Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigDT 2

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

BigDT

Final (82/22/6); Ended Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:43:06 UTC

BigDT (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate BigDT for adminship. BigDT is an extremely prolific editor; I have no idea how many edits he has amassed over his 9 months or so on Wikipedia; perhaps something like 8-10 thousand. He has been especially active patrolling images for unfree images, copyright violations, and misuses of fair use claims, but he has also been active in some policy/guideline debates, deletion debates and deletion review. Furthermore, he is an absolutely tireless contributor, and has already shown willingness to do thankless maintenance jobs. Despite his vast number of edits he is always polite and responsive to queries: in short, a great admin candidate. He has expressed a wish for the tools, and I think it would help him be more efficient at what he does. This is his second nomination; the first was over 6 months ago, which he declined at the time in order to gain more experience. I think he certainly has enough now. Mangojuice^talk 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you for your kind words. BigDT 22:42, 5 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Currently, I do a lot of work with images. I often answer questions at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, and some of the other places where users ask about their images. There is usually a backlog at WP:IFD, as well as the various image maintenance and deletion categories, so I imagine that I will continue to help out in this area and that I will take care of some of these images. There is frequently a large backlog of images at CAT:CSD and I help out there as well. I will also help out with the often-backlogged Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I frequently patrol WP:BLPN. This board has a number of articles and issues on it which require the assistance of some uninvolved users and administrators. I will continue to help out here and I strongly encourage anyone else who is interested to do so as well. I also occasionally patrol recent changes and deal with vandalism. Obviously, I will continue to do this, as well.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I have worked a lot with the college football Wikiproject - WP:CFB. I have written a good deal of what is in Virginia Tech Hokies and 2006 Virginia Tech Hokies football team. What I really like is that I was able to contribute some useful photos to the football-related articles. (See my user page for a gallery of them.)

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: Unfortunately, yes. Eight months or so ago, during the userbox debates, I got involved. There were a lot of emotions involved in that situation and I really regret a few of the things I said. I was a very new user and really wasn't as focused on our goal of creating an encyclopedia. The whole issue is nothing to get upset over. The biggest thing I learned from it is to have a short memory. A conflict today doesn't prevent working together tomorrow. I have subsequently worked with many, if not most, of those with whom I disagreed and I would like to think/hope that all is forgiven all around.

Thank you all for your consideration and I hope to continue to serve Wikipedia in the future, whether I am selected as an admin or not. BigDT 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

4. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?

I don't think that spam is per se any more or less serious than any other kind of unproductive editing. Like anything else, as long as it's caught quickly and reverted, it's not the end of the world. I think that we need to consider that there are a few different kinds of spam worth mentioning. There's the spam where someone runs a website that sells music and they start adding links to their site to every single article in Category:2000s music groups. Well, that's not great, but it's easy to take care of. Also, if you are running recent changes, you will frequently see new articles created that are essentially corporate press releases. Again, that's not great, but there's a process for addressing the issue. What's potentially more of an interesting situation and is probably the bigger problem is the addition of "some guy's website" to a single article. In a lot of the narrower topics, like Feast of Tabernacles, Christian or Feast of Trumpets (Christian holiday), there is no authoritative website. Any external links at all and, for that matter, any web-based sources are going to be of questionable value. So that brings up your next question, why do we have external links? I tend to be more limited on my view of external links than some might be. In general, you want to hold your readers, not send them elsewhere. I tend to prefer to have a link to the official website of the subject or entity discussed, as well as to any undisputed authorities on the topic. Beyond that, I am not going to go out of the way to add any myself, but if someone else adds something that could go either way, I'm not going to go out of my way to remove it. With youtube, myspace, blogs, etc, unless the external link is an official website of the subject of the article (in other words, a band's myspace page), I think we ought to avoid them - there's obvious copyright issues with youtube, and with a myspace page or a blog, the information is frequently not verifiable. Should the standards be higher or lower? Well, WP:EL is pretty open ended. I think that a permissive standard that respects the good faith and good sense of the editors involved is probably a good thing here. --BigDT 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?

A:I would probably address the issue the same way I would as a non-administrator. If the editor is making unambiguously good edits, after examining the article to ensure that it has no unsourced negative statements, I would move on with life. If the editor was removing or editing large chunks without giving a reason, I would engage the user, invite them to discuss the issues on the talk page, and let them know about edit summaries. WP:BLP reminds us that it is distinctly possible that the user is simply trying to remove personal or incorrect information. Any time that I revert a page or section blanking, I try to leave an edit summary that does not use the word "vandalism", but, rather, "unexplained blanking". Wikipedia:Autobiography points out that the three problems with autobiographies are bias, unverifiability, and original research. So I think we need to give articles edited by the subject of the article the same thorough check that we could give anything else - check it for NPOV, verifiability, and original research. Beyond that, we need to be careful not to find a solution looking for a problem. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia. --BigDT 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?

A: Well, at WP:RFP, I've noticed that on occasion, a request will be made for s-protection under the claim that there is vandalism going on when in reality, it is only a content dispute in which one of the users is an IP user. In that case, we obviously don't want to s-protect as that would essentially just be choosing sides. Instead, the article should either be fully protected or not protected at all, but s-protection is a bad idea. Another thing to be careful with is that unless there is repeated vandalism from a large number of IPs, it is sufficient to simply block the users involved. Several weeks ago, there was an Atlanta Falcons message board that decided it would be fun to go vandalize Wikipedia articles on several players. That's the kind of thing where only s-protection is going to be meaningful - there were tens of IP addresses involved and Roddy White, in particular, was getting hit repeatedly by a large number of IPs. --BigDT 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A:When you see an article that looks like a press release or an advertisement, something should be done. That something may be speedy deletion or that something may be, if possible, turning it into a good stub. G11 is actually independent of whether or not the company, organization, or product is notable. A7 covers articles where the significance is not asserted, which, admittedly, is much more ambiguous than G11. Strictly speaking, most anything that looks like ad copy may be deleted under G11, but, as with all things, if it can be fixed or turned into a good stub, there's no reason to delete it. I take a look to see if anything is linking to the article or if it shows up in a search of Wikipedia. I take a look at the website of the company to see if it's a five-person organization or a large enterprise. I take a look at g-hits, particularly google news. The purpose of google hits is not so much to come up with a magic number - let's face it - anyone who wants to can very easily get a large number of g-hits. The real use of google is to see if I can locate any potential verifiable sources of information about the company. If there's nothing but self-generated hits, then I would lean towards deletion. --BigDT 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

8. What does WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you, and how would you apply them?

Thank you for the question. I understand and respect that you have serious and heart-felt concerns in this area. I think that there is probably a time and place for both, but they can be misapplied. My first inclination is to always try to err on the side of having respect for the individual contributor. If, for instance, a page or image obviously needs to be deleted but is not specifically covered by a speedy deletion criterion, that item may still be important to the person who created it. It's better, IMO, unless there are other pressing concerns, to allow the discussion to occur. That discussion can help a contributor to better understand the various involved Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In the end, we could win a valued contributor, instead of biting and driving away a newbie. To me, process is important, but, in general, I live in the area in between the two extremes - I will usually not cut off the process myself, nor would I demand a pro forma process that has been stopped be restarted simply for the sake of going through it. When would I apply them? I use a few tests: (1) it should be non-controversial - if a user in good standing expresses a serious concern, you may misapplied the essay. (2) There should be a substantial reason to cut off the process. I'll use a real example. Right after Jeff Bowden was fired from FSU, I noticed that his article was a copy/paste of his official bio from FSU's website. WP:CP says that pages should stay listed for seven days. But Jeff Bowden was all over the news and was someone that a lot of college football fans would be googling for - having them come to Wikipedia to see a big white {{Copyvio}} box isn't a good thing. I asked for, and was granted, a "speedy" handling of the copyvio. Of course, now, CSD G12 covers such things, which brings me to my next point, (3) if it is correct to ignore a rule, maybe the rule should be changed. If I can't explain my reasoning for ignoring the rules well enough that we could make a rule for it, then I should think long and hard about whether or not I'm correct. --BigDT 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Irpen (talk · contribs)

9. What is your opinion of the off-wiki communication, particularly related to discussing or planning the on-wiki actions, especially the administrative actions. Particularly, what is your opinion of IRC? Do you use it yourself?

I am on IRC as we speak. I don't at all like backroom planning or anything like that. The whole idea of a wiki is that is should be as open as possible. IRC can be a tool for quickly getting advice or floating ideas, like, "hey, does anyone remember where the discussion on using XYZ as a source was?" or "do we have an article somewhere that talks about XYZ?" There's nothing in the world wrong with that. As for actually planning controversial actions? I go back to my answer to Jeff. It's best to err on the side of respecting the individual contributor and have the open and honest discussion. --BigDT 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

9a. If you do and/or plan to use IRC what is your opinion of what constitutes an ethical or unethical usage of IRC or other off-wiki communication. Is there a particular reason why use IRC instead of publicly visible WP:ANI or other onwiki boards? Thanks you.

I believe that I have mostly addressed this issue above. I would be careful, though, in talking about "ethical" or "unethical" communication. This isn't a question of ethics - it's one of respect and openness, both of which are important. --BigDT 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

10 Administrators are very much involved in hot editors' related issues, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations (unlike 3RR) and require case by case approach (such as DR or Fairuse policies). Do you agree that the better understanding of editor's concerns require administrator's continuous involvement in content writing? I can't help but notice that your involvement to the content writing is so far insignificant and more often than not acceding to adminship further reduces user's involvement in content writing. Do you plan to reverse this trend and be continually involved in writing? To what extent? Do you plan to write or significantly contribute towards WP having more featured article. Some have suggested that 1 FA per year is a good vaccine against Wikipedia:Adminitis. Please opine. Thank you.

I wasn't really going to reply with respect to this issue. I'm not one for campaigning for !votes or trying to change people's minds simply for the reason that if what I have done and continue to do for Wikipedia does not speak for itself, I should not be selected. But since you have directly asked the question, I'll go ahead and answer it. I do not believe that I have had a "trend" of being uninvolved in writing. I spend some time patrolling Special:Unusedimages. When any kind of image is tagged for deletion, there is a pro forma requirement that the uploader be notified. Thus, if I tag eleventy billion orphaned fair use images for deletion in rapid succession, I'm going to have eleventy billion user space edits. (The image space edits, of course, are deleted.) I took a look at my last 500 userspace edits [1] and virtually all are simply pro forma notifications of now-deleted images or are test warnings from reverting vandalism. On the other hand, when editing an article other than to revert vandalism, you can spend an hour for one edit. That one edit was more work than tagging 100 orphaned fair use images for deletion, but the edit count is going to show 100 edits to user space and 1 to article space. I created Virginia Tech Hokies, 2006 Virginia Tech Hokies football team, Virginia Tech campus, List of NCAA college football rivalry games, and a few other Virginia Tech articles. Am I the best or most active writer there is? No ... but I do try to contribute in the areas that I know - college football and, to a lesser degree, Scouting and theology. I'm going to continue contributing in these areas, one way or another. The issue, in my mind, at RFA is do you trust me with the tools. If you do, that's great - if not, then I thank you for your consideration. --BigDT 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See BigDT's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. Mangojuice^talk 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes. --Doc^g 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support --Majorly (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - despite the fact he's a VT guy... ;) I give him props for being nominated by someone else, as well as working on article drafts in his user-space rather than subject us to poor-quality starter articles. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Good answer to #3 about having a short memory. -- Renesis (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support looks excellent.-- danntm ^T _C 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I don't see any problems with this admin candidate. (aeropagitica) 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
9. BigSUP ~ Editors knowledgeable about copyright is about the scarcest resource we have. I also looked at the mainspace edits and found them sufficient. I wouldn't support promotion based on them, but given that BigDT focuses on an area with much bigger need they're sufficient. trialsanderrors 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support But I normally expect at least 5000 edits a day from an RfA candidate. *ahem* or not. –Llama man^{sign here} 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. I could have sworn you just passed RfA about a month ago. I can't say I share the opinion that people contribute to articles a lot, which anyone who has seen my edit count knows. I could get into a debate about it, but I won't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per nom. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Knowledgeable in policy, and had me fooled. I thought he was an admin already. Great answers to the questions. — CharlotteWebb 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - I've seen this editor all over the place. Give this user the mop, since he already has the bucket! Yuser31415 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. I'm convinced - the nominee needs the tools and will use them as they're meant to be. Seems to be level headed and thoughtful to boot. I was particularly impressed by the candidate's patience and foresight, as demonstrated by the way the nominee declined the previous nomination. Agent 86 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Yes I see him at RPP almost everyday, and we need more admins. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 06:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Jesus Christ. Even though the percentage of mainspace edits is low, he stil has over 1,700 mainspace edits. Lay off, we need more admins. Seems eminently qualified to me. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Weak support. I'd like to see more mainspace edits, but from what I see you should have no problems as an admin. --Wizardman 07:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
19. OK, dude. You've gotta be kidding me. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
20. "I thought he was one already"™ Eluchil404 09:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support I'm really not convinced by the opposing arguments. Nothing indicates that this user would be less than a fine, trustworthy admin.--Húsönd 14:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support This editor has "only" 1,777 mainspace edits out of a total of over 12,000. A high proportion of the rest are useful edits in WP:NAMESPACE. I suggest to oppose voters that if he had made less namespace edits they would have had no problem with him, which on close inspection does not make sense. If he is contributing to mainspace and at the same time contributing more than most to namespace he should be welcomed with open arms. What do you want - blood?--Anthony.bradbury 14:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Terence Ong 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. Concur with Anthony Bradbury that 1700 main-space edits are hardly insignificant. He appears to have all-around experience in all aspects of the project. Finally, BigDT's views on the userbox war are heartening. A willingness to forgive, forget, and move on is essential in a collaborative enterprise such as this. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. I seem to recall I got my admin bit when I only had about a thousand mainspace edits. Also, a quick review of his last five hundred Wikipedia-space edits reveals that he is very actively participating in nominating unlicensed images for deletion, and also working on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Both tasks lead very directly into work which requires admin tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong Support Marvelous editor, friendly demeanor, absolutely trustworthy, clear asset to the project. Xoloz 16:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per all. --tennisman sign here! 17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, opposition is baseless. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Having a low ratio of mainspace edits would only be a serious concern if the overall edit count was low. It's not. Pascal.Tesson 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support-Per Pascal.Tesson. Also, what does the writing quality of his article have to do with adminship? Adminship doesn't require writing articles. Most someone be a good writing to protect a page, block a user, or delete an image? --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 19:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support I thought he was already an admin. That just goes to show the respect and proper manner of behavior he has. --MECU≈talk 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support, would make a good admin, whether he's good at writing or not. The oppose reasoning is silly- everyone has an edit button, it's people who don't just edit articles that we need to be admins. --Rory096 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support - qualified candidate, good contributions and answers, interested in areas where we need more admin attention. As ever, this does not mean that I agree with every word the candidate ever wrote, or in this case with every image call the candidate ever made. Newyorkbrad 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support, good bloke. I was going to nominate him myself once I'd checked his contribs, but the work's been done for me. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Like JzG, I was considering nominating this user myself. Will make a great admin. It would be a benefit to the project for this user to have the tools. Jkelly 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Good answer to #5. Just H 22:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support I see no major problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support, and urge others not to focus on editcountitis or a couple mistakes. Demonstrates a good understanding of knowledge needed by an admin, excellent answers to standard and optional questions. Seraphimblade 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. I see no problems here and want to counter balance those who oppose on the basis of a reasoned difference of opinion on fair use, where I believe BigDT was correct. --Bduke 01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Further Comment. I am very concerned at the way this was is going to fail to get up. He has "1,777 mainspace edits out of a total of over 12,000". People can get appointed as admins with 3000 - 4000 edits. 1,777 out of that would be considered a good proportion. As the candidate says, his relatively large number of edits in talk space is informing users about deletion of images. Please, some of you who are opposing, please rethink your objections. You are making adminship too big a deal and we will lose a good one here, plus possibly others who may decide on the basis of this debate to not be nominated. --Bduke 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

40. Support, per Eluchil404. --Oden 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
41. crz crztalk 02:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. There are many, many things an admin can do that a regular editor can't, and we have a very limited number of admins. He's a good editor; he's done enough article editing to fully understand what that involves; and he likes to work on things that admins can do even better than regular editors. Let's give him a mop. John Broughton | Talk 03:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong Support - glad to see someone not afraid to jump into taking care of image problems --T-rex 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Copyright is important. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support he looks fine to me. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 09:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support per nom. --Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support per nom and almost perfect edit summary usage. --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
49. It's absurd to oppose a user because he isn't the world's best article writer. We need more admins, and BigDT is highly capable of handling admin tasks. RFA never was and never will be about determining how good of an article writer someone is; I do believe WP:FAC is the appropriate place for that. --Cyde Weys 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Support and I think it's shameful that the community hasn't clearly admonished the folks participating in this RfA who have used words like 'trivial' and 'insignificant' to characterize the nature of the candidates confusion. Not everybody is Picasso, some of us need to mix paints and build canvasses too. - -CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support: he's volunteering to do some badly-needed work on some big backlogs, and I see no warnings that he would misuse the tools. moink 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Derex 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
53. JorcogaYell! 07:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support I have seen RfA noms short down in flames for not needing the mop tools - here we have a user that could do a lot of good with them, yet people oppose him because of lack of mainspace edits. Well not every Admin can be perfect - and IMHO BigDT having mop will be better for Wikipedia than him not. Cheers Lethaniol 12:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. Lack of actual encyclopedia writing is a fair concern, but I think his merits carried out "behind the curtains" outweigh this. BigDT does well with what he does and in all my interactions with him I have found him to be reasonable. The tasks he wants to do will be enhanced by giving him adminship. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. An excellent and detailed knowledge of the rules will make this editor a good administrator. The lack of mainspace edits is regrettable, but considering the nature of his other edits, should be no impediment to adminship. Coemgenus 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Support. Good temperament for an admin -- will do well. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Tepid support. I've seen plenty of well-considered contributions from BigDT. I applaud his courage in attacking FU abuse before getting mopped, given the frequently unjustified complaints this necessary work generates. None the less, I'd have liked to see a bit more variety, so lukewarm only. It would be singularly unfair, and unwise, to oppose someone only on the basis of badly thought-out support votes, although I have to say I was tempted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Support - some opposers are complaining about BigDT's number of usertalk edits when this is a direct result of following procedure. Not all admins will act in all areas, but this one does well in his chosen field. -- nae'blis 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Support, no problems here. --Tone 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Support, I think BigDT is ready. He knows how to balance the needs of wiki with the needs of editors and articles. He's a fine choice at this time with all the image flux going on. I am confident he, as any admin should, exercise his admin role where appropriate.Rlevse 23:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
62. Support, BigDT is very good at his chosen area, admins specialize, just like the rest of us, but do suggest he do more article writing.Sumoeagle179 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
63. Support as per trialsanderrors Bwithh 04:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
64. Support per nom. —xyzzy_n 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
65. I find the opposition unconvincing. Wikipedia can always use another gnome. >Radiant< 10:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
66. Support Joe I 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Support waaay active in image patrol ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Support per nom. I have had nothing but good experiences with this editor. VegaDark 09:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
69. Support good editor, in particular I like his judgment on afds. The oppose votes don't sway me at all. If anything the user should be commended for his work on issues such as copyright/fair use due to the fact that working on such issues requires a refinied knowledge of them.--Jersey Devil 20:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Support copyright issues, fair use, images, anyone working hard with success and endeavour deserves the mop. The Rambling Man 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
71. Support I think the candidate is ready for adminship. Dionyseus 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
72. Support per Rambling Man. Just promise to WP:AGF with images. :) Patstuart^talk|edits 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
73. Support as I think BigDT will do a good job based on comments here and actions elsewhere on the site. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
74. Support. This user clearly makes a valuable contribution to the project. Not only those who write FAs from scratch have value. If a contributor's skills suit him/her to contributing other than in the mainspace, or on making small changes to many articles, they should be encouraged to do so. Why waste a really good article writer by passing them the mop and distracting them from editing? A user with wide experience of Wikipedia and a demonstrated knowledge of policy is clearly a good choice for an admin. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
75. Support. A solid contributer, whose contribution to the project will be expanded by access to the tools. Bucketsofg 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
76. Weak support For various (principally image-related reasons), I was ambivalent about this nom, but I have become wholly confident that the candidate is possessed of a sound sense of judgment and a tempered and civil demeanor and that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that one should be able to conclude to a reasonable degree of certainty that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive. Whilst one's being unfamiliar with mainspace might render him ill-suited for adminship, BigDT surely is familiar with article work and understands the policies underlying same, and so I would not be particularly concerned were he never to make a substantive edit again; work qua admin, though perhaps on the whole less productive than work qua editor, is better than no work at all (and its completion, of course, frees up other users to edit). Joe 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
77. Support. Understands policies, will not abuse the admin tools. feydey 09:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
78. Support, will make a decent admin. Kusma (討論) 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
79. Support this is a user who needs the tools. I changed from Neutral because after further thought I decided that BigDT's lack of mainspace contributions is negligible compared to the good he will do with a mop. The mop doesn't help with writing articles and if image deletion is his primary task I (now) have no reservations in supporting him. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
80. Support Lack of mainspace is a valid concern, but on balance a good candidate.--Kchase T 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
81. Support seems a responsible candidate, and it takes all types. NoSeptember 18:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
82. Support as per Feydey. --Allen3 ^talk 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Too much emphasis on policing and too little on content writing. Continuous engagement in content writing is the only way to not ensure the editor does not fall the prey of Wikipedia:Adminitis. Candidate has recently demonstrated a flawed understanding of the image policies by submitting for deletion many images permissible under the policies. --Irpen 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

   Provide diffs? — Nearly Headless Nick 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think he's talking about this deletion debate. Frankly, I think Irpen's going a little far in calling his understanding flawed -- BigDT's points there are well-argued from policy, and while Irpen's are also, that doesn't mean someone's understanding is flawed, they just don't agree. Mangojuice^talk 15:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   I agree. It was a rather complicated situation. Many of the users had made nothing but WP:ILIKEIT arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose, per Irpen. Argyriou (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Irpen. His role here is to try to fight the fair use of an image which is clearly unique and important to illustrate a point in the article. IMO he should be more tolerant and flexible, and should suggest ways to properly justify the use the image, leaning towards the utility of WP as a useful source of information to its readers, rather than to be a strict and restrictive policeman. Crum375 02:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Um... do you understand that using images which are not fair use is not only bad, it's against the law? If anything, he should be applauded for trying to prevent lawsuits. And if he's wrong (which I do not believe he is), since when did we expect admins to always be right? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Please do not confuse the fairuse with theft. Fairuse provision is firmly engrained in the US copyright law and is specifically allowed, if not used as a frivolous excuse, per Wikipedia's Fairuse policy which is btw much stricter than the law. And we would like admins to do things right, that's correct. Most importantly, we want admins not detached from the rest of the community. When most editors edit content and some admins mostly police them and don't write themselves, this creates a dangerous divide. --Irpen 02:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   I certainly don't want to break the law, nor do I expect anyone to always be right. The issue is more of attitude and latitude. Scanning his contribs shows a lack of actual article writing vs. a lot of policing. I feel that an admin should have first hand knowledge and experience in the frustration of actually writing a good article, obtaining good sources and good images, etc. Then such an editor would have a better appreciation and understanding of the users he 'polices'. It's all a matter of balance - I support deletion of copy-vio and improper images myself - but having gone through many hoops to get images which are so critical to illustrate an article, I would want my policeman to share my perspective. Crum375 02:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   While I disagree with that in the strongest sense, an individual RfA isn't the place to argue it, so I won't. I was under the impression that a large reason for your opposition was arguing that that particular picture is not fair use. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   My opposition (at this time) is based on his contrib pattern. This is one example that I myself encountered (although I did not participate in the IfD). I want admins who have written and are writing good articles, as a significant part of their activities, as that would make them appreciate and understand the editors they are policing. Crum375 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   By the way, note that DRV overturned/will overturn the closure of that particular IfD, and delete the picture. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Amarkov, I think you are missing my point. The issue is his attitude. If he knows so much about WP:FU intricacies, since this image is clearly useful for the article in question, instead of vigorously fighting it and pushing for its deletion, he should use his knowledge to advise the proponents what needs to be done to retain it. We all win when WP is better illustrated, the trick is not to blindly say no, but to find out how we can legally get images in. It's the difference between being a cop and a friendly advisor. Crum375 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm well aware that isn't your point; you've said that already. I'm simply noting that he's right, for anyone who does happen to care about that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I might point out that no one less than User:Jimbo Wales sided with BigDT2 on this issue:[2]. If we disallow him adminship based on this, then perhaps Jimbo should be desyssopping any of us. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose I really want to support as he is a very good fair use fighter who needs the tools but I agree with Irpen and Chacor, lack of mainspace edits and article writing makes me oppose :( Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Irpen, Jarande and Crum375 Alex Bakharev 07:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose regretfully, as Jaranda. BigDT has done excellent work, but writing experience is vital in providing perspective and grounding (and, perhaps most importantly, something to focus on in times of frustration). --Robth^Talk 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - per Irpen, Jaranda, and Robth. Lack of articles - we don't need so many more - isn't necessarily a problem but a lack of quality articles is. And the low number of mainspace edits is also a worry - half the number of projectspace edits? Seems wrong, as the encyclopedia should come first. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose: Every portion of the project that we do not near is a portion we lose expertise on, and, while we can always use helpful and dedicated people to manage the image uploads and usages, I think that too narrow an interest hobbles an administrator considerably. Given exposure only to bad people, one can come to think that everyone is bad. This is the danger of the policeman, and I am concerned that we are now suffering from too much fear. Oppose for the focus being a bit too exclusive. Geogre 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Regretful Oppose Irpen is right. BigDT, although I know you are incredibly active in wikispace, you need more hands-on encyclopedia edits. I suggest you focus more on Wikipedia itself than getting tied up in wikispace. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose sorry, to some extent you're getting caught in a swing of the pendulum. But you have more than twice as many user talk edits as mainspace edits. Admins should have substantive experience in article writing. Opabinia regalis 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose, regretfully. I commend this user for his level-headed attitude and for his work against copyright violations, and yet I do not see enough non-trivial content contributions to support. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. I share Geogre's and Irpen's sentiment (though I may agree with BigDT's strict interpretation of the fair use policy). — mark ✎ 16:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Mark. At this time, I don't see the user as quite ready. In addition to the encyclopedia-building concerns voiced above, I do worry about the overly laid-back answer to question 5, about bios being edited by their subjects. The question addresses a serious problem in my experience, and not one to be dealt with just like "anything else". Compare the by contrast quite specific policies linked—taking those policy concerns seriously is not "a solution looking for a problem". As for checking subject-editing of bios for "unsourced negative statements", I hope and trust it's just a typo, and that the candidate meant to show awareness of the danger of unsourced, or unduly weighted, positive statements. Bishonen | talk 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
13. Oppose per Geogre. Proto::► 10:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Too many people are being elected as admins who don't involve themselves in writing articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Geogre and SlimVirgin. Beit Or 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Irpen. —dima/s-ko/ 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I'd like to see more edits in the mainspace. Sorry, Khoikhoi 04:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Mark and Irpen. Giano 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose - to much emphasis on fair use policing not enough on actually building the encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

    Mm, isn't that is unfair Matthew; especially when your recent RfA failed because of your lack of knowledge of fair use policies? The picture in question is a direct rip-off from a competing encyclopedia. There is bound to be disagreement there. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, and in view of the fact that Jimbo Wales thinks so as well: [[3]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patstuart (talk • contribs)

    Please don't start invoking Jimbo. He's said himself that it's not proper. TheQuandry 17:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose per an appaling lack of content contribs. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose per other comments regarding encyclopedia contributions. --Dweller 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Irpen, Jaranda and Bishonen. I think the editor MAY make a good admin some day, but needs to concentrate more on mainspace edits and contributing information, less on the additional stuff. I do find that his stance on IRC and secret decisions made behind-the-scenes is definitely heartening. Work on adding more content and come back later. TheQuandry 17:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. When your wikispace edits are almost double mainspace edits, it's a bit concerning that, per Irpen, there isn't enough focus on the encyclopedia itself. Added that your mainspace edits make up only about 10% of your total, it's hard for me to support. I look for someone well-rounded, and would personally prefer around 25% in mainspace. – Chacor 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral - per Chacor. But otherwise, nearly a support for other qualities. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral I see no harm in making this user an admin but more encyclopedic work is desirable hence neutral. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to Support James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral per Chacor. Like to see a little more hands-on building of encyclopedia. IronDuke 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I have seen many examples of BigDT's activities, and he has much to commend him, so I would like to support. However, I agree with those who note his lack of building of the encyclopedia. If this RfA succeeds, I hope that he will not let his admin work stop him from making mainspace edits.--Runcorn 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral - Per James086. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I remember asking him a question but I don't remember getting a satisfied or let alone a response. I'dd keep an eye out! --CyclePat 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   Could you clarify what your question was or when/where you asked it? I apologize if I missed your question. I looked briefly at your contributions and you have never left a message on my talk page and nothing jumped out at me in your contributions to talk namespaces or to the Wikipedia namespace where we would have come into contact. --BigDT 06:37, 10 January 2007 (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.