who explained why he thought that incident shouldn't be disqualifying for the candidate. And did so politely if firmly. I understand why it would be frustrating but I don't think it was conduct unbecoming of a sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC) @Foxnpichu: What in particular would you like to bring up about DQ's RfB ? Nick (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Nick Check the 2nd oppose !vote. - ZLEA T\C 14:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC) @ZLEA: I'm supposed to be a mind-reader now. What happened to supplying a fucking diff ? Nick (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Nick Bradv's comments can be found under the 2nd oppose !vote of DeltaQuad's RfB. Including diffs would be unnecessary as you could find Bradv's comments by simply reading the discussion (it's not long, and Bradv's signature stands out). - ZLEA T\C 14:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC) The key phrase from that exchange is Foxnpichu’s comment I might be acting a bit unfair here [...], which bradv was correctly pointing out. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC) foxnpichu Diffs are your (and mine) friend - in both cases. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Foxnpichu From what I can see, I have to agree with Bradv's comments, it does appear that you were applying a double standard. What DQ did was a mistake, and the unblocking admin originally assumed that your main account was a sockpuppet of your actual sockpuppet without checking. You wanted others to assume good faith towards you, but you then assumed bad faith on DQ's RfB. - ZLEA T\C 14:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Exactly! DQ went ahead, blocked me without sensibly checking and got out scot-free. Imopposed her RfB because I felt untrusting of giving her such a high rank. I try to explain this to Brad, but he didn't listen! Foxnpichu (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC) There's a difference between not listening and not agreeing with you. There's no evidence Bradv didn't listen (indeed, there's quite the opposite) but what we have is evidence he doesn't agree with you (like a great many people, myself included). Nick (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC) While DQ made a mistake, your sockpuppet was incorrectly marked as the sock master. This is a very rare occurrence, and there is rarely a reason for an admin to check which account is a sock master unless the issue is brought up beforehand. Bradv tried telling you that it was an honest mistake, but you took it as an assumption of bad faith. - ZLEA T\C 15:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

---