Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Dodger67

Final (42/28/4); ended 21:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) - Candidate has withdrawn ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

Dodger67 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to present as a candidate for adminship Roger (User:Dodger67). Roger joined Wikipedia in 2007 and he has been an increasingly productive editor ever since. He is the originator of and the top contributor to WikiProject Disability. He has created 43 articles, and has improved many more.

I have frequently noticed Dodger67 take on an advisory role, particularly with new users. He has been an active participant in WP:WikiProject Articles for creation, having reviewed well over 1300 draft articles. He has spent a lot of time explaining and making suggestions to help the new users improve their articles, not only on his talk page but also at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and the Teahouse. He has also contributed extensively at the Help desk (over 1700 edits), as well as answering questions at the Reference desk.

Dodger67 has both initiated and participated in quite a few AfD discussions. I have been impressed with his willingness to change his position during discussions when presented with new information or policy-based arguments. He has also protected and improved Wikipedia by rooting out and nominating for deletion many copyright violations and advertisements. These nominations, along with decline templates and comments on AfC submissions, represent the majority of his deleted edits.

Because of his consistently positive track record, I believe that Dodger67, if given the tools to help with the backlog of administrative tasks, would use them judiciously and be even more of an asset to the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination with thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Thanks to Anne Delong for the excellent nomination and support throughout the process. Thanks also to the few other advisers who assisted me in various ways. Lastly, but definitely not least, thanks to all the !Voters, both for and against, for their analysis, opinions and comments. I have learnt much about Wikipedia and myself as an editor here. I will work on the areas where my experience and knowledge is deficient and perhaps I'll return some day. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I think I'd begin with relatively simple tasks such as moving over redirects that fairly frequently are a blockage to accepting new drafts at AFC. I'd also help out with Speedy deletions and other uncontroversial mopping up such as dealing with clear vandalism. When it comes to the more technical or controversial administrative tasks I will at first observe how they are done and ask experienced admins for advice before following suit. It would also enhance my usefulness to be able to see previously deleted articles when reviewing AfC drafts or participating in AfD discussions, to distinguish new text from recreation of deleted content. The ability to restore deleted pages is also useful for helping out with G13 refunds and for userfying content for AfC submitters who promise to remove POV. Later addition: It's clear from what I've learnt here that if I were to get the mop I would need to steer clear of closing AFDs, or any other administrative action relating to AFDs, until I get more experience participating in AFD discussions and nominations. 18:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Without a doubt WP:WikiProject Disability, which I and a few other editors started some years ago. Previous to the establishment of the Project the vast majority of coverage of disability-related topics were from an almost exclusively medical aspect. The Project has resulted in more balanced coverage of the topic by introducing the Social model of disability and other voices to articles about disability. The Project has also helped increase the number and variety of articles concerning disability - particularly those areas "invisible" when viewed from an exclusively medical POV such as the political, economic, and social aspects of disability.
My participation at AFC, though sporadic, is also a nett gain for the English Wikipedia IMHO. In general I also believe my being South African and having a physical disability helps to increase the variability in the Wikipedian population thus reducing the systemic biases. My contributions at various help desks has, I believe, been useful to newbies and thus advanced the cause of editor retention too.
Other "Content" WikiProjects I am active in are WP:WikiProject South Africa, WP:WikiProject Military History, WP:WikiProject Aviation as these are topic areas I am interested in and have some experience, as well as a fairly decent bookshelf of sources for when Google-fu is inadequate.
As far as new content creation is concerned my contributions are more modest, I tend to expand and improve existing articles more than create new ones. I know I am not a composer of scintillating prose so the articles I have initiated (about 40 so far) are fairly basic, no GAs or FAs. (I constantly have a handful of drafts at various stages of development in my sandbox.) I have however participated in significantly upgrading a few articles together with other editors - Joseph Merrick and Stephen Hawking come to mind. One of my strengths is in doing research and finding good sources.
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: As I have been an active Wikipedian for about 7 years (with about 40,000 edits on my log) it is practically inevitable that I have been involved in a few conflicts. When the situation gets stressful I tend to withdraw, some time out helps to cool down. None of the conflicts I have been involved in (so far) have resulted in blocks or other action against me. (The only entry in my block log was a mistake by the admin, corrected within a minute.) I believe my "step away and cool off" strategy is effective and it will remain how I deal with future situations that may become heated. Calling on other Wikipedians, and in future fellow Admins (if successful here), to help out can also be an effective way of defusing tension by introducing fresh opinions.
Additional question from Dusti
4. I see that you've been fairly active at Articles for Creation, which is great. Are these four articles ones that you accepted as submissions? I see in your contributions that you added them as recent AFC creations.
A: Yes I did accept them. At AFC the objective is not to pass only perfect "bulletproof" articles. Any draft that; does not contain blatant violations of policy, is written in intelligible English, and has at least a few references that support a reasonable (not "bulletproof") claim of notability, should be accepted. An oft quoted "meme" at AFC is that accepted drafts should have "at least a 50% chance of surviving AFD". If none of your Accepts end up getting wacked at AFD you're being too strict. It's something I have to work on because the deletion rate of my Accepts is in fact far too low.
In the case of the "Madeline Sands" article its content was essentially duplicated in another article, so it's deletion has not resulted in any significant loss of content. The "History of the Department of English at the University of Groningen" suffered from the fact that there was no "Department of English at the University of Groningen" article to be its "parent". Such "History of..." articles are usually created by being split off from such a "parent" article. In the case of the "Medical Family Therapy" article the "closer inspection" of the sources that revealed their weakness was done by an experienced member of WikiProject Medicine, this kind of "expert" evaluation is one of the roles we expect WikiProjects to perform. Similarly in the case of the "Brian A. Levine" article it was sent to AFD by someone who appears to have access to academic sources and criteria such as "h-index". I might also point out that all four of these AFDs had very low participation - five or fewer !votes - as an admin I would tend to relist rather than close such AFDs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from John
5. User:Axl has raised your contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangotsfield United F.C. as problematic. What do you think about it looking back a few months later?
A Not my finest moment at WP, I'm afraid I responded badly to the dismissive tone and what I percieved to be an implication that I acted in bad faith. It was a slip in my usual composure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. I see you put down Stephen Hawking as an article you were proud of your contributions to. It isn't in great shape now, and I notice you didn't contribute to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 although you were pinged. The article was delisted from FA status. What would you see as the way forward for that article?
A Ideally someone would come along and take on the task of leading an effort to improve the article back to FA status. As to my non-involvement in any one such effort, it's not of any great consequence or significance, perhaps I was preoccupied with other matters at the time. There are almost 5 million articles on en.WP, most needing some kind of attention - I do what I can, when I can, I'm not "married to" any particular article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SilkTork
7. What is your view on the recent Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer and the events leading up to it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A The letter appears to be a reasonable attempt to get the attention of the WMF about an important issue - the lack of open consultation with the volunteer editor community about changes to the software. The issue of poor communication between the WMF and users however has a far longer history than the two latest issues addressed in the letter. I remember earlier incidents such as "the Watchlist War", the Indian Education Program and the premature Visual Editor deployment which caused upheaval and unhappiness. I suspect a major contributing factor to these problems is a lack of understanding on the part of WMF staff and coders of how we editors perform the many things we do. How many WMF staff have significant experience as editors? I'm not sure that a letter demanding a couple of changes to software code will do anything to really get to the core of the problem - the imbalance in the power relationship between the Foundation and Volunteer contributors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Philg88
8. Please could you explain your reasons behind nominating this university and this cathedral for deletion, when they are both in topic areas that are generally accepted as notable and were subsequently closed as "keep"?
A Notability is defined in terms of the existence of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources - thus it logically follows that when an article shows a complete lack of such sources the notability of the subject is, by the logic of the definition, questionable. "Generally accepted" ≠ "Absolute certainty" thus the "generally accepted" should be amenable to testing. If a presumption of notability is never tested it effectively becomes a permanent exemption from the Notability rule - an irrevocable "get out of jail card". These presumptions need to be tested to remain valid. I believe that every article that exists on WP purely on the strength of assertions that "it's notable because it's big/important/whatever" or "yes there are no acceptable references but the sources surely must exist somewhere" are effectively no different from WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments unless they are at some point challenged. If I had not taken these articles to AFD they would most probably still be unsourced. I don't really understand why "being wrong" at AFD is regarded as such an enormous "crime" - ultimately the system works - neither article was deleted and in fact by the time their AFDs were closed they were proven to be notable and no longer relied on a mere presumption of notability. The strength of WP is the system - multiple people working to expand, maintain and improve the project - any one editor's mistake is not a disaster as the system ultimately fixes it. If it hurts your ego to occasionally be wrong - you're in the wrong place.
Additional questoin from Dusti
9. (I'm expanding on @Philg88:'s question above). According to the AfD Stats tool your AfD noms for the last year are (out of 10) 3 delete, 1 redirect, 5 keep, and 1 speedy keep. Can you explain your thought process a little more on those keeps as well?
A In general see my reply to Question 8 above. Those that have not already been discussed: I nominated Global Sources because it did not comply with WP:CORP - I withdrew the nomination when the sourcing was improved to the extent that compliance was no longer in question. Canine Companions for Independence was kept on the strength of claims that acceptable sources exist - none of those sources have yet been added, so it actually still is not in compliance with the requirement for proper sourcing. I nominated Qualitas Career Academy as an unsourced advertorial and again withdrew the nomination when the problem was adequately addressed. TUI Travel was another advertorial without any independent sources when I nominated it - being a big important company is no excuse for having a bad article about it. The notability of Elliott Museum was also not clear when I nominated it, note that it is still tagged for lacking secondary sources. As a small privately owned museum of apparently only local significance it could not claim the same level of presumption of notability as a major national or regional/state public museum could rely on, thus the need for proper sourcing. The AFD of Evelyn Mase was not a clear cut instant "Keep" - that result came after significant discussion of the applicability or not of WP:NOTINHERITED. In the case of Rama Jyoti Vernon my concern was the "walled garden" nature of the sources, when better mainstream press sources were found and added I withdrew the nomination. Although AFD is not intended to be clean-up, if clean-up nevertheless happens as a consequence of an AFD nomination the result is an improved article and thus it's a positive for Wikipedia as a whole. No harm was done to any article (or fluffy bunnies) as a consequence of these AFD nominations - because the system works as advertised and is inherently self correcting and resistant to damage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up - what is your interpretation and understanding of WP:BEFORE?
Reply - I'm afraid I must admit I have not actually read WP:BEFORE until now, which goes a long way to explain - but obviously not excuse - the problems I've had with AFD. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I think the Twinkle tool makes it far too easy to AFD a page without having to follow any actual procedure. Unlike Speedy which has clear cut criteria, AFD is filled with nuances and subtleties that are easy to ignore or disregard when using Twinkle. Luckily or unluckily (depending on one's POV) I have not used AFD much - which turns out to be the proverbial two-edged sword here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jim Carter - Public
10. Hello Dodger, Let there be an article about a high school which was having one reliable source but the source only mention the schools name and nothing else. The article has been nominated for discussion. The nominator was a new editor with a reason, "Doesn't pass WP:GNG". After an hour, another newbie with few edits, supported "delete" with vague reasons. Three more new editors !voted "Delete" with similar vague reasons. After them no one else commented anything in that AfD. Days passed and the Afd has been relisted twice. Now imagine yourself as the closing admin. How will you close this Afd? Will you keep, delete, no consensus, relist?
A:Given what I have learnt during this RfA process, I would ask another admin to deal with it - at least until I have gained more experience and confidence in dealing with such issues. High schools are presumed to be notable, that is the established current consensus. Given that your hypothetical AFD participants are all inexperienced newbies their opinions, which you describe as "vague", should not be given undue weight. Until I figure out, through experience, an acceptable alternative I simply could not close such an AFD. Actively recruiting more experienced participants for the discussion is a possibility, if it can be done without biased canvassing. Perhaps a request posted to wikiprojects relevant the school's location would be useful. This is a rather circuitous reasoning that seems to end up at "relist" or "insufficient discussion to establish consensus to over-rule the established default position on high schools" - but my first instinct would be to pass the buck to another more experienced admin. I have already committed myself to avoiding AFD closures if I were to get the mop until I gain sufficient experience. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from DGG
11 This multi=part question is a follow up on Question 10 above, and some other questions.
11aBefore making your first nomination of AfD, had you read WP:Deletion Policy. If so , did you notice the part "Alternatives to Deletion", which provides the policy basis for WP:BEFORE?
A: I cannot say with absolute certainty that I have read that page - however I am aware of and have used at least some of, the "Alternatives to deletion" listed on that page.
11b WP:BEFORE is a redirect to the main page for the AfD process. WP:AFD. Am I correct that you are telling us that you never read this page before participating in AfD, and still had not read that page when applying for adminship?
A: Yes that is correct.
11cWhen you accepted (in my opinion, correctly) Grigoriy Mihaylovich Naginskiy. did you consider tagging it for any problems?
A: This is a "trick question". I did not accept it at AFC - you did.
Prior to you accepting the draft I did two edits to it: (1) A minor copy edit to the lead and (2) I moved it to Draft-space from the User-space sandbox - I did this for two reasons, to give it the correct title (a minor motive) and to give it one of the principal advantages of being in Draft-space, namely a Talk page where discussion about improving the draft before moving it to mainspace could have occurred. Previous to these two edits I had declined it once for being inadequately sourced - specifically that as the subject is a Russian cabinet minister sources published by the Russian government are not WP:Independent. BTW - Passing Notability (as the subject clearly does) is not the only criterion at AFC for accepting drafts. Please see Step 2 of the [[WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions|AFC Reviewing Instructions] (expand the box to find the explanation of Independent sourcing). In my decline comment I also expressed misgivings about the submitter's username as being indicative of a possible COI. Subsequent to that decline this conversation occurred on my Talk page during which I was able to advise the editor about sourcing which he/she solved by adding references from mainstream media sources.
The tagging which you could have added when you accepted it are (clearly) the following: {{prose}}, {{improve categories}}, {{copy edit}} and {{underlinked}}}. You might also have considered adding {{COI}} given the username issue I mentioned above.
Other cleaning up which you could/should have done was to remove the redundant "Naginskiy" section heading at the bottom of the page - such headings are a common "leftover" from the AFC submission and review processes and should be removed when accepting drafts into mainspace.
As a matter of style I would prefer to remove the "Biography" L2 section heading on the grounds that the entire article is a biography thus such a section heading is undesirable. I would then change the two L3 subheadings under the removed "Biography" heading to L2 headings.
Note that AFC reviewers are not actually under any obligation to do such tagging and cleanup. However, doing so is in keeping with AFC's dual mandate of not only filtering new submissions (similar to NPP) but also to help and teach new editors.
I must apologize for this -- I saw your earlier routine action on the article and seem not to have looked further. It was not intended as a trick question--and I am very shamefaced to admit the person I seem to have tricked was myself. You are quite correct that I should have tagged it, and you are correct in the tags you suggest. The problem of how much to improve an article on accepting it is a very difficult one. A few months ago I would not have accepted the article in the present state without simultaneously improving it, because i want anything I work on to be of s respectable standard. But I like others been finding that I cannot keep up with the flood of submissions if I work in that manner, and have been accumulating a very long list--now over a thousand, of article submissions to revise and accept. This is obviously not sustainable. My estimate is that I can properly rewrite only 1 or 2 articles a day --even if I did nothing else here I could not manage more than 3 or 4. So I have been increasingly accepting articleso n the basis that they will get improved later. I don;t use the 51% standard some use--I tend to use about 75% likelihood of survival; tho in practice nothing I;ve accepted has yet been deleted, this may be due to the unfortunate reluctance to challenge my work--and I need it challenged, to avoid both bloopers and slow drift from community standards. But absolutely I should at least tag as a guide to improvement. You definitely seem to be learning as this RfA progresses, and I think in only a very few months I'll be glad to support you. Perhaps we all are learning--this RfA seems to have become a test case for RfC standards. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11dWhen Bbb23 declined your A7 at WP:Articles for deletion/Lewi Morgan, why do you think he did so?
A:I surmise Bbb23 did so because the AFD was already underway and aborting it by a Speedy deletion may have been disruptive. There were also concurrent AFDs on the articles about other members of the same band. The motivation for AFD-ing them all was the same lack of individual notability outside of the band, per WP:NOTINHERITED. This impression is reinforced by the subsequent result of the AFD, content was merged into the article about the band and the page redirected. Thus declining my Speedy was the right thing to do. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right, and I have indeed myself been reluctant to speedy during an afd unless there's a discovery of copyvio or something equally incontestable. What I was trying to get at -- at least why I would have declined it in any case--, was that saying that someone is a member of a notable band is a statement of plausible importance, tho --if they've done nothing else of importance on their own or with another group-- is certainly not enough for notability. But your answer here is certainly good. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support – Good candidate. I worked with him on a DYK and he was very easy to work with. I am One of Many (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - two candidates in one week where I can !vote on name recognition alone! Dodger has been excellent at AFC, an area where we need all the help we can get. Go Phightins! 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - his work at WP:WikiProject Disability has contributed massively to the encyclopedia, and in our brief interaction during the development of its style guide, I found him unfailingly collaborative. --Stfg (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Reluctantly moved to temporary oppose. --Stfg (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Does excellent and valuable work at AfC. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - 100% edit summaries! —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as nominator. Go, Roger! —Anne Delong (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Excellent track record. Edit summaries, AFC work, started a WikiProject, and seems extremely friendly and well-suited in terms of his temperament. If the worst complaint someone can make against you is your signature, I can't see anything but a net positive here. ceranthor 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No concerns. benmoore 17:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, a highly capable and tireless helper in many venues. Huon (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, A couple words about AfC for those who haven't participated—reviewing at AfC is not intended to put the reviewer in the place of being a one-editor AfD. The bar per community consensus is "an even shot at surviving deletion" or better. AfC is also a triage process—as I write this, around two thousand six seven hundred new editors are waiting for reviews, hundreds of whom have been waiting over a month, some of whom will have given up by now. AfC is a triage process, no more, no less, and expecting it to be clean is akin to expecting top-notch neurosurgery in an ER. Don't like it? Come help. But don't take it out on the candidate. This editor does tireless, accurate, thoughtful work and always manages to keep a level head. They will make an excellent admin. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per strong nominating statement and excellent answers to questions. Q3 convinces me they have the right temperament, and Q1 that they are cautious. (New Admin School will help BTW.) Answer to Q4 thoroughly dispels concerns raised in the question. We need admins willing to help in backlogged areas. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A strong candidate that has been here since 2007, he's helped in many areas especially WikiProject Disability, I'm happy to support! StevenD99 21:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Exactly per Joe decker. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've enjoyed working with Roger at WP Disability and am confident he will be a good addition to the admin team. --Mirokado (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Plenty of content creation and all around good work. Will make a good admin. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. My review and the opinions above lead me to conclude that Dodger67 is an excellent candidate. He has background and many good contributions in several areas or the project. I think he has enough content creation and his work in AfC provides valuable experience in learning what is required for an article and in dealing with people. He has shown initiative and energy. An occasional AfD position that is against consensus or mildly testy remark over a whole body of excellent work is nowhere near enough to cause me concern. Net positive and then some. Donner60 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ///EuroCarGT 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Works hard and seems dedicated, thats quite enough for me. —Frosty ☃ 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Dodger67 has made some impressive contribution to AFC. I see no major reason to oppose. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - experienced and trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Having 100% edit summaries is the basis for my support. Also nice job with WP Disability and AFC. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Moved to oppose NickGibson3900 Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions 02:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support – Have had nothing but good interactions with this user. Graham87 07:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Kraxler (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC) I stand by my vote, even after the WP:BEFORE issue. Dodger is a knowledgeable and clueful editor who knows and recognizes his limitations. Nobody (except the Pope) is infallible. It can not be required of admins to never make a mistake; what actually is required of admins is that, if they make mistake and it is pointed out, then they correct it without fuss. Many recent RfAs failed because the candidates insisted to stick to their point even when they were proven wrong. Dodger is able and willing to learn from his mistakes, and having read BEFORE now, will have a much better grasp of deletion proceedings. I'm confident he will not abuse the deletion button, or any other tools, if he passes this RfA. Kraxler (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. —Kusma (t·c) 14:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes. I like the answer to the [Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer question. Shows understanding of the issues facing Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support All ok with me - mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Looks like a knowledgeable and helpful contributor. Tina Gasturich (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support as there is almost no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 19:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak Support - recent nominations of AFDs worry me. But I think he will use the mop wisely.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 20:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Quite frankly, I thought you were an administrator already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support lots of help desk work; 100% edit summaries; excellent AfC work. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Secret account 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. My comments in the 'neutral' section still stand as very much valid. The creation at Rajendra Chaudhary (Rajasthan politician) is still tagged and for an RfA candidate should not be (apparently this was not created by the candidate - only moved from Draft to mainspace with all its warts and wrinkles). While the participation at AfD is more or less adequate, 75% matching the outcome is rather low.Discounting the work on AfC because there has IMO been too much emphasis on it as the main claim for promotion, participation in other help venues demonstrates a solid knowledge of most policies and guidelines. I particularly appreciate his steady engagement and dedication to the project and his calm and mature approach to communication with other users. I was especially impressed with the answer to Q7 which clearly shows a deep understanding of some of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia core issues that the volunteer community has to contend with, and this more than anything else helped tip my decision to move my vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I don't require a 100% record at Afd. I haven't got one myself, as I sometimes nominate things that could go either way in the hope that someone will fix them - and it does happen. Yes, I know some will disapprove, but if we get a better article out of it, all's well in the end. I've seen Roger around and not come across any problems. Plenty of clue, and can learn from the mistakes that any of us can make. At one time, I too thought he was an admin. Peridon (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Most of the oppose reason says that This user has very few afd comments and has many wrong afds. But In my opinion I can't oppose a guys just because of this guy has few afd comments or made some wrong afds. I can't forget that he has over 1300 good AfC reviews. Which makes me clear about him that he knows all our important Notability, Referencing etc. policies. Which is one of the most important thing an admin should have. Next his behavior is really great. I haven't seen a user who has returned from his talkpage without his help and in addition his teahouse answers helped a lot of users. So he knows how to help a user when s/he needs help and this obviously proves that he knows WP policies. So I really can not oppose him. Finally in many places of Wikipedia I trust him more than myself. So I know he'll do a really good job with the mop. --Pratyya (Hello!) 13:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Answers to questions demonstrate plenty of clue, and I've seen Dodger's good work at AfC (a particularly thankless part of the 'pedia). Per Peridon, AfD noms not much concern; the candidate has expressed no interest in closing AfD discussions right away, and I trust him to know when he's ready to do so. Miniapolis 14:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Why not? Jianhui67 T★C 14:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Judging from his talk page interactions he has a good way of dealing with people, and seems to be experienced in what he needs to be experienced in to perform admin duties. I don't completely understand the AFD concerns. If he were making constant 'errors' of not passing AFCs then I'd understand not wanting him to have the delete button, but I don't see how him having the delete button could cause harm to the project if he arguably passes more AFCs than he should. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support No concerns the candidate will be a good admin and a net positive to the project. Just stay away from AFD for a while. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Well written nomination and clear answers to every question. RWCasinoKid (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I've spent a lot of time going back to look at the candidate's talk page comments, and I've looked carefully at every AfD comment cited by editors who oppose. This is, to some extent, a close call, and I'm actually pretty close in my opinion to the neutral opinion expressed by Dirtlawyer1 below. Page deletion sure is the third rail of RfA, and given the high stakes of deleting content, I cannot entirely say that that's a bad thing. But, having taken enough time to gather what I think is a representative sample of the candidate's discussion style, I find that his willingness to learn from mistakes and his commitment to helping new editors are representative, whereas many of the reasons for opposition are unrepresentative, and are being exaggerated here. Seriously, all that parsing of what he said about ego? It was obviously self-deprecating. Even in some of the AfDs that are cited as disqualifying, I see the candidate admitting mistakes after they are pointed out. Some RfAs, if a candidate has made mistakes at AfD, it's like the sharks smell blood and circle around. Of course, not knowing about BEFORE is a mistake. People make mistakes. But now he knows about BEFORE. It doesn't take six months for that knowledge to sink in, and there doesn't have to be a repeat RfA to assess it. As at any RfA, I ask myself whether or not I trust the candidate. I've scrutinized this candidate enough to decide that I do trust him. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Great with wikiwork management and can balance between content creation and AFC/other unseen work. A good collaborator on content creation, nice to work with. Nathan121212 (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support a great candidate who will learn. Andrevan@ 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support only thanks to the reputations of other supporters. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support largely mirroring Tryptofish. I've worked with Dodger at AfC, and find him to be collaborative, willing to both listen and to give thoughtful advice. Has the temperament to be a good admin, and I have full faith he will take the good advice in the opposes below to heart. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Infrequent AfD !voting—only 12 comments this year. With this nomination, Dodger67 mentions "the many problem tags" as evidence. Lugnuts was correct to point out that these tags are irrelevant to AfD. However Lugnuts didn't seem to accept that "the total absence of independent reliable sources" is evidence for possible non-notability. Rather than reiterate this point, Dodger67 chose to retort: "Which part of; the total absence of independent reliable sources = Not Notable; do you not understand?" It is mainly this last comment that concerns me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axl: Perhaps 12 comments at AfD in 2014 is too few. The candidate made 31 comments at AfD in 2013, according to the tool. I respect your opinion and I'm curious if could you describe an approximate number or range (understanding that sometimes quality is more important than quantity) that would be satisfactory for the amount of time that has passed this year. I also recognize that the number of comments at AfD was also only part of your opposition. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't have a hard-and-fast rule, but I would expect at least five per month from someone who intends to delete articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axl: in my opinion, this candidate can use the admin tools for AFD closure and become more knowledgeable through reading through !votes and their reasons before closing AFDs and deleting articles. Nathan121212 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The acceptance of an article at afc does indeed require that there be a reasonable chance of acceptance at afd. This applies to each individual article, not overall. For those subjects where I am unable to judge, I leave to others. These particular articles should never have been accepted. They had no chance at all. I need to check more thoroughly of the candidates work tomorrow, but at this point I am sufficiently wary to oppose. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No editor is perfect, and when one has completed thousands of reviews (I find that I underestimated) there are bound to be a few that could have been better. As you know, DGG, but others may not, AfC has a re-review process in which reviewers scrutinize each others' work. As can be seen from re-reviews (listed at the bottom) in the last two backlog drives, (June and March, Roger was mostly on point. I like that he is willing to admit errors when they are pointed out to him. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done some further checking. Any one error is excuable as an aberration, and anyone who does much work will make some misjudgments, but the number of gross errors is out of proportion, and their nature reveals what I take to be an indifference or disregard to the actually established standards. This lack of awareness is common to many beginners, and the ones who learn can do very well. At the level of an admin, we expect a knowledge good enough to correct others. It's not just a bias towards approval; it runs in both directions. In addition to those listed above, looking only at the last two weeks,there is the approval of a very promotional article I have just listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion’s Heart; the decline of Gregory N. Todd despite the clear independent demonstration from official documentation of a major military position; the decline of Eta College as lacking sources for notability when all colleges are considered notable; the decline of the Deputy Minister of Defense Grigoriy Mihaylovich Naginskiy for lack of reliable sources, although they are plainly listed in the article. None of this would worry me if it were spread out over a long period, but to see all of this in the very recent work is in my opinion outside the limits for any reviewer, and especially an admin. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a paradox here: The acceptance of an article at afc does indeed require that there be a reasonable chance of acceptance at afd. This applies to each individual article, not overall. This isn't how percentages work, if you expect someone to have 90% of their accepted articles not deleted, it means 10% are expected to be deleted whether you're looking at 000s of articles or each individually. It's easy to retroactively look at that 10% and say each didn't have a 90% chance of passing, but if you follow that to it's logical conclusion, you're expecting 100% perfection (90% of those deleted 10% should have been kept (99% overall); 90% of the remaining 1% should've be kept (99.9% overall), ad infinitum) and not a "reasonable chance", hence the paradox. benmoore 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I may not have been clear. For any particular AfC, it should be accepted if it would be likely to be accepted by the community. This applies to each particular AfC. If one approves an article with no chance of acceptance by the community, it's an error. If one declines one that will unquestionably be accepted , it is an error. If one accepts an article with a 60% chance, it is not an error regardless of what the community decides, but a difficult judgement. What's expected is not a 51% rate of guessing what the community will do, its knowing what are the clear cases. In such clear cases, the error level should be the same as expected at CSD, 5% at most for any editor except for a beginner, and better than that for an admin. As with all RfA applications, it's not the percentage correct, but the nature of the errors. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I have seen the answer to the questions about AfD, I am confirmed in my opinion that the candidate's approach is reckless. While I too have on rare occasions used an AfD discussion to force improvement in an article, this is next-to-resort, suitable only where there is a stubborn refusal to removal promotionalism or BLP or the like, and only to be used in a case where the continued existence of the article in an unimproved state would be actually harmful, and the alternative would be resort to ANI or RfC. To use it for something as routine as an unreferenced articles is an abuse of process. To continue to defend the practice here after the very strong comments comments made on those afds indicates a determined refusal to do things in the normal way, which is the most dangerous attitude an admin can have. I certainly wish many things were done differently here, but changing them is not part of my work as an admin. Following the customs of the community is the role of an admin.
    I continue to be amazed that other editors whom I greatly respect see it otherwise. That these afd nominations should occur just before the RfA seems to be a declaration that the candidate intends to act according to his own lights, however different from consensus they are. Normally in a situation like this I hope that the candidate when successful will learn, and that is has happened before. Perhaps it will again. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I share some of the concerns about the Mangotsfield_United_F.C. AfD, but I can accept that it was not the candidate's best moment and not representative. But looking at the AfDs over the past year or so give me concern. Since last June, the candidate has nominated 10 articles for AfD, of which 7 closed as "keep." That seems high, although might be explanable if the nominations were particularly tricky. But of the 7 keeps I would say only Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manarcad Church was particularly tricky, and even there I have mild concerns about the tone of the candidate's responses when keep !votes started coming in. Of the others, 3 seem to have had sources available that would have been easy to find before the AfD nomination (Global Sources, Canine Companions for Independence, Rama Jyoti Vernon), and the other 3 were covered by specific notability guidelines (Mangotsfield_United_F.C., UCSI University, Qualitas Career Academy) and seem to have had other sources available. To his credit, the candidate often seems willing to withdraw nominations when evidence of notability starts coming in. But I remain concerned that the candidate seems to use the current state of the article to determine whether to nominate for AfD, rather than looking to what sources are available to improve the article, which I think is problematic for an admin. Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rlendog: see question nine above :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the responses to 8 and 9 did not alleviate my concerns. In fact, they enhanced them. No problem occassionally testing if an article that meets presumed notability. But those presumptions gained consensus for a reason. So when testing, the nomination should state something along the lines of "this article meets the special notability presumption, but it is unsourced and I searched for appropriate sources and couldn't find any, so I think this is a case where the article does not meet our guidelines despite the presumption." But in contrast, in several of these "tests" the appropriate sources did not seem particularly difficult to find. And I don't think it is appropriate to take credit for the cleanup that may have occured to articles as a result of the AfDs since, as the candidate notes, AfD is not for cleanup. There are more appropriate ways to clean up articles that do not result in the stress and time consuming overhead that AfD does.
    The comment about the Canine Companions for Independence article seems particualrly telling in this respect. Supposedly the candidate was so concerned about its lack of sourcing that he took it to AfD. And at AfD one speciifc source was linked and the location that others could be found, i.e., Google Books [1], was suggested. I would expect an admin, or admin candidate, who was so concerned about the sourcing of this article to now be saying something along the lines of "I wasn't aware of sources for the article when I nominated it, but some of the participants in teh AfD pointed me to sources, and so I added them." Instead, this candidate seems to take the fact that no one - including himself - has yet added those sources as a way to justify the nomination. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by candidate - I'm afraid I don't understand your last comment. How can something that happened after the nomination have any bearing on the nomination itself, let alone be a justification for it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not the best choice of words on my part, but I was referring to bring up that nomination even now, after it was closed as keep, to point out that "none of those sources have yet been added, so it actually still is not in compliance with the requirement for proper sourcing," which seems like a bit of an ex post facto justification. Maybe that is not how you meant it. I think your admission to not having read WP:BEFORE until now explains a lot. It makes me think that I would be able to support a candidacy in the near future, although I would like to see some evidence of applying that first. Rlendog (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Regretfully, per DGG and the follow-up response to Q9. --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: Per DGG's analysis of deleted contributions and a patchy history at AfD, I am uncomfortable granting deletion tools to the candidate, who has specifically stated speedy deletion as an area he wants to work in. Moreover I can't find a CSD log for him, so I have no way to verify his ability or experience in that area. BethNaught (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @BethNaught: To let you in on a nifty trick... you can use the edit summary tool to effectively find all the speedy deletion requests made with Twinkle, as the edit summaries are consistent. All the speedy deletion requests can be found here, and here would be the requests that were either declined or the page was recreated (as the edit is still live). You could similarly find all the requests made via Page Curation. — MusikAnimal talk 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose In view of this response to Question 8: "If it hurts your ego to occasionally be wrong - you're in the wrong place." The last thing this website needs is an administrator with a snotty attitude and a big mouth. I also share DGG's concerns about a possible itchy trigger finger for deleting articles that meed Wikipedia's editorial standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    AAD, you're welcome to oppose the candidate for whatever reason or no reason at all, but I think you're reading too much into the candidate's statement you quoted above. I didn't read it as a "snotty" comment. I read it as a self-deprecating comment that one has to be willing to accept your own mistakes, and acknowledge them as such. Your interpretation may be different. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I am in the same "oppose" section, I agree that you may have misinterpreted the candidate's statement. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, yes, I also read this comment in a different way. One of the reasons that I support Dogdger67 is that he has shown himself willing to learn from his mistakes. I interpreted his comment to mean that those who can't adjust their thinking when faced with clear contrary evidence will likely find editing here frustrating. Having interacted with a few editors like that, I was nodding my head in agreement. However, I am not a neutral party here.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it like Anne and Dirtlawyer too. To me, it indicates an attitude of learning from mistakes, and of acknowledging them rather than flannelling and obfuscating. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by candidate - Indeed it is not at all aimed at others, it's a recognition and acceptance that I can sometimes be wrong. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote is "If it hurts your ego..." - not "If it hurts my ego." It is obviously aimed at others, sorry. I stand by my concerns and I repeat my belief that the candidate is not qualified for administrator duties. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    RE And Adoil Descended - I'm afraid you have a rather deficient command of the English language. "If it hurts your ego..." is equivalent to "If it hurts somebody's/someone's ego..." Please consult an English teacher about it, and then come back here to apologize and retract your statement. Kraxler (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be reasonable Kraxler, from the context of the conversation it seems fair to me for AAD to assume that Dodger67 wasn't talking about himself. Had he been, grammar would suggest that "one's ego" is the correct possessive.  Philg88 ♦talk 13:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Phil, but using "you" when speaking in general terms (like in "You never know" an expression of doubt, not directed at anybody in particular) is 100% correct English grammar. Besides, everybody else understood Dodger's remark perfectly, and this has been pointed out to AAD. So, it's inappropriate to insist in his misunderstanding. Kraxler (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing my point. AAD is entitled to his own interpretation of the comment. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue—that's what he thinks and like everyone else here, he is entitled to his opinion. AAD says he is standing by what he said so the closing 'crat will make the judgement as to how much weight his !vote carries.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right in two points: any voter is entitled to have, and state, his opinion; and the closing 'crat will certainly be able to give this vote as much weight as it deserves. But, the English language is not a question of opinion — either you understand it or you don't. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is one thing to have an opinion about what the candidate meant by their choice of words and who they were referring to...but it is an entirely different animal to then toss out personal attacks and say they are being snotty and have a big mouth. I saw the comment to simply mean...anyone including themselves and others, should not be worried about being wrong and if being wrong hurts your "ego" this may not be a suitable place for that person. I agree with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This type of dialogue exchange - where someone's intelligence and command of the language is ridiculed - offers a sterling example of why so many online forums are so tedious. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose With regret I must agree with DGG's opinion on this matter. I would hesitate to give this user the delete tool given a track record of poor judgment in regards to inclusion/deletion standards. No prejudice against running again after showing a better track record.

    I waited a while before casting this opinion and I did not give it lightly. Chillum 15:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  8. Very temporary oppose. I stand by what I said in the support section before ("His work at WP:WikiProject Disability has contributed massively to the encyclopedia, and in our brief interaction during the development of its style guide, I found him unfailingly collaborative."), and I admire Roger even more for admitting up front that he hadn't read WP:BEFORE until now. His calm, positive replies to Dirtlawyer1 (in the neutrals) reinforce this feeling. I even have quite a lot of sympathy for his views about cruddy articles. But the received wisdom at AFD is based on consensus, which is the most important thing of all. Before !voting to give a delete button, I'd like to see evidence that Roger now knows how to call it at AFD. When that can be seen, I'll support a future RFA in an instant. --Stfg (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose with a heavy heart, sorry; mainly because of the BEFOREgate. Come back in 6 months time with some wider knowledge and more AFD participation and I'll be happy to support. GiantSnowman 06:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose This is not an easy call because I have a great deal of respect for some of the editors in the Support section and there can be no doubt as to your commitment at AfC. I also appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. That said, in !voting this way, I have sufficient concerns about policy understanding to land me here. These have been mentioned above by DGG but I'd emphasise that WP:BEFORE is fundamental to deletion policy - it's certainly required reading for any potential admin.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per Axl and especially DGG, who hits the nail right on the head. Also because of statements like "...it's not a dirt poor shit-hole like say, Somalia or Afghanistan.....keep this piece of unsourced crap, I'm past caring..." That is offensive to the people of Somalia and Afghanistan. Also, such comments can really hurt the feelings of content creators, and make them want to leave. If an administrator were to make such statements, I would wish they were not an administrator. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate's talent for dropping indelicate comments is somewhat obvious. I hate to imagine the kind of things he will say if he gets to use the block button. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed based on poor judgment regarding inclusion/deletion, however I would have opposed on the grounds of that comment as well. We have enough admins that don't care to be civil. Chillum 14:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The abovementioned comment is more than one year old. Can you show something more recent? Or do you mean that one questionable comment in 7 years disqualifies an admin candidate forever? Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about forever, but today the candidate appears to be the wrong man for the job. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose AFD noms under 50% success indicates a misunderstanding of deletion policy, as does DGG's AFC observations. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Anna Frodesiak. I have no problem with the word "crap" being flung around, but saying that certain countries are shitholes is incredibly insensitive towards people who may live there. Also, per DGG, concerns about the knowledge of deletion policy makes me oppose, unfortunately. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Per Anna Frodesiak, I've changed my support to oppose, as an insensitive attitude like that regarding the third world is more than a little concerning. Tina Gasturich (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose pretty much more DGG and Dennis Brown. The fact that the candidate has been nominating articles for deletion for more than two years without bothering to read the governing policy page is quite disturbing, and the followup response to question 9 shows more attention paid to the "how-to" aspects of the editing process than to the "why-to" aspects of relevant policy -- a failure that just can't be accepted in administrators. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Most of what's in the oppose section is problematic, but I expect you'll take all this on board and pass with flying colors next time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sigh. I need evidence of better skill and perspective. Bravo for the addition to Q1. Glrx (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose- I am sorry, but at first I was just uncomfortable with the candidate and their user page declarations but now...on top of that I see the comments from the deletion discussion of Manarcad Church where they are degrading to certain countries they see as "Shitholes" and express them in discussion as if that is a way to compare one country to another. As stated by Anna, that is very insensitive to those countries and their citizens and I will add, pretty insulting, uncivil and a clear indication that their biases are very strong. We need diversity at Wikipedia and I think this would take us in the opposite direction.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - With regrets. Clean block log (trout to Nawlinswiki) and no indications of assholery. Adequate tenure and edit count. Good candidate, in my view, but... I can't support, unfortunately, due to what seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the deletion process, which should start with at least cursory investigation of available sourcing on a topic (as opposed to sources showing in the piece) and some sense of whether a nomination is going to auto-keep due to clearance of a Special Notability Guideline. Yes, people make mistakes with AFD nominations, but just glancing at a couple examples cited by the opposers above, there is enough to give me serious, serious pause about whether this is a person that I want to see with deletion buttons, making the call on A7-SPEEDY nominations, for example. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Sorry, but calling other nations "shitholes" is not behavior a potential administrator should engage in. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Wikipedia is not censored, that's a major slip-up and it will likely doom any chances of Dodger passing this time. I won't retract support, but he certainly owes an apology. RWCasinoKid (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    RWCasinoKid I certainly agree with you in that regard, as I have sometimes dropped curse words in discussion here. However, it is one thing to drop a curse word here and there, and another to aim it at a group of people or a nation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - Moved from Support, users decisions at AFD is not what we want in an admin. If he improves I will be happy to support next time. Also per Kevin Rutherford. NickGibson3900 Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Per DGG and Kevin Rutherford. Not that anyone is perfect in AfD. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - I have concerns with the comments made, and I have grave concerns that the candidate hasn't read WP:BEFORE despite having been active in the deletion process and being given tools to continue being active in the deletion process. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose – Echoing the thoughts of others. Less than stellar track record at AfD. United States Man (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - If using AFD as a benchmark, needs a stronger portfolio in AFD as noted above. --Molestash (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per the AfD/BEFORE concerns highlighted by others. I don't think that now is the right time for the mop. Sorry. — sparklism hey! 19:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose As per DGG, Anna Frodesiak and others. Now is not the time - suggest a year of making good edits in the areas of concern indicated, and come back. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Anna Frodesiak. While I really appreciate the work the candidate has done and also their capacity to learn from mistakes, I think that right now there are too many questions. I will support in 6-12 months once these questions have been resolved. --John (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

#Neutralmoving to oppose Placing myself here pending answer to above question from myself. If the candidate did, in fact, make those articles which were subsequently taken to AFD and deleted - I'll have some obvious concerns with his judgement. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral. For the most part the candidate looks pretty good, but after looking through the articles he created, almost all of them are stubs (or unrated stubby articles) with only a few start-class articles, and, unless I missed something, nothing rated higher than start-class. I would have liked to see at least a couple of better developed articles, say class C or B or higher. The candidate's AfC participation also gives me pause. I view the entire AfC project as a substantial net negative for Wikipedia. In my opinion, AfC is simply unnecessary and creates more problems than it solves. So I view anyone with heavy AfC participation with suspicion. That alone is not enough for me to oppose, but it'd have to be outweighed by some major positives in other areas in order for me to support. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nsk92:I respect your opinion, and you don't really have to give a reason for your opinion being neutral, but would you mind explaining to me(on my talk page, to avoid threads on a RfA) what you mean by AfC being a "substantial net negative"? Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 22:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nsk92 I am also interested in learning why you think all of AFC is a negative to the project, as there are definitely some quirks with the project, but we shouldn't completely throw out tens of thousands of hours of work by both volunteers and editors alike as a negative to the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now and I may change this later when I have had an opportunity to do my time-consuming research. (Moved to 'Support') I am reluctant to base support on the main acclaim for work at AfC which is not strictly one of the traditional admin related maintenance areas. IMO in spite of some changes to it (some as a result of my and DGG's initiatives and Anne Delong's hard work) it remains largely IMO a broken process and still appears to be simply a struggle as to whose scripts are the best rather than discussing some real software alternatives; and that's why I have withdrawn from discussions on it. Anyone who could get that initiated and implemented would be worthy of its mention as a feather in their cap for RfA, but not for their routine reviewing - which, as DGG points out in the 'oppose' section, may need some closer scrutiny. Solid work at AfD, NPP, and other areas would demonstrate the skills of judgement and knowledge of guidelines and policies required for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, the answer to question 5 lands me here as I was leaning towards opposing on the face value of the example Axl has shown. I am not unconcerned with question 4 either.—John Cline (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - To the best of my recollection, this is the first and only time I have ever felt compelled to register a "neutral" !vote in an RfA discussion. I do not do so lightly, but for the purpose of offering free advice and constructive criticism to Roger-Dodger67, the candidate. I see much to like about Roger which leads me to believe he will make an excellent administrator in the future: his significant contributions to the project, his editing and writing skills, his generally unflappable personality, and his demonstrated desire to help other editors are all excellent qualities that I want all administrators to have. That having been said, my critical review of his AfD participation (especially his own AfD nominations), as well as several of his AfD-related comments above, lead me to the conclusion that he does not yet have the full depth of understanding of our notability and deletion guidelines, procedures and conventions which I believe all administrators should have, especially if they are going to be active in the deletion of articles and the evaluation of subject notability. My strong concern is not a "fatal" one, but it does prevent me from registering an unqualified "support" !vote for Roger. If, as presently seems likely, this RfA succeeds, I strongly urge Roger to spend significant time reviewing our general notability guidelines, specific notability guidelines, BLP policy, WP:BEFORE, and the AfD, PROD and CSD policies and procedures (many of which are best understood and absorbed by reviewing closely argued AfDs). There are obvious holes in Roger's understanding of these key areas and he needs to fill them before he can become the type of admin I'm sure he aspires to be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by candidate - I do indeed recognize (after the above analyses of my AfDs) that my own interpretation of Notability does seem to be somewhat stricter or narrower than the generally accepted consensus. Thus it is something I need to be more careful about in future. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your gracious comment above. I hope you accepted mine in the constructive spirit in which it was intended. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by candidate - It's all good. In fact even if I don't pass this RfA it has (so far at least) been much more of a learning experience (about myself as an editor as well as various procedures and aspects of WP) than the inquisition I feared. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    moving to Oppose Neutral - Clean block log (trout to Nawlinswiki) and no indications of assholery. Adequate tenure and edit count. Good candidate, in my view. I can't support, however, due to what seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the deletion process, which should start with at least cursory investigation of available sourcing on a topic (as opposed to sources showing in the piece) and some sense of whether a nomination is going to auto-keep due to clearance of a Special Notability Guideline. Yes, people make mistakes with AFD nominations, but just glancing at a couple examples cited by the opposers above, there is enough to give me serious, serious pause about whether this is a person that I want to see with deletion buttons, making the call on A7-SPEEDY nominations, for example. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral my apologies am neutral, please take the comments above to heart and come back in six months. I think this candidate will in the future make a good admin. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 21:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I am a tad uncomfortable with this candidates declaration of systemic biases on their user page. Too uncomfortable to either oppose or support.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Not a chance. I doubt I could support this candidate in 6 months to even a year, but I will keep an open mind.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh..wait...now I am seeing something that, on top of the above could persuade me to actually oppose. I need to take a closer look.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dodger67&oldid=1136073808"