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

Butseriouslyfolks[edit]

Ended (66/15/1). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs) - I was thinking of waiting on this user a little while before nominating him, but in reality, I think he is ready for the tools now. He's done great work in many aspects of Wikipedia. He has become an asset at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, and his adminship would help him out more there. He does do some image work as well, which is always great. He helps out at schools, and the deletion thereof. Granted, schools have been a problem here forever, but he always keeps a cool head in those discussions and does what he's supposed to do in those discussions (not anger anyone). He contributes to the encyclopedia, helps out in discussion, and continues to improve every time I see him. He would be great as a wikipedia administrator. Wizardman 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully and humbly accept. -- But|seriously|folks  23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to start in areas where I am most familiar. I spend a lot of time following up on copyvio leads generated by Wherebot at WP:SCV. We could use another admin over there as copyvios sometimes sit undeleted for a while if the regulars are busy elsewhere and it's not stacked up enough for a backlog tag. I would also like to help out with the WP:CSD backlog, particularly the copyvios at WP:CSD#G12. I will also help out with reviewing images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and Category:All replaceable fair use images and related pages. I expect I'd gradually work into the other XfD's, starting with uncontroversial closures. (Since I'm quite active in school AfD's, I would not be closing them unless they were unanimous or nearly so.)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm so busy IRL that it's difficult for me to get extended blocks of time on Wikipedia. As a result, I tend to spend my time here helping out at WP:SCV and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, tagging problem images and copyediting (rather than creating encyclopedic content, which requires more time and energy). I think my best contribution is at WP:SCV, where I work hard to keep things from getting backlogged. My best work on a single article is probably my improvement of Sesquicentennial Exposition. I am also happy to have found and added a public domain photo of a young Grover Cleveland, created and interlinked a few stubs (like Curtis Organ, Irvine Auditorium and Kirk Hyslop) and made smaller contributions to diverse articles. I've also tinkered with a few templates, although I have a lot to learn as far as coding is concerned.
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: Yes; it's difficult to avoid controversy when tagging the work of others for copyright infringement. I try to always remember that some editors take such things personally and temper my responses accordingly. I spend a lot of time explaining copyright policies to other editors, and I encourage them to ask me further questions if they do not understand. Sometimes, when I find myself getting particularly frustrated, I just click on the X in that red box at the top right of my monitor (i.e., I close the window), and I feel much better. I have also offered others the opportunity to have the last word, which usually settles things down quickly. We're all in this together, and getting combative with others does not advance the project.
Optional question from Pascal
4 You mention that you plan working on unfree images. As I'm sure you're aware this is currently one of the greatest sources of ill-will and frustration, especially for newbies. So open-ended question: what are your thoughts on this? In particular how would you approach the growing number of users who systematically tag for speedy-deletion images without a detailed fair-use rationale or, conversely, systematically take down these speedy-tags? What do you think is the best way to enforce WP:NFCC in order to reduce collateral damage? Should we care about the collateral damage?
A: I agree. Wikipedia's policy on unfree images may be the most complicated area here. There is even disagreement among experienced users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use as to its interpretation. I think it would be very helpful if the Foundation would give us clearer guidance in this area, as it is more a matter of law than a question of consensus, but we have to do the best we can in the absence of such guidance.
I have received a number of messages on my talk page in response to my tagging of unfree images, and I always explain my understanding of WP's policy to other users to the best of my ability. Fortunately, I have found most of them to be accepting of my explanations and willing to work within the policy.
At the moment, our nonfree content criteria require a detailed fair use rationale. While I personally try to avoid tagging images where I feel the rationale is obvious (such as a CD cover used to illustrate an article about the CD itself), such tags are appropriate under our current policy and therefore should not be removed unless an appropriate fair use rationale is provided. If people are systematically removing these tags, they should probably be warned and encouraged to participate in the discussions at the nonfree content talk pages so that the policy can be modified, if appropriate, rather than taking things into their own hands.
Due to the complexity of this area, I think more guidance is necessary. Some might call it instruction creep, but the best way to avoid problems in this area is to lay out a comprehensive set of rules, with plenty of examples, so casual users can at least check whether their proposed use is clearly acceptable or clearly unacceptable. As for the grey area in between, I think that will always be up in the air unless we get legal guidance. -- But|seriously|folks  04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Optional question from TerriersFan

5 I think that it is fair to say that you have an established position on what constitutes notability with regard to school articles. Would you be intending to close school AfDs?
A: As I noted above in my answer to Q1, I intend to avoid closing school AfD's unless they are unanimous or nearly so, primarily to avoid any appearance of impropriety, but also because I will usually be participating in them. -- But|seriously|folks  02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my apologies, I missed that TerriersFan 03:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. In your reply to DS1952 (second "Oppose" vote, below) you say: "I don't know that I would have closed it the same way, but I do believe it was within the latitude afforded admins under Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. I see this as a failure of WP:V, which overrides other good faith arguments. Also, in allocating weight to editor's positions, an argument that is not supported by any policy, guideline or consensus should be given very little weight."
Notability is not one of the policies that overrides consensus according to WP:DGFA, and it is what was actually the main point that that deletion discussion turned on. While related to verifiability, WP:N is a different rule and the distinction is important: WP:V can override consensus, but in fact there was plenty of verified or verifiable information in the article (the history section, for instance, was not footnoted, but I see it was taken from the school's history Web page). (A) Reviewing WP:V I don't see how it can be used to override a consensus unless the administrator has reason to believe the article can't or won't be reliably sourced. Do you agree, and why or why not? And how do you think WP:V could properly be used to override consensus in this deletion discussion? (B) If unreferenced information were simply deleted or provided with proper footnotes, would it have been a better option to abide by the consensus to keep and suggest those improvements rather than override consensus? Noroton 05:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: This is a tough issue, as shown by the even split at the relatively active DR that raised this issue. The author of this question has expressed some very strong opinions there, such that I don't know whether any answer I could give would satisfy him (although I have observed him to be open minded). But I'm willing to give it a try!
WP:N does not permit us to assess notability based on our own subjective view of what is notable. We have to show that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That is the language I paraphrased in my DR !vote. My understanding from reviewing the AfD is that the article in question had no sources (hence my reference to WP:V) to substantiate a claim of notability, so it was not possible to satisfy WP:N. (I should note that I did not participate in this particular AfD and did not review the article before it was deleted.) Based on this understanding, any assertion that WP:N was met could not have been accurate, however well-intentioned. Essentially, they were implicitly arguing that high schools do not have to satisfy WP:N, but AfD is the wrong forum for that discussion. And that was my reasoning.
If unsupported assertions that a subject is notable, without any citation to a reliable source, are sufficient to prevent an article from being deleted, then we might as well throw WP:N out the window.
For those who would argue that an opinion that "Notability is not shown, because there are no sources" is entitled to no more weight than "This school is notable, despite the absence of any sources", I would point out that is usually impossible to prove a negative assertion (e.g., that a subject is not notable). One can only make the observation that notability has not been demonstrated. To support a positive assertion, one need only point to evidence of the assertion (e.g., a reliable, independent source that significantly discusses the subject). If correct, the former opinion is impossible to prove conclusively, while the latter, if accurate, is quite easy to substantiate.
As for the specific subquestions:
A.) I believe WP:V can be used to override consensus if an article is not reliably sourced, even if it could potentially be sourced. If an article has no sources, it fails WP:V, no matter how many editors would like the article kept. I have already addressed above the interrelationship of WP:V and WP:N as regards the particular DR at issue.
B.) The standard at DR is not whether the closing admin selected the better option, it is whether the closure was within process. If I came across this AfD as an admin, prior to all of the analysis it has received, I'm sure I would have closed it as 'no consensus'. If unreferenced information were provided with proper footnotes, WP:V would not be in question, so the consensus that WP:N was satisfied could not be overridden.
I should probably emphasize that I have no interest in closing complex or contentious AfD's at the moment, although I might work up to it someday. I am willing to help out with closure of basic XfD's, but I expect my main use of the extra buttons will involve copyright issues, both in articles WP:SCV and images. -- But|seriously|folks  06:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support as nom. Wizardman 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I had a check through your contribs earlier on and I see no problems - best of luck. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -- seems good. As a side note, might want to get more into the template namespace. But then again, not many people go there. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No concerns here. Looks good. —Anas talk? 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Same as above. Has the mindset, won't abuse the tools. Ganfon 23:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I agree with the other supporters in their statements. Captain panda 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support dedicated copyvio hunter... we've promoted several "graduates" of WP:SCV and they've all been great blue-collar admins. BSF is ridiculously active there, and I think he should be a big help with the various backlogs, especially copyright-related ones. --W.marsh 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No problems here :-). ~ Wikihermit 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. But seriously folks... support this guy :P Kwsn(Ni!) 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I like the username better than the user, but what can you do?... I've seen his comments on occasion, but I'm really impressed by his focus on weeding out copyvios. It's not easy, and anyone who is dedicated toward that goal deserves to receive the tools and continue working on it. Shalom Hello 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I see no significant problems with this editors' contributions. (aeropagitica) 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Same as above. Hydrogen Iodide 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Looks good to me.  RGTraynor  06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Based on 1) Trusted Nominator 2) Strong contributions from a candidate who says he has little time to edit! 3) Civility evidenced from contribution history 4) Excellent and expanded answers to the questions. Good luck. Pedro |  Chat  08:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Neil ╦ 09:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No issues...good luck! Jmlk17 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Seriously folks..I thought he was one ;)..--Cometstyles 12:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - We need more admins to deal with copyright... keep up the good work. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Garion96 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nom. Peacent 16:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as per nominator. Politics rule 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support I thought Butseriouslyfolks was an administrator as well. I can trust Wizardman's nomination. Acalamari 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Fine administrator material. Eusebeus 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Obviously. —AldeBaer (c) 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, nothing disconcerting about this user's answers or contributions. Arkyan • (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Nice answer to Q.3... ScarianTalk 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Good range of experience, has useful skills especially in copyvio work; seen him/her around, no problems. Good candidate.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support A sensible candidate with great expeirence. Thewinchester (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No concerns. H irohisatTalk Page 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support -- Very actively editing, no apparent flaws in contributions. I'd say this user is more than ready for the promotion.The Kensington Blonde Talk 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support BSF is trustworthy and will not abuse the tools. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Good evidence and good attitude. --Quiddity 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Excellent communication skills, which is something very positive for admins.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Doesn't have any outstanding issues. OhanaUnitedTalk page 10:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support- Per reasons above, user doesn't have any obvious problems. Francisco Tevez 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of Molag Bal. See here. Acalamari 01:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Pascal.Tesson 12:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Suppose - a little low on mainspace edits, but then so was I for my RFA. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I suppose I support: Ordinarily I do like to see more in the way of significant mainspace and article contributions. However, we're short on admins who handle image- and copyright-related issues, and Butseriously has a good track record there. I don't see any red flags. MastCell Talk 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support seems thoughtful, and serious, Modernist 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support will provide valuable help in areas in need for admin attention.--Húsönd 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Case of "What, he's not one already?" I had made this assumption from the user's widespread involvement, good conduct and thoughtful arguments at AfD debates, and improvement of articles. Deserves the mop. Orderinchaos 04:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. But seriously, folks. He would make a great admin, handling image and copyright issues (places I get perplexed on). Sr13 07:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Excellent editor -> excellent admin - and I like the positive response to question 3 :) ck lostsword•T•C 09:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I have worked with this editor, and he is ready. His attitude is good, and he is willing to work with other people. old windy bear 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Weak Support - those who are opposing based on lack of "improving articles" should bear in mind that maintenance tasks are equally valuable to the encyclopedia, and that there are large administrative backlogs which require attention. This candidate clearly has plenty of maintenance experience and is ready to help clear the backlogs. As such, on the whole, I can't oppose, although I urge the candidate to take on board the points raised by DS1953 and Alansohn below; closing admins should not generally ignore opinions given in good faith. Waltontalk 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Always a prolific contributor to AfDs and will make a fine admin! MetsFan76 21:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I've seen good work from this editor, and I trust him. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Your current work in the area of copyright violations speaks for itself, and this is an area that could always use more active admin involvement. -- MisterHand 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I have no concerns that you will abuse the admin tools, in fact I think you will make good use of them. My experience with you makes me think you are civil and would make a good admin. I have no concerns on lack of "article writing". Camaron1 | Chris 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support We need good administrators like him.--LtWinters 01:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I note that this editor and myself clashed strongly the first time we met, and we still disagree, but he kept it civil, he was willing to listen, and he deserves to be an admin! Stillstudying 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support His work with images is necessary. Admin tools would help him in that work. nadav (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support We need a group of admins of 'all the talents' and I see this editor as being prepared to undertake unpopular but essential work. I have sometimes disagreed with him on the knotty topic of school AfDs but he has always been civil and has been prepared to revise his opinion in the light of new evidence - which is often not done when editors 'hit and run' on AfDs. Finally, I have appreciated his support in highlighting and standing up to disruptive elements. TerriersFan 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support — after reading his most eloquent ‘diversity speech’ down in the oppose section. I also read the rest of this page and found that I overall like this user's view of things and would feel comfortable with him as an admin. --Jack Merridew 11:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, lots of good work in copyright shows good judgment. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Copyright work is not the easiest function to perform, and you do it admirably well. I think you will make a fine admin. Trusilver 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. (Edit conflict) I don't find the opposes persuasive. This user seems like someone who is interested in helping the project run more smoothly. Andre (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I find BSF's reasoning solid while the oppose section seems unconvincing. Copyright issues are exceptionally important and I appreciate his work. As for many of the others I simply cannot understand their disdain for those who keep this place functional. We are here because we have both strong editors and strong cops. To suggest one is less important is poorly reasoned. JodyB talk 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. This editor has really helped the project with his work on the images issue and I think he'll provide valuable service as an admin. Cla68 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I see no reason to think he will misuse the tools. I  (said) (did) 03:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Looks good, like his attitude. --Strothra 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Total edit count: Check. Cool under fire: Check. Adequate mainspace edits: Check. Already busy with admin-related work: Check. Issue the mop. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 10:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. I come across a lot of minor vandalism and miscellaneous silliness in WP. Often I find that much of the mess has already been cleared up by BSF. I'm wary of people who are very keen on "fighting" vandalism: they sometimes seem worryingly close to relishing the "fight" and perhaps even relishing the vandalism. By contrast, BSF seems sane and balanced (though I wish he'd use a signature with fewer bytes). -- Hoary 11:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I, too, have started to rvv on more than a few occasions, only to find the vandalism had already been dealt with by BSF. I think he absolutely has earned the trust necessary to have the tools, and I think they will prove useful in his work.   user:justen    talk   14:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. I believe this user would make an ideal administrator and Wikipedia would only benefit from allowing this user to have administrator capabilities. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, no evidence he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose — I'm not really very impressed, you don't seem to do the important tasks such as improving articles — aka contributing. I'm also not really married to the idea of you going through an editor's upload logs and filling their talk page with warnings. There are tasks that I believe you could have fulfilled, which is only beneficial in educating the user better. Looking at your one fair use upload I see that you fail to include any copyright information (the tag does state "all available copyright information"). Matthew 17:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness I asked for him to help with the Paul Venter thing... BSF was just following standard procedure and helping me deal with a serial copyvio uploader who had actually been blocked for refusing to acknowledge he was doing anything wrong. If someone did something wrong here it was me for telling BSF to go through Venter's contribution history... a decision I stand by, but ask that I be the one held accountable for. --W.marsh 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see three points there, and I'd like to give you some feedback on each:
    1.) My contributions. I address that above under standard question #2, but you've given me a chance to give my little diversity speech, so here goes: I firmly believe that Wikipedia is a big place with many jobs to be done and many roles to fill. Few people can claim to be expert at all of them. We obviously need writers, who can review the available sources and distill them into a neutral article. (I think that's the hardest thing to do, and I am always impressed by those who seem to do it effortlessly.) The need for illustrators, who take or locate and upload images, is as obvious, because it wouldn't be much of an encylopedia without the visuals. But if all we had were writers and illustrators, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia — we'd have chaos. We need the copyeditors, who may not write their own articles but can turn other editors' work into featured articles. We need the users who devote their time to stemming the ever-rising tide of vandalism. We need the deletionists to filter out inappropriate content, the inclusionists to ensure that they don't go to far, and the XfD participants to establish consensus somewhere in the middle. We need the coders and layout people to give us templates, scripts and eye catching pages. We need admins, crats, arbcom members, etc. to try to maintain some order in this utopian free-for-all. And, I submit, we also need people who are primarily Wiki-gnomes, like me, who are generally content to focus on more esoteric areas like copyright policies so that Wikipedia does not find itself at the business end of copyright infringement lawsuits like so many other user-driven websites. If I left anybody out, I apologize, but my point is that people like me worry about copyright issues so the writers and others can focus on what they do best.
    2.) Paul Venter. This may have been my most depressing experience here. As noted above, I was asked to take a look at this user's long list of contributions because of copyright issues that recently came to light, some of which led to the user being blocked. The user has been very productive, uploading well over 100 images and creating many article. I quickly discovered that the user had been misusing the ((GFDL)) tag for over a year, among other violations of WP:C and WP:FU. I tried my best to tag the more egregious cases. (I actually let some arguable violations go, in line with WP:AGF.) I dislike tagging things without giving the author notice, to give him or her an opportunity to respond and fix the problem (if it can be fixed). I started getting discouraged by the scope of the problem when I was partway through, because I saw the user had many valuable contributions in addition to the problematic ones. I became concerned that we would lose a good editor because he misunderstood our copyright policies. So I tried my best to explain the situation on his talk page, give him guidance and encourage him to keep contributing. I sincerely hope that he does.
    3.) Image:SLCSP001_24.jpg. My one fair use upload. I plan to add more of these images to the article, but I haven't gotten to it, and I wanted to make sure I had done it properly, as it was my first foray into uploading fair use images. I did not include copyright information because none is given by the source website. I suppose the State of New Jersey has the copyright, but maybe it belongs to a local police department or some independent contractor photographer. I'd be guessing if I posted it, and, as you noted, the tag indicates that all available copyright information should be included. None was available.
    If you made it this far, sorry to be so verbose, and thank you for reading! -- But|seriously|folks  19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I do not agree with this editor's view on consensus as illustrated by this edit. If he believes that ignoring good faith opinions that he simply disagrees with can be equated with WP:ILIKEIT and disregarded, then I do not trust this editor with the power to delete. -- DS1953 talk 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that I would have closed it the same way, but I do believe it was within the latitude afforded admins under Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. I see this as a failure of WP:V, which overrides other good faith arguments. Also, in allocating weight to editor's positions, an argument that is not supported by any policy, guideline or consensus should be given very little weight. In any event, I have indicated above that I will not be closing contested school AfD's or, for the time being, controversial discussions like that one. -- But|seriously|folks  20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reread Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators and still can't see how anyone can possibly argue that there was a consensus to delete as required by Wikipedia:Deletion policy. While you mention verifiability in your comment, that was not the issue. You indicated that you believe (as you are entitled to believe) that an administrator can ignore the good faith arguments of one side and reach a "consensus" where none truly exists. I disagree. Since you conclude there was a consensus to delete under those circumstances, you clearly would not feel bound apply the tools in the way that I feel an administrator should be constrained. No hard feelings, but I will never support giving the tools to anyone who defines consensus to mean disregarding good faith opinions that are not contrary to some stated policy. -- DS1953 talk 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In most cases I'd agree that admins should not ignore good-faith opinions and call it "consensus", but looking at that particular case, the Keep !votes did consist entirely of "high schools are inherently notable", a position which is not supported by policy. So, although I would certainly oppose this candidate at RfB, I am fairly confident that s/he would not misuse the admin tools. I would urge the candidate to avoid closing controversial XfDs for a while, though. Waltontalk 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Your response at WP:DRV#Father Michael Goetz Secondary School is terribly informative of your approach to the role of a closing administrator. While I have no objection to discounting the value of WP:ILIKEIT votes, consistency and fairness dictate that the corresponding WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes -- which are equally devoid of reference to Wikipedia policy -- should be correspondingly discounted. The failure to demonstrate the ability to balance all sides of a deletion discussion in a balanced manner does not bode well for an administrator, particularly when this occurs in a discussion taking place while this RfA is still active (See here). Alansohn 21:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building to make me comfortable with this editor becoming an admin at this time. Espresso Addict 06:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose While running through CSDs today, I noticed a few dubious copyvio tags placed by the candidate. Although I ended up deleting the articles for other reasons (CSD A7), I'm not quite sure candidate understands copyright well enough to be given the mop. The repetition of a single declarative sentence, e.g. "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States", does not constitute a copyright violation. Facts are not copyright-able in themselves. For written words to be subject to copyright, they must contain a minimal creative element. Sometimes, single sentences do contain such, but a single declarative sentence often does not. Xoloz 19:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I beg to differ. The entire narrative portion of the article in question (North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives) was copied verbatim from another website. It is of no consequence that all of the information was factual. The creative process that determines which facts to include and which to exclude is part of what makes non-fiction copyrightable. It was certainly more creative than the example given above, which is hardly a fair comparison (especially since others cannot examin it since it has been deleted). However, interested readers can see the text that made up the article at this page. (The article was a copy of the entire first paragraph.) That the article had a list of members appended to the initial copy-and-paste does not alter the fact that it was a copyright violation. -- But|seriously|folks  19:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is moving to our talk pages, I suspect. My concerns are based on more than one example, but it serves as a fine point of discussion anyway. Xoloz 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. A lack of article-writing is not something that is often a priority to me. In this case, however, the one article that BSF has made the most edits to, Jonathon Sharkey has serious WP:BLP problems, and BSF's participation seems to have made them worse not better (e.g., here). Longtime observers of the evolution of WP:BLP may find irony (or hypocrisy) in it being me who raises this, but I think we would wait until we see BSF edit some more articles so that we can at least know that the Sharkey page is not typical. Bucketsofg 12:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The serious points I added are about as solidly sourced as they could be, because of my own BLP concerns. That was a very difficult article. If you compare it to its state before I got there, you'll see it was quite a mess. (Note that some of the additional facts shown in that diff were added by others, including the subject.) I added a lot of sourced facts and reorganized it significantly, removing a lot of junk in the process. It also had major POV issues, which are at least much better now, if not eliminated. (It didn't help that the subject of the article was editing it with a variery of socks.) Some of my work on this article were my first edits here, but I still think they were generally quality edits. -- But|seriously|folks  16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose Another policeman candidate--more interested in policing the project rather than building it (both are necessary). Too many applicants want to police rather than do things like foster consensus. In addition, the applicants answer to 2 is just plain unacceptable. Not enough time? Then there's not enough time to be a fair admin. Orangemarlin 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose You say nothing about how you would handle dispute resolution problems and yet say you choose an area with a high amount of stress. People don't like to see their photos deleted. You also claim how proud you are at finding public domain images of someone who has been dead for 100 years. Just about any photo of Grover Cleveland is in the public domain, and there are a few at commons already. And I agree with the above from orangemarlin: more editors, less cops. SchmuckyTheCat
    I think I addressed my approach to conflicts in my answer to Q3 above. I try to stay cool and focus on educating rather than arguing. I also try to be sensitive to the fact that people work to find and upload photos, and I try to give them suggestions on how they can do so appropriately. Considering the area in which I focus and the amount of work I've done there, I think there are remarkably few complaints on my talk page. As far as Grover is concerned, what made me happy (but not proud) about the image I uploaded was that it shows him as a younger man. All of the photos at Commons are of a plump, balding president. I think the one I uploaded enhances the article by showing him at another stage of his life. As for the editors/cops business, I am who I am. Still, despite my gnomish proclivities, I have still managed to improve many articles. Thanks for your input. -- But|seriously|folks  23:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that was an excellent response and shows that you truly think about why you perform actions. If you can contribute more in ways that address the other oppose reasons (like Orangemarlins) then you'll make a great impression on your next time around. SchmuckyTheCat
  9. Oppose per DS1953. Approach to that AFD close, dismissing all arguments he disagrees with as ILIKEIT, including an argument where sources were pointed to, indicates a too great a willingness to close debates based on one's own rather than on the opinion of the community. It is very annoying when someone makes an effort to make a policy-reasoned argument (sources) and then see it dismissed as being "I like it". I'll agree that overruling a majority or even a consensus when hard and core issues like verifiability are at stake and have not been addressed at all, but those situations are in fact exceedingly rare. To overrule consensus on the basis of one's personal opinion over what is and what is not notable should not be done. Also, share Xoloz's concern. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per orangemarlin, essentially. Wikipedia is not whack-a-mole, and if you don't have time to contribute content, there's no guarantee you'll have time to use the additional buttons fairly and accurately. -- nae'blis 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that a test to see if I would look at your own user page? There, you say almost the exact same thing I said above, and I see you believe you have time to use those buttons appropriately, as you have not given up your adminship. Please help me to understand this apparently inconsistency. Incidentally, I never said I didn't have time to contribute content; I just said I tend to focus on other things. -- But|seriously|folks  17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, unfortunately I was not clever enough this morning to devise a trap of that magnitude. But I am glad to see you respond so quickly with a well-thought-out response. My concern is that you seem to be focused on, for lack of a better word, the "enforcement" side of the Encyclopedia. While I do not have time to contribute regularly right now, I still endeavor to contribute more content than I remove (attack pages being better policed helps with this), and keep up with what's going on in articles I've edited before. A quick, albeit not comprehensive, survey of your contributions does not show the level of involvement I'd really like. An expanded answer to Q2 may change my reply here, or I would be happy to watch for a future RFA (or you may pass this one, of course). Good luck. -- nae'blis 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Alansohn -- Y not? 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Candidate has minimal experience writing articles. Someone on copyvio patrol should be better versed at creating content. I'm also troubled by the candidate's edit summaries. When addressing potential copyvio situations the candidate should educate others on Wikipedia policy. Some copyvio patrollers embed links in their removal edits to copyvio policy pages. I haven't seen this in some of your recent copyvio edits. If you're going to cut corners on communication then you're not ready for an adminship. Take time to make substantial contributions to a few more articles. Majoreditor 01:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the copyvio is significant, I usually leave a warning note on the user's talk page. I have no way of knowing whether they're watching the article page where I removed the copyvio, but I know they'll get a message on their talk page if they ever log in again. I actually think communication is one of my strong points. -- But|seriously|folks  01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per nae'blis and some others above.Bec-Thorn-Berry 07:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I do not consider this candidate has adequate qualifications- lacking a track record of contribution of articles, and lacking knowledge of the law of copyright and Wikipedia policy regarding copyright. Fitzpatrickjm 12:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some context regarding interaction between this user and the nominee, see User_talk:Fitzpatrickjm and [1]. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose - Per Matthew, Orangemarlin. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, lack of encyclopaedic contributions.--Bryson 15:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

#Neutral I don't understand why you left a bunch of templates here for an established user. ~ Wikihermit 23:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (understandable, changing to support)[reply]
The short answer would be that the user in question posted a bunch of articles that were copied verbatim from the subject organizations' websites. I had already posted a few of the warning templates before I realized the scope of the situation, so I kept going. If I knew from the start that I would find ten of them, I probably would have posted the warning differently. If you are suggesting that DTTR applies, I feel that essay is most relevant as it pertains to disputes. This was a simple copyright issue, and the editor in question did not take offense. I later helped with the subsequent merger of the articles in question and made a constructive suggestion on the editor's talk page. -- But|seriously|folks  00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nothing wrong with routine template notifications. DTTR is intended mostly for the attacks/3rr/vandalism templates. Even regulars might be insufficiently aware of the details of the copyvio mechanisms. Pascal.Tesson 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#Everything else seems to be good, but I'm concerned about this edit where you point out that you attempted to add false information to mobygames.com (a user-contribution powered site) in order to highlight their unreliability. This seems quite wp:point-like, as well as being something that would've probably gone without notice in reverse. Plus, using my username (as an editor on the other side of the discussion) as the false info was either just silly, or a bit rude. Anything you'd like to clarify about that? --Quiddity 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair observation. I will concede silly, but I certainly didn't intend any rudeness or offense. If taken, I do apologize. I simply wanted what I added to be relevant to the discussion to better demonstrate that the site in question, which had been linkspamming WP, was both a wiki and not a reliable source. Fortunately for me, I am not seeking to become an admin at mobygames.com, although I have reviewed the Terms of Service and other guidelines over there and I don't think I violated anything. However, since I am now feeling a bit guilty about the misinformation I have propagated, I am going right to mobygames to undo my revisions. -- But|seriously|folks  05:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just the answer I was hoping for :) Good plain honesty (and good username). Thank you. --Quiddity 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose weakly and reluctantly. Neutral My encounter with Butseriouslyfolks was through his tagging a few images I'd uploaded. He was cordial, honest and polite in our discussion, and for this reason my first impulse was to Support this bid for adminship. However seeing the lack of work in the creation aspect of Wikipedia raised some concerns. And looking over his actions in the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives deletion, (mentioned by user:Xoloz above), turned my vote to a reluctant, weak Oppose. The article, when I looked at it, consisted of two lines of (I was told) copyright violation. The same day it was created, Butseriouslyfolks, tagged it for speedy deletion. Xoloz raised concerns, yet Butseriouslyfolks did not lower the tag to AfD, or ask for a rewrite. It looked to me like it would have been a simple matter for Xoloz to rewrite the article from scratch-- it was a stub anyway-- and source it with a citation to that copyrighted material. When I checked back to see if this was done, the article was gone. Butseriouslyfolks had stuck to his guns. To me, this is an indication not only of cowboy-type behavior, but also of strict, literalistic application of rules which is against a few points fundamental to the Wikipedian philosophy, such as Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Tagging the work of other editors for deletion, while necessary sometimes, is not a difficult task. It is not a way to gain full understanding of the project, and is just about a half-step up from bot-work. (Though, again, my experience with Butseriouslyfolks was good.) At Wikipedia, as in real life, the Administrators who work up from the bottom, learning the ropes of every aspect of the organization along the way are almost always the best. Those who come in without experience, quoting the book and refusing to compromise generally create a negative working atomosphere, cause good people to leave, and are often of questionable worth. I do think Butseriouslyfolks will be a good administrator eventually, and, yes, we do need administrators working in all aspects of the project. However I believe every editor, from the top down, should first work to have a strong experience in the editing side of the project before he takes on new responsibilities. It was my understanding, at first glance (I didn't get a chance for a second glance) that the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives article was one of those cases that could be fixed rather than deleted. This points out the hazards of knowing all the rules, but not having sufficient experience in implementing them realistically. When you know what it's like to have your work put up for deletion, and know how deletion can often be avoided through good editing and improving the work, your contributions to the project, even if they are on the side of deletion, can be much more positive. Yes, deletion is important, but before I can fully support his nomination, I'd like to see more experience in the creation/saving aspect of the project. No hard feelings, Butseriouslyfolks. If you win this time, I believe you will eventually be a good admin. And I hope to give my full support next time, if you come up for adminship again later. Dekkappai 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems my understanding of the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives affair was completely mistaken. Never mind... I'd still like to see more hands-on creation/saving work before I'd give a full support, but BSF's explanation alleviates the one concern I had. No opposition. Dekkappai 22:56, 10 July 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.
Category