Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff 2

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

badlydrawnjeff

Final: (85/57/12) Ended 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination, my first one can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff, which was a borderline failure approximately 9 months ago. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ~~Accept as self-nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)~~ - Withdrawing, see talk page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An optional statement goes here, but this isn't optional, because this is unorthodox and perhaps another test case for possible RfA reform. As always, the expectation is to view this on its full merits.

We have backlog problems, especially at CAT:SPEEDY and CAT:PROD, which are way backed up, sometimes to three or more days. Uncontroversial (and complex) merges take a long time to process through, which can be very frustrating. I want to help with backlogs, but I know full well many of you do not trust me at this point to use the tools properly, due to either past associations or due to the fact that I don't hold back in policy discussions. I am inclusionist by nature, and certainly the most vocal about it, and I care too much about consensus to easily give up on a discussion. I'm also very fond of due process, and believe that there's a lot of issues that should be solved by proper discussion. These issues frustrate a lot of people, and perhaps rightfully so - I don't edit with adminship in mind, and I'm here to build the best encyclopedia possible. That's all I'm concerned with at this point, after editing for two plus years.

So this is a request for limited adminship.

I will have access to all the tools. However, the only tools I will be using are the following:

Deletion: To kill the backlogs in speedy and prod, and to make way for those somewhat annoying moves that require it.
Page moves: Those that require history merges and stuff, hand-in-hand with above.
Protection: Page protection issues that I am not involved with.
Undeletion: For challenged prods. For undeletions of uncontroversial speedy deletions with discussion with the other deleting administrators - if it becomes controversial, I reverse myself, it's not worth warring over and that's a job for deletion review.
History undeletions upon request for DRV discussions.

That's it. I don't have a desire or want of the tools for anything else, and will not use them. I will not be closing AfDs or DRVs. I will not be making blocks at 3RR, or for anything else. Just those four uses.

But Jeff, I don't trust you in the least? Why should I think you won't start going nuts?

Answer? You don't. And, frankly, who does? Who thought User:Robdurbar would go on his spree this week? So it's a simple fix on this:

I will add myself to Category:Administrators open to recall immediately following promotion if it occurs.
- If I use the tools in a way that I haven't outlined above, if one person in good standing (been around for a while, 500 edits, whatever, I'm flexible) decides it's an issue, I resign. Immediately. No questions asked.
- If I use the tools outlined above improperly, if one person in good standing notes as much and I refuse to reverse my decision, I will resign immediately, or any other user (perhaps a pre-set clerk) can put in the request for me. This will assure everyone that I'm entirely accountable, and have no interest in going rogue.
- I'll still be open to recall for any other reason not noted here, but the suffrage requirements and co-signers will be different (perhaps 6 editors with suffrage, etc).

But Jeff, what if you decide you want to close AfDs or expand your power?

Answer? I come back to RfA. I'll run through the whole process again to gain the use of the tools I'm voluntarily relinquishing here, and, more importantly, make sure I have the trust of the community to get those tools and use them in that way.

So yes, this is unorthodox. I can't stop people from opposing me for the same reasons they may have otherwise, I can't stop people from opposing because they don't like the idea of limited adminship. But you know me - you know the quality of my work, you know that I'm trustworthy and dedicated, and, most of all, you know I'm consistent: I don't mess around, and I'm not going to say one thing and do another. It's not my nature.

I'm hoping you guys can approve this. I understand if you can't, but I think it's worth a shot for the sake of the project. I'm open to answering all and any questions you have, so please don't hesitate to ask. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer a few optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: As detailed above - no more, no less. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I've created between 200-300 articles. Of these, 3 are good articles, and two are featured - Kroger Babb and The Turk. I had a lot of help on both, of course, but I'm proud of the featured work the most - The Turk has been complimented by many as one of our better and more interesting FAs, and Kroger Babb is the most comprehensive resource on the man on the internet, and perhaps the world (until I finish my book, at least).

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: More than I could possibly note here. Sometimes I handle it poorly (Hi, Sam Blanning!), sometimes I handle it well (Hi, JzG!). I don't forsee my conflicts in the past interfering with my limited use of the tools, and if they did, I would expect that I would be removed from the position of power quickly.

Optional questions

4. If you are promoted, what do you expect to find when looking through CAT:CSD? Are you familiar with the normal balance of CAT:CSD between speedy reasons? (What I'm getting at: are you aware of the relative speeds with which different speedy criteria leave CAT:CSD, and which ones tend to stay behind and add to the backlog?) What proportion of articles that stay in CAT:CSD for, say, 10 minutes or so should actually be deleted, in your opinion? --ais523 15:03, 20 April 2007 (U T C)

A: I've been spending a great deal of time at CSD over the last month, so I do have more experience there than I let on at times. I know that I'll need to get more experience in images if I want to help with that backlog, but I also know that there seems to be a lot of hesitation on ones that may not fit. I don't especially care about getting flack in either direction, and I've already shown in a few recent ones I've noted that I'm not afraid to bump to AfD or prod on ones that don't fit a criteria or are deleted.
Really, I think that the amount of time an article spends on CSD isn't really relevant if the idea is to clear them all out, so I forsee myself just opening the category and getting to work. If it's really tight, I'll get a second opinion or just bump it to another forum - there's no harm in that.

5. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule? --bainer (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. IAR doesn't exist in my wiki-verse. I see no instances where I'd need to worry about it in my limited usage.

6. Congratulations on your marriage near the beginning this month. Do you think that your engagement and marriage has changed your outlook on things, such as how you now approach things on Wikipedia compared to before your engagement and marriage? -- Jreferee 18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Thanks! Honestly, not really. I started editing here before I got engaged, and living with someone who understands that Wikipedia is a fun hobby for me makes time management easier and makes it less of an addiction and more of a hobby. If anything, a lot of my experiences here have changed how I would normally approach real life situations with her and other people - the assumption of good faith, etc. So I know that doesn't answer your question the way you may have been expecting, but a good question nonetheless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. What do you feel about Wikipedia:Process is Important. How important is process in your view of Wikipedia? DES ^(talk) 21:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. The second question first, very important. It legitimizes results, it reduces confusion, and it minimizes conflict. Look back at all the major conflicts we've had in the past - most of them can be traced back to people acting unilaterally or without full/true consensus. This de facto makes it important, even if the page that exists won't ever move beyond essay standing. A lot of people don't like process - I don't get it, but I understand it and I think they're really, wildly wrong. I can't see that changing, and I'd be dishonest in an attempt to pander if I said anything different. The "rules" and processes exist for a reason: the community wants them there as a standard to work from, and if the community didn't want them there, we wouldn't have them. It really all comes back to consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. When you put WP:SNOW up for deletion [1] you stated that if it was kept "no one will hear me bitch about WP:SNOW again". The discussion had 17 people pushing for keep, and no one but you pushing to delete it. Obviously it was kept. Since then you have edited the page another 25 times and as far as I can tell every edit of yours to the page has been reverted. You have also made 193 talk page edits since your MFD which is twice what the next highest person (Tony Sidaway, with 99) has made. Although 90 people have commented on the talk since then, you alone account for almost 20% of the talk page edits. It appears clear to me that you have a strong position about the page which is not held by the community at large. Why did your position change since you offered to stop bitching if it was kept? Do you think your practice of making a large number of objections on a page opposed by almost no one but you is beneficial? Do you think it's useful to continue to make edits which a reasonable person would not expect the standing consensus to support? Thanks.--Gmaxwell 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. That was a statement I probably shouldn't have made, and meant to retract before the end of the MfD and overlooked. My position changed abruptly when someone, I can't recall who, decided it was good to snowball the MfD, which was one of the single rudest things I ever encountered. To continue your questioning, in some cases, yes - making sure that arguments are heard and the "silent consensus" that seems to exist is protested is important, especially in areas where the situation are actively dangerous to the project. I don't do it all the time - I've not bothered with Wikipedia:Overcategorization once the consensus was made clear, for example - but when you're talking fundamental issues, yeah, it's useful and beneficial to make sure that such silence isn't construed as acceptance. And I know it rubs people the wrong way, but I think a strong stand is necessary, and more people are going to respect principles over anything else. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the polite response. A quick follow up question: Do you think the MFD I linked to was closed incorrectly? You mention it being wp:snowed... --Gmaxwell 06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was snowed early on, I forget by who. Someone was good enough to re-open it, though. I can't disagree with the eventual outcome, consensus is what consensus is. I still wish it was deleted, and I think deleting it would have avoided a lot of problems that eventually cropped up in the future (which I saw coming from a mile away), but I'm only one person. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9: Why a "limited adminship"? This concept you've introduced above has confused several people, possibly due to its voluntary nature. I mean, yes, the arbitration committee could explicitly "limit" somebody's adminship (as an alternative to removing it) in cases of misconduct in a small isolated area, assuming user would, by remaining an admin, be an overall benefit to the project. But I don't think "limited adminship" has ever suggested as a remedy for previous conduct as a non-admin. So, once again, why a "limited adminship"? Possibly, you sense that a number of people would not trust you for "full adminship". But most of them would also realize there is no software feature for "limited adminship", just as there is no technical feature for "limited editorship" (banning a user from a specific page), but we still do it all the time. Either way it all boils down to trust. If you feel that you have enough will power to stay within the lines you've set for yourself, surely you would also trust yourself to responsibly perform tasks outside those lines, whether or not lines even exist. Why should they exist? What circumstances would justify a probationary status like this, even if it is self-imposed? If this passes do you plan to, as a formality, seek "full adminship" with another RFA at a later date, maybe 2-3 months in the future? — CharlotteWebb 06:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. For a few reasons. Most notably, I know my positions on inclusion make people uncomfortable. I still don't get the opposition based on my positions on policy (I don't think many people understand policy as well as I do, and I'd love to see some examples about it), but I can understand when people say my positions on inclusion aren't necessarily in the mainstream. I certainly don't advocate keeping articles outside of our guideline/policy areas except in very few circumstances, but I know I can't please everyone and that people think I'll go nuts. But it leads me to the other reason - I don't really have an interest in that sort of thing anyway. I see more than enough complaining about the backlogs and not enough administrative help to clear them, and I know I'm qualified and trustworthy to deal with them. So it's a gentleman's agreement of sorts - you let me help you clear the backlogs, I'll stay away from the areas you're probably uncomfortable with.
Do I trust myself to handle any and all administrative tasks? Absolutely. But let's be realistic - people are still unfairly holding an association I divested myself from a year ago against me, and others have an unfair perception of me that may not even be based in reality. So I make a deal, and hope it works. Maybe it won't, but to help the project, it's worth a try. So, if this does pass, is there a point in time I may come back and say "I want to help do X?" Sure, but I don't know when, and I don't know if ever, but I'm not going to close the door to it. As early as a week ago, I was telling people I wasn't interested in adminship, so my positions do change based on what happens. I hope this answers it well enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10.

I have a few concerns about this "gentleman's agreement". The first is, that to most users, an admin is an admin, and administrators, especially ones that people know or are involved in a particular project are asked to do more than just cleanup--basically it isn't as simple as it sounds. Administrators do go out and work proactivly, but are also asked to do things and drawn into things and you would be in the position of constantly having to send people somewhere else, because you don't do that. Have you thought about this aspect of the issue?

My second concern is the "one editor in good standing". I don't know how good standing will eventually be defined because it wasn't here, but we're talking about numerical good standing. It's possible to be in good standing and think that an admin made a mistake when then didn't. In fact, it's probable. It's possible to be in good standing and be completely off your rocker. Either you are trusted as an administrator, or you aren't. Letting "one editor" say that you made a mistake, and you either must change it or resign is ridiculous. If you don't think that you made a mistake, then you resign? Disagreeing with an editor is not the same as being drunk with power. Is there no other way for you to set yourself up to be honest, to set yourself up for recall without setting yourself up for the shortest adminship of a lifetime? Miss Mondegreen | Talk 06:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/badlydrawnjeff before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Support - a fine user. I have every confidence he will make a fine admin, I trust him and trust he would not abuse admin tools. Matthew 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not always agree with Jeff, but I am convinced that he can be trusted with the admin tools. Kusma (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support For what he intends to do - yes, definitely, but be sure to keep your promise though :) Majorly (hot!) 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ! ! --- RockMFR 15:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't care how unenforceable this is. badlydrawnjeff can be trusted, and if he were to go back on his word and close an afd as his first action, I wouldn't care in the least. Though, I think others might want to clarify if they would support such actions. --- RockMFR 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how unenforceable it is, either. Hell, Friday was someone who is a person I probably would ask to make it enforceable - someone I rarely agree with but trust to keep me in check. It's up to individual people as to whether they trust me to keep my word regardless of other issues - if I haven't demonstrated that I'm honest, even if I'm frustrating, that's a problem on my end. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Majorly. Why not. I wonder what Elara would say. I don't agree with your interpretation of CAT:AOR, but oh well. – Riana ^ऋ 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I often find myself disagreeing with his interpretations and opinions on AfD and DRV discussions but I've found them to be well articulated and generally based on policy - even when I interpret the policy in another way. Excellent contributor. No reason to suspect he'd misue the tools. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- based on my own limited experience with him, other's reccomendations above, and a look through his contributions. Love the user name, as an added bonus. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish carefulish support I have full confidence that Jeff would never try to harm the project. I also am very much inclined to believe that he'll abide by his word. Some might think that as a deletionist-leaning editor, I should perhaps be not so thrilled at the thought of giving admin tools to the self-proclaimed vile dark lord of inclusionism (hope I'm getting this right). However, I trust Jeff despite our differences and I do find him to be responsible if sometimes too insistent. This tendency to be too argumentative is really what prevents me from giving him a fuller support. Pascal.Tesson 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Jeff sometimes strongly disagrees with me (I think he called my DRV close "moronic" or something last week at DRV talk -- in good humor, of course), but I have absolutely no doubt of his dedication to the project, his skill, and his sense of honor. He's been here long enough to know when his own interpretation of policy is outside of mainstream -- his self-limiting use of the tools will work because he's smart enough to make it work. Frankly, he deserved adminship last time. Even within his self-limits, Jeff's incredible energy will help us clear backlogs immediately. He is an important asset to Wikipedia, and adminship will allow him to contribute usefully in ways where help is sorely needed. Xoloz 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know that some have had problems, but I've never had a real problem. He says he won't use some of the tools, but we can trust him with the other ones.--Wizardman 15:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Will do more good than harm. Haukur 16:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I rather often vehemently disagree with Jeff on deletion issues, but in all respects he's an honorable editor who makes excellent contributions, and there's no reason to suspect he would ever abuse or misuse the mop and bucket. FCYTravis 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basically, if User:Robdurbar thought it was worth his trouble to block you, you're a de facto admin already. You had some good company up there. :) YechielMan 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, I didn't even catch that I was on his hitlist. Wow, talk about the odd man out on that list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can thank User:Riana for unblocking you. After actually reading the nomination statement, my own opinion is that conditional adminship is not a good general policy, but for an editor who has been around as long as you have, and contributed so much, I'm willing to allow it. (Just to be clear: I would rather give you adminship unconditionally.) YechielMan 16:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He blocked you before he blocked Jimbo. That has to mean something ... -- Black Falcon 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think there's any question that Jeff is dedicated to the project and has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. He's quite capable of respecting the difference between a) disagreeing with policy or consensus (and occasionally acting against it), and b) acting against policy or consensus using the admin tools.--ragesoss 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...tricky, but I'm going to have to vote Support. Although I strongly disagree with some of Jeff's policy positions, I trust him to abide by those policies which have been agreed by the community. I also agree with his stance on avoiding IAR, and respecting the wishes of the community as a whole. I would prefer if Jeff agreed to avoid using the admin tools in relation to policy pages, as he has strong opinions there, but there's no real reason to deny him "the mop". Overall I trust him. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am involved with most of them anyway... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support surprisingly enough. Despite strong policy differences and doubts about the utility of limited adminship, I trust Jeff not to abuse the tools and to be a great help in dealing with the backlogs he mentions. Also I must disagree with on of the opposers below. Jeff is argumentative, sometimes to the point of pig-headedness, but, in my experience, he is rarely rude and almost never intentionally so. Eluchil404 17:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and statement. — $PЯINGrαgђ 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Admittedly strong views, but that's no reason to deny him the tools if he can be trusted and will make good use of them. I thoroughly believe he can. the wub "?!" 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't like overdose of inclusionism, but Jeff is an experienced user who will be helpful, and can be trusted. utcursch | talk 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah I vehmently disagree with Jeff's approach to deletion issues and he does get too personally involved in discussions but then I look at his contributions and his committment to the project and I ask myself, "Do I trust Jeff to do no evil and to be honest about his mistakes". Generally I do although it must be hard for him being right all the time ;-). Based on the limited intentions indicated, I can't see any real risk and Jeff certainly will never intentionally harm the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You win comment of the day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have confidence in Jeff's ability to address the issues he mentions within the bounds of policy, and he's clearly an extremely experienced editor. JavaTenor 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per long history of article writing and helping the bewildered. Addhoc 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to delete the main page. —Cryptic 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about a short yardstick, what? :) – Riana ^ऋ 17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, though perhaps glib; "delete the main page" is really standing in for some other stuff we don't talk about that causes actual harm, instead of just being an annoyance that goes away forever after fifteen minutes. Jeff's longterm dedication to the project shows, much more clearly than the usual RFA candidate who fights vandalism for several months but otherwise keeps his head down and his mouth shut, that he won't do these things. (Nothing's certain, of course; he could be a sock of some wikipariah or other. (So could anyone else.)) I'm especially impressed that Jeff's already thought about what he'll do with his bit; candidates who claim - usually by omission, but a claim nonetheless - that they'll be involved with all aspects of adminship are either very badly mistaken or lying through their teeth, but as demonstrated below, that's what RFA voters want to hear. —Cryptic 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was joking, considering the madness a few days ago. – Riana ^ऋ 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, surprisingly. As easy as it would be for me to get in a huff and say "oppose zomg i don't like you", I'm not going to. You've caused me a lot of frustration at WT:IAR with circular arguments and whatnot, and you have a fundamental total misunderstanding about the way that Wikipedia works (or at least the way it's supposed to work). You'll likely tie yourself down unnecessarily by refusal to accept WP:IAR as a policy to be followed, and to be honest. I think the idea of one person asking you to resign is silly, since someone that's opposed you in this RfA could technically ask you to resign should it pass, and I find the idea of limited adminship a bit silly. So basically, I'm not amazingly fond of you. However, despite all that, I don't think you'll misuse the tools. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eh, not having IAR in one's wikiverse seems a bit weird to me, (Surely there's got to be some rules concerning what you're planning to do as an admin?) but i've seen several instances where speedy delete backlogs leave some nasty stuff in existance for far too long, and besides, what's the worst that could happen? Homestarmy 17:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will not misuse the tools or go rouge: his nomination essentially covers what I would like Jeff to limit himself to as an admin for me to trust him completely. Jeff's commitment to the project and the quality of his edits here demands great respect even from a chap of deletionist leanings like me. He's been around here long enough to probably cite policy chapter and verse. If Jeff wants to limit his own adminship, why not? He's not proposing it for the everyone else. So, he can be annoying. So can most people. Not the end of the world. I'm not seeing a convincing reason as to why not, so I'm going with not-a-big-deal. Moreschi ^Talk 18:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although I am anything but an inclusionist, and definitely disagree with BDJ on all manner of subjects; I truly believe he always acts with the best interests of the project at heart... and as such support his nom :) Glen 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support interested in clearing backlogs. --User 56 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Badlydrawnsupport since no one's used that term on this RfA yet. I don't think Jeff'll go nuts with the tools. I think that he should use any and all of the tools that he needs, not just those outlined at the beginning of this RfA, but let's be happy that he'll do that much. On the chance that he misuses the tools, it will only take one editor in good standing to can him. The great possibility of another good admin outweighs the slim possibility that if granted sysop rights, he will harm the encyclopedia. Thank you, and good day. WODUP 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inclusionist that will leave main page in peace. Agathoclea 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I often find myself on the opposite side of an argument from Jeff, but I am always struck by his intelligence and communication skills. Jeff certainly has a problem with being stubborn, but he would be joining into good company with the hundreds of admins (including myself, admittedly) who also suffer from that particular disposition. Like many of the opposers, I don't buy into the idea of limited adminship, either, but I find that Jeff is strong-willed rather than reckless. I think that he has the scruples to not abuse the position. A Train^talk 18:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no fear that Jeff will actually abuse the tools. I think his limited adminship idea is a nice gesture that will tie his hands too far, but whatever. More concerning is the "one user in good standing can force me to resign". So one of the 16 users below can force this RFA to be overturned? I urge you to reconsider that stance, but nevertheless you have my support, just like last time. -- nae'blis 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my expectation is that they'll never have a reason to do so. If I abuse my position, it really shouldn't matter if they oppose me or not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all my interacts with him he's seemed honest and trustworthy. --W.marsh 19:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. If he sticks to what he says, his administrative work will be less controversial than anything else he has done. -MrFizyx 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this user is well experienced and I think he made a good and honest statement overall. I also do not have any significant concern he will abuse the admin abilities. Camaron1 | Chris 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Contrib history and what I witnessed of his behaviour speak in strong favour of this candidate. —Alde Baer 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although admin tools can't really be handed out on a piecemeal basis, so the "limited use" promise is simply on the honor system, I think the candidate knows that it's unlikely, at least for a time, that an Afd closures on his part would ever be regarded as impartial. That said, I don't think Rfa's need to be about the positions a nom holds -- this editor clearly cares passionately about the encyclopedia and is, essentially, a trusted user. I like his honest self-assessment. And since it's unclear how this one will go, I'd suggest he take the criticisms offered very seriously if he succeeds. Dina 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a lot of people know, Jeff and I do disagree a lot. However, I've found in these disagreements that he is generally able to provide a rationale for his thoughts and actions, and "I disagree with his philosophy" is not a good oppose reason. I believe that he will voluntarily stick to the areas he's said he would (and even if not so, I wouldn't really be concerned), and that he will follow the rules even if he personally disagrees with them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm really astonished to see statements that Jeff is confrontational or "fundamentally untrustworthy". In my interactions with him (much of it at WT:N), we've disagreed more than once, but I don't ever recall him being confrontational, aggressive, or uncivil. In fact, a recent incident comes to mind where he was repeatedly provoked (almost baited), yet his reaction was exceptional. I'm also surprised at the opposition to the idea of "limited adminship". What's the difference between an admin who only does a certain task but doesn't state it in advance and one that does? -- Black Falcon 20:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Competent editor, who shows great perception and sound judgement. Giano 20:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see this going wrong. This is a trusted user that wants to help with the backlogs, we should by all means let him. John Reaves (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support adminship ain't a big deal. -Lapinmies 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff is a good fellow and great volunteer who, I think, would be a great help with some extra buttons to tackle some of the backlogs. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slam-dunk support Jeff knows the areas where the community as a whole doesn't want him using his tools. I'm surprised only that he is willing to run at all, knowing how many people disagree with him for reasons other than whether or not he would be trustworthy with the tools. He is no more likely to misuse or abuse his tools than many of those already admins that are opposing him, some of whom are not in accordance with Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. Has been a Wikipedia editor for over two years, and has a lot more experience in both creating content and policy than many admins. I say that he should also have one additional usage: viewing the history of deleted articles, as this changes nothing in the database. Deletion review could also use a wikignome that is willing to restore article histories during review, all current admins that are regulars have essentially declined to volunteer, a few of us citing User:Mangojuice/Slave. Regulars at deletion review know that there is material he legitimately believes doesn't belong here (though not as much as I believe doesn't belong here), and that he is much more likely to disagree with speedy deletion than XfD deletion, because he does believe in consensus. He also believes that the community is critical to building the encyclopedia, which is one of the reasons he things WP:IAR is too dangerous to use in almost all cases. GRBerry 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is no doubt the most surprising support, but I believe that Jeff is going to stay within the lines, honor the community, and take care. He will discuss rather than steamroll. I opposed, previously, on suspicion. I support, this time, with confidence. (Of course I don't know about the "limited" thing. I am voting to support for admin, not for limited admin.) Geogre 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd write that I'm not as much of an inclusionist as Jeff, but no one is as much of an inclusionist as Jeff. :-) He is very experienced, clearly believes in the fundamental principles of the Wikipedia, and when he is on the minority of an argument ... which is often, but not always ... is careful to follow process. He will not use the tools against policy or consensus. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I disagree with Jeff strongly on many issues relating to Wikipolitics, and I think he's misguidedly devoted to the idea that Wikipedia's success and future lie in process-wonkery. Nevertheless, because of Jeff's respect for rules and consensus, I have complete trust that he won't wheel-war or abuse his admin buttons in any way. Jeff's dedication to this project is deeply admirable, and I think he's likely to do a lot of good, and very little bad, with a mop and bucket. Maybe once he gets the buttons, he'll learn what IAR means. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. — MichaelLinnear 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have no doubt that Jeff would never do anything to harm the project, and maybe limited access is good for now. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I trust this user. That is really the only point. As for limited admin roles, he can use the tools for the roles he wants to. Not all admins need to do everything and of course most do not. --Bduke 00:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially for 1) demonstrating a thorough understanding of WP:IAR in widely opposing admins who use WP:IAR to override consensus to get their own way and 2) implementing the very impulse of WP:IAR by initiating this self-nomination with its unorthodox architecture, challenge to current thinking, and compassion for the views of all participating here. --Rednblu 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff's prolific work at DRV shows he understands process better than most RfA candidates. If he had have offered himself up as a "normal", "full" candidate I would have probably weakly supported; given his voluntary restrictions and the AOR thing (which I'd suggest to Jeff he tighten the criteria for, or else it'll be troll central - but his choice), count this as a strong support for the good of Wikipedia and its' backlogs. Daniel Bryant 00:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no reason here that he will abuse his tools. A few mistakes in the past, but see no reason to incriminate him for it. Will definitely help with Wikipedia's backlogs. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 01:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I would've supported this user even if they had requested full adminship, I see no problems with the user. But as this user has requested limited adminship I feel that he needs to uphold his promise even though I would've supported full adminship. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for full adminship. If he uses less, that's his choice. I've seen him countless times for a long time, though not interacted directly. Sometimes he's been a nagging pain, but the man works hard and I think he'll do a lot of necessary good work. A bit maverick, but within limits, and is maturing with age. A tad of power is more likely to add stability than the reverse. Tyrenius 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on my experience of this editor, SqueakBox 02:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, benefit of the doubt support I think user has a good heart and maybe made a few mistakes. I think they can do this maturely. Gutworth 02:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Duk 02:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GRBerry. Jeff has high standards for admin conduct, we know what they are, and I believe he will hold himself to them. Kla'quot 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per rationale set out on my user page. Edivorce 02:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, his inclusionist views are vile indeed </Elara homage> Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think Jeff understands and will respect policy. I also don't see a problem saying that he will only use some of the tools - many admins, on a de facto basis, limit themselves by simply participating in certain activities after they get the buttons. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although, like many other users on both sides of this discussion, I oppose Jeff's inclusionist tendencies, there's no reason to believe that he would abuse the administrative tools to advance his own views. If he has enough experience to use the tools and can be trusted not to abuse them, he should pass. Some of the Oppose reasons, I find flat-out bizarre. I can understand opposing a user if he says he won't follow our policies, but opposing someone because he says he will follow them? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen him around and I don't think he will be as horrifically bad as others seem to think. I trust this guy and our backlogs are ridiculous. User:Veesicle 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly experienced and knowledgeable user. Tim! 07:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have opposed badlydrawnjeff on virtually every issue I've ever encountered him on. That having been said, I think that Jeff would use the proper channels, as he has before, for protesting decisions made by other admins, rather than wheel-warring (which is to me the only reason for opposition, other than trust). I also believe that the Arbitration Committee would be more than willing to remove Jeff's adminship should he screw up; ArbCom's shown its willingness to desysop. "Limited" adminship, "full" adminship; I support them both. Why the hell not? Ral315 » 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally, I've never had a problem with Jeff, and I wish him luck. Admittedly, I never thought I'd see the day he applied for adminship, but he seems to be applying for the right reasons, so why not? – B.hotep ^u/_t• 08:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination statement Pea ceNT 09:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surprising support. Jeff is a pain in the arse (sorry, if that's a personal attack - remove it). His opinionated misunderstandings of policy and incessant process-lawyering sometimes border on trolling. I've blocked him for it in the past. However, I do trust him. Will he keep to the limmitations he's indicated? Yes, I believe he will. If he does, then the tools will not be abused. Good grief, if Jeff thinks an article needs killed - it most certainly does! --Doc^g 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quality of opposition inclines me to support. If you're hated by luminaries like Cyde and the like, you're probably doing something right. Grace Note 11:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not refer to other editors in such a negative way, Grace Note. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing negative in what I said. Please consider doing useful work instead of trolling other editors. Grace Note 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References to me as a troll and to Cyde as a luminary is considered negative. Unnecessary attacks are not tolerated. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suport - as per Majorly...--Cometstyles 11:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as strongly as possible. Everyking 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Catchpole 12:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support In my admittedly short time here, I've never found such a consistently ethical and committed person who is so dedicated to exploring how to behave forthrightly and in concurrence with the policies. In my book, even if not all of your admins are this way, you need some who are, to be part of this organic system of consensus, supermajorities and checks and balances. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. For full adminship. Stronger than Everyking's support above. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 13:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dino support. Inclusionism bad, but little user thoughtful and reflective. Wikipedia need more thought. bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Support - thoughtful and dedicated Wikipedian, zero danger of going batshit with the tools (which is of course the only question that matters) - David Gerard 16:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is probably a massive surprise, but I do trust Jeff with the tools. We need more people whom are concerned about creditability and keeping Wikipedia honest. Yanksox 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support no reason to suspect he'll abuse the tools. Is there anything more to say? The Rambling Man 17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Xoloz and GRBerry ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: After reading the oppose votes, I think that they're too speculative. Because adminship is no big deal, limited adminship would be less of a deal. So, I support. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dares to disagree openly with Jimbo. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some citations? --Gmaxwell 23:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[2] - search for "our badly drawn friend". Bramlet Abercrombie 23:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think Jeff's offering to limit his power was perhaps unnecessary, for there are no signs that he would actually abuse.it. He has taken strong rhetorical positions at times, but has done no harm, and does not interfere with consensus. There is a great difference between questioning consensus, and defying it; between ensuring that differing opinions have a chance to be heard, and opposing for the sake of it or to make a point. I think he'll be OK.DGG 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I tend to support a lot of people. Because of all your controversies, if I was a reeeeally careful RFA voter who opposed a lot of people, then I might oppose. But admins are not a "super-exclusive club", but a group of people improving Wikipedia through deletion, blocking, and protection. And you are a good editor, so I support. Virtual Cowboy 12:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Self limiting your use of tools and putting yourself in the recall cat do not carry much water with me, I think both ideas limit the usefulness of an admin. Your answers to the questions were very limited an have not convinced me that you are ready to be an admin. You seem to be saying that being open to recall is a "simple fix" for lack of community trust, I don't think it even comes close. Ryan below me also raises some very disturbing issues, the ability to edit protected pages is of the larger concern to me considering the recent edit war that was halted by protection. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry Jeff, but I really can't support a candidate who wants the tools for protections when you were involved in an edit war at WP:MUSIC last week regarding the {{pnc}} template. You first began on the 7th of April, and continued for 2 days; [3] [4] [5] [6]. I then protected the page, the minute the protection wore off, you immediately started edit warring again, [7], leading me to having to immediately re-protect the page. I'm sorry, but I can't trust someone who has edit warred so serverely on official guidlines in the recent past to have access to admin tools, with the ability to protect pages how he wants them, or edit whilst protected. Looking at your block log, it shows that this seams to have been a problem over a larger period of time. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To explain the block log, I've had a total of two actual blocks - one for "disruption on DRV" for reopening a discussion closed out of process, and one for the ensuing argument. Not my best moment, also something like 6 months ago. I can't argue with the rest, and won't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- the limited adminship idea is interesting, but unenforceable. Given his apparent "more articles are always better" belief, I can't trust that he'd use undeletion only when appropriate. His contributions to policy discussion border on disruptive at times, and his take on what policy means gives me no confidence he would use good judgment. I hadn't been aware of the edit warring but this concerns me as well. Friday (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rude, Rude, Rude. Haughty. Confrontational. And mind you, I like the guy. But I will rue the day he is made a sysop. -- Y not? 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links? Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Limited adminship has been proposed in various forms many times, and it is has generally been agreed that it's a non-starter, and particularly so in this case since it's proposed as voluntarily limited: there's simply no way to anticipate the situations that arise as an admin, so it's effectively impossible for Jeff to do what he promises above. Given that, we have to consider this a request for full adminship, and I cannot support that after Jeff's demonstration of his lack of understanding of the administrator role at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning. Chick Bowen 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't regret the RfC, for the record - I think it was a poor move, and I disagree with this person's opinion that I misunderstand the administrator role based on this issue. If someone believes that they can accurately judge consensus in 11 hours, there's a problem, plain and simple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not keen on the limited adminship, or on a self-described "notorious inclusionist" being involved as an admin in deletion issues. Jeff also seems to get very aggressive very quickly when people disagree with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (does not change the count, see below) I think badlydrawnjeff does great work and fills an important role in the community, and I believe him that he won't attempt to use the tools in a roguish fashion. Even in the absence of roguish intent, though, I believe that the widespread knowledge of his passionate (and outside-the-meanstream) stances on policy would cast a consistent shadow over the decisions he would make with the tools. Thus, regrettably, I don't see promoting jeff as a likely net gain for the project. Dekimasu よ! 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone judges actions based on a person's reputation, rather than the action's merit, then that's their problem. I fail to see how this is a reason to deny Jeff adminship. the wub "?!" 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally that would be the case, but I forsee that in practice, time that would normally be spent talking about the merits of the action, or on moving on and improving other parts of the encyclopedia, would be spent discussing the administrator. That's everyone's problem, even if the editors initiating such discussions are in the wrong. I am reluctant to call that a good thing for the encyclopedia itself. Therefore I'll continue to weakly oppose. Dekimasu よ! 05:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this candidate for many reasons, but the one I wish to mention specifically here is that in his comments above he suggests that he believes that closing deletion discussions is an admin-only task. It is not, and I will not support the promotion of any candidate who believes or suggests that it is. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you misunderstand me, Kelly, not that I can do anything right now anyway if I was to hop over to AfD and close something as delete. People are naturally afraid that someone who they believe is "out of the mainstream" on policy and ultra-inclusionist would abuse their abilities if given the power and cache that adminship provides - I'm merely stating I'm not interested in that. I figure you have roughly 10 other reasons to oppose me, but if other people feel the same way, I figure a clarification is in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Oppose Possible Fundamentally untrustworthy. As an ex-adminstrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, his access to deleted revisions is a fundamental danger. As a consumate edit warrior with goals of including weakly-primary-sourced damaging personal information about non-notable living people/wikipedia editors, totally irrelevent and unused slang terms and a few good articles, his goals are not in line with what this project was designed to be. Unstable - has announced his departure numerous times. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I don't plan on letting sit is commentary like this. One, my association with Encyclopedia Dramatica effectively ended 18 months ago, and I haven't been involved in any form in close to a year, nor do they want me back. Hipocrite is, to my knowledge, one of the few remaining people who still think I have or desire ties to a website that wants nothing to do with me. I have worked hard to put that unfortunate part of my past behind me, and I think it's clear to anyone who's able to examine my activity what project I'm allied to. Also, the idea that I have "goals of including weakly-primary-sourced damaging personal information" for anyone is blatantly false, and I reject it outright. Hipocrite and I had a dispute last summer regarding a blogger who's name ended up in a magazine. He didn't like that I a) considered the blogger notable, and b) was willing to use third party material to justify it. The eventual result was that the page was simply redirected, and I haven't bothered to pursue it since. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too confrontational; does not show comprehensive understanding of key policies. Edit warrior. I do not trust this user to use the tools wisely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too confrontational, and too much process wonking. Latest example? I nominated Saddle Butte (Wyoming) for speedy delete. This nonexistant place near Jackson, Wyoming can't be found on any map, google the place and all one gets is a subdivision, and a street. It is actually located on East Gros Ventre Butte, which in itself isn't notable. Jeff comes along nominates it for Afd and claims that "places aren't speedyable" ...really? Since when? I've written about 50 stubs and short articles about places in the region and am a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Wyoming...if the place did exist and could be referenced, I would have done something about improving it. Jeff then claims that the article has "context"...I attempted to show that the criteria for speedy deletion is valid if it has "Little or no context"...it is a one sentence article, no refs, because none correctly identify the location. Full thread. Geez...these kinds of minor incidents, stacked up on one another ad nauseum is borderline tendentious editing.--MONGO 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that Jeff is right; I think that any speedy criterion that might fit this might also be viewed as a stretch, and if there's any sort of dispute, it should be taken to AFD. Ral315 » 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could go either way, the end result was the same and what we ended up with was a delay (not a big deal in this case) of what was ultimately inevitable. In other cases, this kind of process wonkery has lead to problems.--MONGO 14:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conservative oppose. Inclusionism good, being honest about ED good, but a number of points of controversy are still being raised. Agree with Slim that adminship is a yes/no question. Possibly Dekimasu has it best when he/she says that an important role can be played without being an admin. There is a possibility that rogues will turn lawful good when imbued with trust, so I could be wrong. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but I don't like Jeff's attempt to shape Wikipedia to match his own interests, and I really don't like his answer to the IAR question. IAR is, even if you don't like it, one of the founding philosophies of Wikipedia. Finally, I have been entirely unconvinced of Jeff's ability to remain civil in the heat of a controversial discussion, as often many of his comments turn to personal, condescending attacks. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think that we all come here in policy discussions in an attempt to shape the project to our own interests. Maybe I'm wrong on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think that we come into policy discussions in order to shape the project in the best interest of the community. Wikipedia isn't a place for individuals working in their own self-interest, it's a place for community. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see that as a mutually exclusive concept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is when you have the approach of "Wikipedia as a community be damned as long as I get what I want." And, especially at the IAR talk page, that's what I've seen. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm sorry that's how you see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, trust me. I don't like opposing RfAs. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have concerns about the limited adminship concept, and the issues raised by others here. Crum375 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a concern I can address? "No" is an okay answer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that limited adminship is a way to allow candidates who are not totally trustworthy to become admins. To me even a 'limited admin' wields power, and can probably upgrade to full admin later without much fanfare. So I prefer to see adminship as an all-or-none deal - either we trust the person or we don't. We had a history of an admin offering to post confidential 'deleted' material to an attack site. You yourself were previously involved with an attack site. I personally have a problem with anyone related to an attack site, even if not currently active, and have a problem with such a person becoming admin here. Crum375 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry I can't help you more on this, then. I'd hope a review of my contribs over the last year may take care of some of those fears, but I'm sorry I won't meet your standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Jeff cares more about following rules than doing what is right, and making him an administrator would lead to inevitable wheel wars whenever someone doesn't follow Jeff's particular interpretation of the rules. As a user he is rather harmless, even with all of the spouting off about "admin abuse" and "violations of policy" — but he would not be harmless as an administrator. --Cyde Weys 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, seeing as we have a rule against wheel warring, do you really think someone whose primary flaw is his over-devotion to rules would wheel war? Do you not believe him above where he says he would back down on undeletions when opposed, and let DRV do its work? I might not believe others' "campaign promises", but from Jeff, it just sounds consistent. - GTBacchus^(talk) 23:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a perfectly stereotypical Cyde opposition. Not to mention totally fallacious. A stickler for rules breaking the no wheel war rule? Really. — $PЯINGrαgђ 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we also have a rule against edit warring. That doesn't seem to stop him. – Steel 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Jeff as the kind of guy who pays a lot of lip service to the rules, but doesn't actually think that they apply to him. As Steel359 points out, we have a rule against edit warring, yet that hasn't stopped him from edit warring (and also getting blocked for violating WP:3RR in the process). --Cyde Weys 16:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you convieniently overlook the reason for the unblocks. — $PЯINGrαgђ 23:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said - none of the blocks have ever held up, and the recent problems have had to do with protecting consensus. I know that means little to you, but it means a lot more to a lot of people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does mean a lot to me. I realize that most of the blocks didn't hold up, but what about Tom and Doc's blocks? You admited above that those two blocks were valid but now you're saying they didn't hold up? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my lack of clarity, simply attempting ham-handedly to repeat what you said. I can't bother trying to find the diffs, but at least two current administrators even saw those blocks as ridiculous, but the short timing didn't give enough opportunity to overturn them --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't trust someone who revert wars so often and shows little respect for consenus. I'm also troubled by the opposition to IAR and insistence on process for its own sake. The "limited adminship" thing doesn't help. --Minderbinder 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above (especially Cyde) and my interactions with this user. While we do agree from time to time, Jeff is too confrontational and always thinks he is right whenever someone questions his motives on his user talk page. I absolutely would not trust him with the tools, even in the capacity of limited adminship (which I have no opinion about), unless this were to change. --Core desat 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to change that. I admit when I'm wrong, so I'm sorry you feel otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose Per Cyde and others. This user has displayed a rudeness and blatant disrespect to myself, and other admins, especially when it comes to deleting pages, and at one point labeled me a "deletionist." The last thing we need is an admin who believes that there is no such thing as crap on Wikipedia. We especially do not need an admin who fails to understand how hard, annoying, and painful our work is. —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall that ever happening, honestly: I do recall paying you a bit of a compliment regarding your stance on these things, so I'm somewhat surprised. I never once, however, believed that there's "no such thing as crap" or failed to understand the occasional difficulties admins encounter. This one's coming out of left field for me, sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cyde and because of Encyclopedia Dramatica associations. I don't think that admins should be associated with such sites, even if the association is in the past. If this keeps up, we'll be having Somey from Wikipedia Review nominated as an admin. Gretab 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. Although I am quite convinced that Badlydrawnjeff is a well-meaning user, his adamant view that every piece of crap that ever came into Wikipedia should be kept is worrisome. And I am afraid that his strict view on this subject could lead to wheel wars over deletion/undeletion. Corvus cornix 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This view that jeff supports 'every piece of crap' ever added to Wikipedia is patently false and should be rebutted. Jeff has voted delete before, supported speedy deletions, and endorsed deletion review decisions. While his views may be outside of ~~the mainstream~~ many of the views shown here, to say he endorses the inclusion of everything at all times is a simple falsehood. -- nae'blis 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant change to oppose.~~ User is obviously well-meaning, but ED association is troublesome. —Alde Baer 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, do you have evidence that Jeff still has associations with ED? Or is this based on ancient history, on a Internet timeline? -- nae'blis 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to abstention for now. —Alde Baer 00:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though I have never encountered you in Wikipedia, the oppose reasons convince me not to support you due to the concerns of incivility, extremism, questionable interpretation of policy, and limited adminship theories. Captain panda 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, bordering on strong oppose. Too soon since the Blanning RfC incident. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. So wedded to policy, could never make a good admin, ever, ever, ever! RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Do I respect Jeff? Yes. Do I trust him with the tools? Absolutely not. Though I've never had a major argument with him, he's perhaps the single most contentious user I've seen in my year and a half on WP. He is at best highly opinionated (which is certainly not a crime) and at worst completely incivil. -- Kicking222 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per his numerous contributions and otherwise, it's clear that Badlydrawnjeff is dedicated to the project, but I don't trust his judgment, and don't trust him to avoid wheel warring related to undeletion (based on his interactions at WT:N, WT:IAR, etc). I'd love to see him have access to deleted revisions, since I think he's definitely trustworthy enough to not disclose sensitive information, and access to deleted revisions would increase admin accountability by assisting him in reviewing possible questionable deletions. --Interiot 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am (and I am sure many others as well are) willing to give Jeff copies of deleted material on request. For me it's not a question of trust per se, it's an issue with his fundamental approach to doing things here, which, I feel, is incompatible with the vision of the project. As an iconoclast, he performs a valuable (if exasperating) function, but as an iconoclast with admin powers... I cannot support that. But access to deleted revisions is good for the encyclopedia as it enables Jeff to question things that may well need questioning. So, Jeff, if this request fails, any time you want something, ask me and I'll get it for you unless someone else does first. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I supported last time and wish I could again, but based on some of the extreme inclusionism stuff (the Peppers debate comes to mind), I fear I cannot. I think I probably agree with your views more than I disagree with them ... and I hate A7 as it is currently implemented as much as you do - it's used by too many as a license to delete any stub and half of the stuff tagged with it is completely unrelated to the criterion. But, as others have said, being too confrontational is a big problem. With regrets and all due respect, I oppose - and this is not an endorsement of some of the above oppose !votes, some of which I strongly disagree with. --BigDT (416) 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per extensive block log [8] , incivility, edit warring, contentious comments on afds, questionable interpretation of policies, etc... I do not trust the user with the tools.--Jersey Devil 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice, keep in mind that all but two of those blocks were either made by the now-banned Robdurbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or were otherwise overturned as incorrect. The two non-overturned blocks are from September of last year. --BigDT (416) 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the two blocks in question were both rather short: 1 hour and 3 hours. -- Black Falcon 23:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't directly related to this RfA, but I should note that counting block times isn't a reliable way of determining the seriousness of the blockee's offense(s), because different admins give different block lengths for the same. While Doc blocked him for one hour, another admin might've given him twentyfour. Picaroon 00:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am deeply concerned about slavish adherence to written policy, which however well-intended is likely to be disruptive. Recent edit warring (sufficient to prompt page protection—twice) is also troubling, even if it didn't draw a block. Regularly throwing around accusations of admin "abuse" – which appeared under Jeff's chosen section heading of "Completely moronic" just a few days ago – suggests a certain lack of...er...diplomacy in approaching disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do note that I am the "moron" in question, and I strongly support this candidate -- Jeff was referring to my actions; he's sometimes capable of hyperbole in heated discussion, but less so than many admins I know. We're friendly enough such that I didn't take the word personally in the least. Xoloz 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good on you. Still, the "abuse" charge was levelled at more than one other editor, and he followed up with reverting the closure of a DRV (of another DRV) that he started. The process for process' sake and the general POINTiness of that whole situation leaves me cold. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with a lot of the above reasons. I think that his proposal for limited adminship is an inadequate remedy and likely to result in a lot of wasted time and effort when inevitably someone recalls him or he wants to upgrade. Savidan 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The answers to the question don't show that he needs sysop tools and a look at his block log reveals a pattern of disruption and incivility and as SlimVirgin said above he seems to quickly get quite aggressive when people disagree with him, not good qualities in an administrator.--Dakota 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I respect Jeff as an editor, I cannot support him becoming an administrator. I must oppose. DS 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jeff is a rule bender and rule user, not a man ready to be trusted to fairly apply the rules. Look at the recent reversions at the notability sub-pages to see the disruptive behavior and fine-line abuse of 3RR. His trolling of the oppose comments here is evidence of his contentious nature. --Kevin Murray 03:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "IAR doesn't exist in my wiki-verse." ... and hopefully no more people who would say that will become admins in mine. Jeff's dogmatic promotion of adherence to the letter of policy over making correct actions isn't good for the project. I believe this problem is exacerbated by his use of interpretations of policy which are rather strained. As far as the backlogs go, I'd rather not grant limited adminships for backlogs: we could address most of our backlog issues with a few approved of adminbots. Humans should do things which require thought and consideration, bots should do mindless things which only require following rules and making http requests.--Gmaxwell 03:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway 03:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Severe, longstanding and evidently intractable misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is all about.[reply]
No per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, despite his commitment to the project, due to concerns about dogmatism and misunderstanding of policy (as per Gmaxwell, and others). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Interaction with other people is not up to a good standard. --Ali K 05:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and I would like to just copy and paste what Kicking222 said above. To a tee, including time frame. Jeff provides the poke in the side as to what is important we all need on a regular basis, but most always his views on deletion discussion are contrary to the end consensus. With such a history, I cannot trust him to delete only. Many admins are open to making text available on DRV if asked. Teke 06:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Encyclopedia Dramatica associations, block log etc.-K@ngi e ^meep! 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't agree with stance regarding the Brian Peppers article as highlighted above. And hence I cannot be certain of Jeff's judgement on key issues.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I simply cannot trust this user with the tools. I suspect giving them to him would lead to wheel-wars. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 12:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Friday, Cyde, Gmaxwell, Tony and Redvers, who have summed up what I think better than I could have. – Steel 13:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't trust this editor to use the admin tools either wisely or without trying to push his agenda. His extreme inclusionist approach damages Wikipedia's credibility and we would not be well served by giving him greater ability to influence important issues. Gwernol 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitively no, his constant pushing of his wiki point of view is disruptive. He lacks understanding of core wiki philosophies. -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 15:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per many concerns above. Primarily, I cannot support an admin candidate who is actively opposed to IAR. Disliking misapplication is one thing, not supporting the policy another. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gretab and others.--Mantanmoreland 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry but you don't inspire trust. Renata 17:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User would undelete libellous biographies, and is obstinate and unreasonable. —Centrx→talk • 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose concerns about stated goals of using the article deletion tools when he has such strong opinions about inclusion. i would prefer that he stay away from AfD and it's related processes. --Tbeatty 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of recognintion for IAR is a great concern, as policy is never infallible, and does need to ignored from time to time. Like others, I would not be confident of your understanding of WP:BLP in the (un)deletion of articles, and would fear tat you would just make more work for others, and more emials to OTRS. You are, at the moment, a watchdog on the admins - let's keep it that way. Mart inp23 18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. If BDJ were put in charge, Wikipedia would soon degenerate into a venue full of non-notable & non-verifiable crap. In addition, by vigorously opposing WP:IAR and WP:SNOW, he appears to view Wikipedia as a bureaucracy, which it is not. Finally, his temperament toward those who disagree him is less than acceptable - look no further than his responses toward some of his opposers. TML 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The slavish devotion to process at the potential detriment to common sense concerns me that this user would not be able to adapt to new situations as they come up, comments at WT:IAR lead me to believe he does not fully understand policy, and numrous MeatBall:GoodBye messages on his user page indicate a lack of maturity. -M^ask? 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cyde, Friday, Ryan and many above. Limited adminship and recall is meaningless. Not naming names but I have seen others promise to be open to recall to get borderline neutral/opposers only to quietly remove their names from the cat a couple of months later. And others go back months after their RFA to strike their pork barrelling promises. I'm more interested in what you have done already rather than what you promise you will and won't do and I'm not impressed by edit warring, and confrontational, aggressive behaviour. Sarah 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As things currently stand, there's simply no such thing as a limited adminship. An admin gets all the tools and, whether or not he or she uses them, has to be able to demostrate trustworthyness for all of them and that all of them won't be abused. This user may well deserve that complete trust, but I can only evaluate that in a nom for position that actually exists, not some position that doesn't, and where all sides -- including the candidate -- clearly understand that everything is on the table and that the candidate needs to demonstrate trustworthyness for everything. --Shirahadasha 05:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I'm sorry, Jeff. 1ne^two^{^three...} 07:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cyde et al and general inability to use common sense. MER-C 08:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose - By his contributions, BadlydrawnJeff does seem to want to improve Wikipedia; I'm just not sure that his views on policy, neutrality and civility match expectations of how admin tools should/will be used. As recent comments such as those towards SlimVirgin, towards Samuel_Blanning, and towards Kevin_Murray seem to indicate, BDJ can let his personal feelings supercede following Wikipedia norms. One doesn't have to make friends on Wikipedia in order to edit; but having the community's respect is necessary to be given the trust of adminship -- picking fights with those who may disagree with one's opinion doesn't result in that requisite respect. --Leflyman^Talk 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Interesting one, this. I'll be sure to come back later... Grand master ka 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Aside from the asinine idea of limited adminship I think that jeff isn't the appropriate personality type for adminship. For the same reason that I'll never be an admin he shouldn't either: he is zealous and extremist in his views and his vision for wikipedia is radically far from the general consensus. I simply do not believe that he will be able to put the letter of policy ahead of his own personal conviction. At the same time jeff is a fantastic contributor, creating great articles, active in policy discussion and creation and with a indepth knoweldge of the inner workings of wikipedia and even more importantly its community. I very much respect his character even though I'm often in total disagreement with him. So while I can't support his adminship I can't oppose his nomination wither, its simply a ideological difference and I don't think that (short of malicious intent) that is a legit reason to oppose giving these tools to a honest and commited editor. NeoFreak 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Jeff said: "IAR doesn't exist in my wiki-verse. I see no instances where I'd need to worry about it in my limited usage." concerns me greatly. Process and policy are important, but neither trumps the project itself and the work product. Sometimes doing the right thing does in fact require ignoring a rule, or all of them, and understanding why that is (and having some facility for recognising when it does and when it does not) is vital to being a good admin, in my view. So, I am concerned that Jeff's views are not in line with the views that have made the project successful. Another, much more minor, point is that while I am a huge fan of the recall category, and of having admins voluntarily join it, and of the notion of a recall process, and of the admins that have went through it already, I do not like to see pledges to join used as a way to gain support. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more that I can't envision a better way that provides real accountability for the concept I'm tossing out there. If you or anyone else can come up with a better alternative, I'm all for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really approve of this sort of "Limited" adminship, nor of the recall category, unless/until we have some form of WP:RFDA as an acepted process applicable to all admins. (And that doesn't look likely anytime soon, if ever.) So i am tratign thsi as a request for full admiinship, period. I like Jeff's obvious dedication to the project, I am concerned about his tendancy to confrontation. Admins are the visible face of the project in many ways. I plan o check back on this, and to look at the answer to Q7, if any. DES ^(talk) 21:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I certainly trust him not to intentionally abuse the tools, and I think he can be a pleasant fellow when he's not in a disagreement. On the other hand, he seems quite distant from policy at times, and gets confrontational when people point this out. Picaroon 22:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Jeff is consummate about Wikipedia from my interactions with him, I've not looked through all of his many edit conquests, but my feeling is these revolve around concern for the project rather than a particular point of view you get with the lunatic fanatics using Wikipedia to wage political battles. I don't have a problem with limited adminship, I'd rather have another pair of hands for some stuff than no extra help at all, and I'm strongly in favour of the ability to separate out admin permissions in order to allow a whole raft of adminbots, so there's nothing wrong with that either. -- Nick ^t 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I just can't support this nomination right now. The whole idea of a "limited" administrator doesn't sit well with me for some reason. I like the editor and the edits and pages he has worked on, but I can't support them as an administrator right now. Perhaps in the future, yes. Jmlk17 07:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, may change most likely to oppose. I appreciate some of the concerns jeff sometimes comes out with, but other seem to take it to far or appear to be more of convenience in pushing his broader view. For example his recent complaint that a certain DRV he disagreed with wasn't purely about process when his own views on DRV are frequently not about process but about his view of if the subject deserves an article. As above the interpretation of policy sometimes seems bizzare and a lack of acceptance when the general community seems to disagree with him. The claims of "abusive" etc. when discussing the actions of others seems to be overdone and generally not that constructive. Much of the above, process for process sake etc. That said I do believe he has the interest of the project at the core, just rather than the current "abusive regime" he wants his own "abusive regime" to apply. --pgk 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some concerns about Jeff following the "red tape" of the rules list rather than just looking at the situation on hand and doing what the exact situation calls for. Rules exist for a reason, but Wikipedia is not absolute law, a fair bit of discretion is necessary. It's nowhere near enough to put me in oppose, just a bit below a full on support. -- Tawker 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While I don't think Jeff would abuse the tools, some of the concerns brought up in the Oppose section can't be ignored. I should note that he past association with ED is not one of them, as I don't think past associations should be held against someone (we're not in the McCarthy era anymore), especially when he's clearly indicated he has nothing to do with them anymore. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Many times I've seen Jeff's comments and my face lit up with a smile. I really appreciate his contributions, but I am concerned about the block log and recent contentiousness. Avoid edit warring for a year to prove that you've mastered your emotions, Jeff. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Jeff really seems to care. He just has different ideas. I also think that if a person spends their time on Wikipedia Review (as opposed to say doing something else) then they also care about Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Dramatica relation is a bad mark for him and so is the whole BadlySketchedBob account on Wikitruth.info (even though he claims it isn't him). I would still support, except that this is a self-nom and you did "limited adminship" -- that shows you aren't confident about yourself. If you feel you could be a full admin and use your powers responsibly, then say full admin. You should have been open to recall instead. SakotGrimshine 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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