Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bedford

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

Bedford

Final: (82/4/5); ended 22:13,

10 April 2008
(UTC)

T:DYK gets backlogged. Bedford's a frequent DYK contributer already, and having him as an admin would give us a sorely needed set of hands there. His article writing ability is great as well, writing, well, a lot of them. He's contributed plenty to all namespaces (including over 1000 portal edits), and has done well in all namespaces. Quite simply, he's a very solid candidate who would be very deserving of adminship. Wizardman 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am delighted to be seen as a potential administrator. I accept the nomination.--Bedford 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly work on DYKs, especially in promptly updating those to be seen on the main page. I am also interested in cataloging the images we have, and seeing which ought to be moved to commons.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created and bought three portals to featured status (Portal:Louisville, Portal:Kentucky, and Portal:Indianapolis), and have helped on the Portals related to astrology and the American Civil War. I also assessed 10,000 articles during WP:Military History's 2007 drive, allowing that WP to better oversee their interests.
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: If one hasn't gotten into conflicts on Wikipedia, then I wonder how much they were involved. Different worldviews make for a better online encyclopedia, but it also means conflicts. I find it best to treat each case individually, relying on past experiences to shape future actions. If things get too heated, then its time to find outsiders to meditate, assuming good faith whenever possible.

Optional Questions from User:Wisdom89

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A- I would first leave a message to that user, asking him to please refrain from sockpuppetry. If he continues, I would confer with other admins, as something needs to be done to stop sockpuppetry. If I was a long-term admin, I would feel free to place a short-term block, to wake up the editor that what he's doing is wrong. A short-term admin must carefully balance that he should not be afraid of his power, but he must also be sure not to overstep his bounds, much the same way a 2nd Lieutenant must be careful to start his career smoothly.
5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected
WP:RFAR
as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A- As a fellow admin, I must respect other admin's decisions. If it is still open for comment, I'll leave my two cents so that a better consensus can be formed. If ArbCom rejects the case, I will respect that decision unless something that was overlooked was so wrong, in which case I will confer with a more experienced admin, and ask his opinion if ArbCom may have gotten something wrong.
6. What is your opinion/interpretation of
WP:IAR
and under what circumstances would it be appropriate to invoke it?
A- It is like the adage "There's an exception to every rule". In a way, it is like amending the Constitution, allowing a way to improve Wikipedia that was not forseen. However, if rules are being ignored without reason, and are disruptive, then action must be done to stop this.
7. What is your opinion of
WP:AOR
and would add yourself to it?
A- AOR is like a pre-nup, assuming trouble on the horizon when it is vastly hoped there will be no problems, and darkening clouds which should remain bright and fluffy. If editors are uneasy about my nom, I can add myself to it; but, if I am a problem admin, I will be removed by my peers in any event.

Optional questions from MBisanz

8. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?
A. Having been an editor for almost three years, I have come across many of the terms previously; most were self-evident to begin with.
Similar account name creation, and Viewing Special:Unwatchedpages
I have not dealt with much, if at all, but I see no trouble in grasping them.
9. What is your opinion on {{User recovery}}?
A. I think it is a useful tool to have; anything that is copyrighted or libel needs to remain off and stay off Wikipedia, but that which was deleted just to unseen importance should be remain handy in case something unforeseen occurs.
10. You come across a user vandalizing some articles through POV-pushing, 3RR, etc (Not page blanking or the like), you go to block them and see they have the ip-block-exempt flag (proposed). Does this impact your decision to block? What if they protest that they're a trusted user who shouldn't be blocked?
A. I would definitely rethink about blocking. With so many schools and libraries offering internet, it is a fine line about whether or not an IP is disruptive. If I am in doubt, I will do nothing for the moment, but will keep further watch. If a more experience admin is available, I'll ask for their take on the situation.
11. How do you feel about the
Admin Coaching
program? Would you be willing to coach interested users once you have some experience with the mop?
A. I have coached new users for a long time now, especially if they are working on objects relating to Southern Indiana. Having been a substitute teacher, and a seminar speaker, I feel that I can should coach those willing to be coached, and accept coaching if it is deemed necessary.
12 You appear to be lacking in Help talk and Mediawiki talk edits, will you agree to rectify this extreme deficiency when your an admin?
A. If it is part of the admin job, I will be sure to begin rectifying a lack of experience in those affairs. To be honest, there is so much to do on Wikipedia, that things will be overlooked, and they were.

Optional questions from Tiptoety talk

13. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Cool down blocks have an habit of inflaming passions more than actually cooking down hotheads. If the editor in consideration has a history of placidness and all of a sudden becomes heated, then maybe use a cool-down block, especially since it is possible that the account was hacked. But in general, they are too be avoided if at all possible.
Cooldown blocks should
never be used. --Charitwo talk 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I was aware of the policy being there; I just left a pinky finger in the door. As a newbie admin I would never do a cool down block on my own, but instead would just briefly mention it to a more experienced admin as an idea. Maybe it is because I just did an answer on IAR that I allowed for the pinky to exist.--Bedford 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. When should an article on the mainpage be fully protected and why? What about semi?
A: Fully protected if its a edit war where one or both sides exist of established users; semi-protecting if the edit war is due to unestablished users causing the edit war, with few if any established editors doing the warring.
15. You see another admin has deleted an article for violation of
WP:BLP
, but upon some research find that the content was in fact true and all the article required was a few sources, how would you handle it?
A: I would ask the admin his reasons for deletion, and if he knew of the sources. Assume good faith, after all. If the admin in question is amiable, then restore the article, but making sure to add credible cites to the controversial text. If the admin is not amiable, then ask a senior admin, and maybe the coordinator of the WikiProject the article relates to, their opinion, and work from there to the benefit of Wikipedia.

Optional question from VegaDark

16. Under what circumstances should an admin indefinitely block an IP address?
A: If the IP is from an household computer with a history of vandalism, then it can be indefinitely blocked. If the IP is from a school or public library, then it should not be indefinitely blocked, although a block up to a few days may be warranted. IPs from dorms or internet cafes should be handled on a case by case basis, with admins conferring that an indefinite block is needed, and no indefinite blocking if there is no consensus.
A2: Indefinitely blocking IPs should be avoided, due to many changing dynamically. Blocks ranging from a few months to 2 years are preferable. Occasionally there is a need, if it is due to an open proxy/zombie computer.

More optional questions from Tiptoety talk

17. When should you not provide a user with a copy of a deleted article?
A:
18. What investigative actions would you take when looking into a report filed at
AIV
?
A: I would make sure the user was sufficiently warned. Then I look at the users edit history, to see if there is any hope that this user could be a constructive user, or whether it is actually a violation of 3RR or sockpuppetry so the user can be handled in the appropriate way.
19. When should you SALT/create protect an article? What type of content would you SALT more than others (if any)? How long would you SALT it for and why?
A: If an article is constantly recreated after an AfD, or if vandals keep recreating a disruptive article, then it needs to be salted. I would never preemptively salt an article; only salt if it is constantly being a problem. A controversial figure that does not meet notability standards, or if an owner of a business keeps restoring an article aboutn themselves, would seem likely candidates for salting I would ask senior admins how long an article should be salted; 3 months sounds a likely beginning time to salt.
20. What is the difference between a username hardblock and a username softblock? Under what circumstances would you apply them?
A: A hardblock would be used for a username that is blatantly disruptive, whereas softblock are for those that may have a legit use. A username such as "JimboWalesisSatan" should be hardblocked, whereas the name "JimboWhales" could be softblocked, in case someone who's actually named Jim Bo Whales joins Wikipedia and wants to use their real name (although I would definitely encourage a different name)
21. If a user comes to you saying they would like to take a wikibreak and want to make sure they do not edit during that time so they ask for a 2 week block. How would you reply?
A: I would have to decline, as typically we do not use the block feature. However, I may mention the Wikibreak Javascript, depending on the user.
22. How would you handle an un-block request?
A: I would ask the admin who blocked the user why they did the block, and inquire if he changed his mind, to prevent wheel warring. If the admin who block does not wish to change their mind, I will tell the person who wishes to be unblocked that they must go to ArbCom.
23. When should you block a user from using the email feature?
A: If I see complaints that the user is harassing or spamming other editors with the feature, I should give a short block of the feature, and ask the user for his side of the story. If the problem continues, blocking just the email may not be enough, but I will make sure to get advice from senior admins.

Optional question from balloonman

24. Now that you've played twenty questions, do you know the answer?
A: Yes, the answer is "I now know what it's like to go through a college fraternity hazing". ;)

Question from King Vegita

25 - What criteria do you look for in whether an article should be deleted or kept? I am not speaking of obvious ones, but the questionable ones: where it can be improved, but is not up to standards in its current version. KV(Talk) 12:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: We have so many articles that are only a few sentences and no refs, that I'd hate to delete any. As long as its not an obvious reason to delete (copyvio, libel, obviously nonnotable), I'd allow it to stay, but make sure it is given the correct stub and give it a WikiProject, marking it for attention.

Question from

VanTucky

26. On your user page, you say that your specialties are history and geography, and go on to call the Civil War the "
Tucky 17:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Question from Elkman

27. The Ice House on Little Muddy Creek in Morgantown, Kentucky is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It housed large blocks of ice that could be used to cool things down. Do you think that this usage of "cool-down blocks" is appropriate? Does the fact that the structure is now in ruins indicate that these "cool-down blocks" are now technically and functionally obsolete?
A: Considering the time that they were used, I would say they were appropriate as long as the lake/pond from which the ice was chipped from was noted as a clean source of water. With the invention of modern equipment, these kind of cool-down blocks are mostly obsolete, although some regions outside North America may still see such constructions as useful if they are still lacking in 21st Century equipment.--Bedford 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bedford before commenting.

Discussion

Dear Candidate. Your answer to Q16 is a little concerning, and well, broadly wrong. I'm not going to withdraw aupport, as your Q1 states the areas you are interested in are not related to the block button. But I would urge you to read

WP:BLOCK and the various sub-pages when this RFA passes (which it will). Pedro :  Chat  07:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I was answering from the impression I have gotten in the past; I stand corrected. Like you said, I have interests other than blocking to be an admin, and should I feel the need to block, I will ask advice from senior admins before doing such a thing.--Bedford 07:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Strong support as nom, plus for having to go through an absurd amount of questions. Wizardman 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Glad to see that Wizardman was playing a late April fool on us all. :) Seriously though, good candidate. Acalamari 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Great content work, active in lots of different areas. More like these please!
    talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Support Slightly concerned from your user boxes that you state you are "drug free". Rampant alcohol and drug abuse is a side effect of being an admin here, so best of luck with keeping that up... In seriousness, great contributions, clean talk page and a desire to work in the less common areas - particularly updating DYK - that's great news. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yup. A clean talkpage, good archives, firm knowledge of policy, more than qualified even for edit counters, a wealth of encyclopedic contributions. And to top it off, a nominator that always gets it right. Happy to support, good luck! *hic* he said as a drunken admin...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No problems here. --
    Siva1979Talk to me 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Support - highly worthy candidate. Bedford has shown adequate skills in a diverse range of areas from my various encounters with his name. Good luck, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Great communication, great work in the areas he wants to be active in. Only negative is that he's a Reds fan. ;-) No problems with the mop here.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support While there is a lack of some admin-related activities (AFDs, CSDs) I trust that he will stick to his area of expertise until he is more familiar with other areas. Jon513 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- very dedicated article writer and works well with others. Some people complain that potential admin candidates aren't good at writing articles, but Bedford is the exact opposite. Just don't stop writing articles about places on the National Register of Historic Places and about other places in Kentucky. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: Looks as if this editor has done some great work in the past with DYK. Also number of edits is great, edit summary is alright. Would be a great asset as an admin.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support - great editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - No reluctance in my mind. Trusted, proactive. BusterD (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support More DYK mops are always needed. --Sharkface217 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I've seen Bedford's work and he has helped me out a few times. He's a great writer and contributor. Full support. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support — Maxim(talk) 00:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Looking good. Dlohcierekim 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Great editor, very prolific and diligent. I liked the answers to the questions, every single one. User has experience in the areas which he wishes to work in as an admin. Good stuff. You have my support. I definitely do not foresee any issues or problems down the road. Good luck with the RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. That's A LOT of DYK. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Darn it, finally someone I can't oppose for lacking Cat talk, Template talk, or Portal talk edits! MBisanz talk 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Lots of diverse experience; looks trustworthy as well. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Everything here appears to be in order. That, and I am desperate to support an RfA. SorryGuy  Talk  01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support – all that needed to be said, has been said – see above. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 01:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. My answer is Yes. —
    4 April, 2008
    (UTC)
  26. Support per answer number 7!Balloonman (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I don't feel there is any reason not to trust this valued contributor with the added tools. Valtoras (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. No reason not to trust. And a side note. 23 questions in six hours?!?! -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support based on my observations at
    talk) 04:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  30. Support the candidate, Oppose the number of questions, many of which prove nothing about how the candidate can be trusted to use the tools effectively. Contributions show a good editor. Regards, EJF (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, per Wisdom and Anon'Diss.
    Anthøny 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  32. Clichéd support, I seriously thought you were an admin.
    inthegarden 07:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  33. Support Detailed answers to the questions, and a solid contributions history leave us with no doubts as to whether this editor is ready for the mop. Five Years 08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Another fine Wizardman candidate. :-) Lradrama 08:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. A very silly number of questions, considering the disposition of this user. Superb in many areas and can communicate well. I would ask the candidate to read up on blocking though. Rudget (review) 10:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support - Bedford is a great contributor, has been a huge contributor to
    Holla! 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  38. Support - the nominee is definately someone looking to improve the encyclopedia rather than constantly wear it down and scare away newbies. He appears to be someone who will be very thorough and willing to look at a whole situation and improve it rather than simply take one side or another. He also appears to be bluntly honest, which is a good thing, can't always trust a diplomat or politician. KV(Talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Feel he wil make a great admin, also glad to see he's from Indiana!!!
    talk to me 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  40. Support Solid. No worries. I also agree there are simply too many questions. Questions pertinent to the candidate are fine, but generic questions should be limited. A browse of the candidates history usually reveals more than the answers to the questions. SilkTork *YES! 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support pretty good editor which I think will make good use of the administrative powers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support - serious, trustworthy editor who's improved the encyclopedia and will continue to do so with administrative tools. Biruitorul (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Great editor, all those DYK's?! - Milks Favorite Cookie 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. -- Naerii 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support fine 'pedia builder. net positive.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. support - Beford is a great contributer and wonderfully responsible. I am surprised he is not already and admin. He has been very kind and helpful to me and other new users in helping to improve wikipedia! Charles Edward 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support and block anyone bureaucratic enough to ask 10 freaking questions at RFA. --Rividian (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - trustworthy and reliable. The question is not whether he needs adminship. The question is whether Wikipedia needs him more with the buttons. Pundit|utter 23:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weak support (changed from neutral). Not particularly because of the new Q16 answer (which I feel was somewhat lackluster), but per your response to Pedro in the discussion section of "should I feel the need to block, I will ask advice from senior admins before doing such a thing". I do think you will make a good admin, but knowledge of the blocking policy is important, and even though you don't anticipate blocking anyone at this time, most users come accross an occasion every now and then when it is needed. VegaDark (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support of course.   jj137 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Weak Support Has been around since May 2005 with over 4800 mainspace edits.There is nothing that the user will misuse the tools and his/her track is outstanding through not fully convienced why the tools are needed.Not needed for some merely writing featured articles or DYK but more needed for Vandal fighting,deletion and other admin areas but assume that he will get into it after getting the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, despite my concerns with your answer to question 57 - or was that question 58? :) Seriously, the candidate is a trustworthy and hard-working encyclopedia builder. Majoreditor (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support sounds all good Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, sensible user, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. My sympathies to the candidate also for the ridiculous amount of questions they've been compelled to answer. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  55. Support - while this user hasn't participated in the traditional admin areas, he requests the tools for DYK updating. I expect that Bedford will read the applicable policies before using the other buttons (most sysops will eventually). His contributions do not lead me to think that the extra buttons will not be safe in his repertoire of available tools. -MBK004 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Valued contributer. --Bhadani (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support will not abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Hell yes. God forbid he hadn't memorised a policy he'll never need to use. Seriously, what's the sudden lust for CDB questions...why can't we ask every candidate something like "in what order should the relative DYK pages be changed?" and oppose them if they make a typo? Oh, wait. Because that'd probably be over the heads of the vast majority of people who oppose per CDB.
    H2O) 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  59. Support - He will be of valuable service around
    WP:DYK. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  60. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - a good editor; wll make a good admin & be valuable in the DYK area. See no reason to oppose. --BelovedFreak 10:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Great work but DYK ...you'd make a great admin? (had to ;p)
    talk) 13:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  63. Support.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Industrially strong support Excellent, calm, thoughful, reliable, cool-headed editor. He will make a fine admin. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Great admin choice! HoosierStateTalk 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, tremendous contributor to DYK, and an asset to Wikipedia. MrPrada (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Weak support: A good user who could definetly use the tools, there's no doubt there. The only thing that concerned me was your answer to Question 13.
    (talk) (anon talk) 04:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  68. Support. Fully qualified candidate. BTW, has this candidate answered more "optional" questions than anyone else in RfA history? (The record for fewest optionals asked or answered is zero, in my RfA, although the community more than made up for it during the ArbCom election.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably is the largest amount of questions that has ever been asked in the past year or so. Rudget (review) 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Candidate will be a good addition to the current roster of well qualified administrators.
    talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  70. Support We can always use more hands at DYK, and I'm impressed at the candidate's tenacity in the face of so many questions. GlassCobra 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Good history, and good work handling so many questions.-- danntm T C 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Known this user for some time and I consider that any statements made here have to be understood against the background of his judgement. I do not think Bedford will use the tools rashly or without contemplation. Victuallers (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support A solid candidate; will make a good admin. --Liempt (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Long-term editor with solid contribution history and good work around DYK. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support He will make a good admin, of this I am certain. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per Wizardman. Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  77. Support Having worked some with Bedford on Indiana articles, he would make a fine admin. Not using the tools is not reason to deny them. Reywas92Talk 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. I missed this RfA! Guess it doesn't really matter now, it's gonna pass, but here's my support. Great editor, fellow member of the MilHist project...
    Tan | 39 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  79. Support - Good contributor who appears to have a mature outlook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support - I really think this editor with not abuse the tools. I like his answers a lot!
    thew 2008 10:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  81. Support Will be an asset at DYK as an admin. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Good luck :-) TheProf - T / C 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose I do not have anything against this user, he/she has made substantial contributions to wikipedia. However, I fail to see this users need for the admin tools. S/he has virtually no edits in admin-related tasks (AIV!!!). Surely someone wanting to become an admin should test the tools from a non-admin perspective first? I know this is exactly the same post as above but I have exactly the same problems with both of them: I am going to have to add these criteria to my rfa requirements! --
    p|c) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment - The fact the user does not need the tools is a good thing, there is no reason to see why they will misuse them. It doesn't seem this user will use them to harass other users or push their POV onto articles. Admins may use their powers without using them on a regular basis, nor on a work schedule. You don't need to do grunt work to be an admin, though those who do are certainly important. Since adminship isn't of a limited quantity, we shouldn't look at whether or not he needs the tools, only if they will be used positively when used. If he never uses the tools, Wikipedia is not hurt in any way, shape or form. KV(Talk) 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DYK IS an admin-related task though, Cameron. Adminship isn't limited to just the obvious for where it's needed. Wizardman 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I also also agree with the concerns raised by tiptoety. The answer to Q16 contradicts policy. And that particular question is one of the most asked (and easiest, in my opinion) ones. Had he partaken in some RFA's prior (as my RfA requirements page recommends!) to submitting his RFA he would have been able to answer this easily. --
    p|c) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is like saying an A+ fourth grader won't make a good fifth grader because he doesn't know his multiplication tables. His answer contradicted policy. You pointed it out. Now he knows the policy. So what is your opposition now? --
    Holla! 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It seems it must be "challenge Cameron's oppose day". I believe the nominee should have read up on policy matters before coming to RFA. The answer he gave (to me) indicates that this is not the case. --
    p|c) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    ...but Bedford didn't nominate himself, or ask someone to nominate him. He was just nominated. So I don't think not having studied for his Admin final should really be held against him. Especially considering the below post from KV --
    Holla! 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The original "challenge", though I considered it discussion, was about the fact that he wasn't already doing a bunch of admin work as is. Though I will follow up on your second point: seeing as he has no intention of using his admin powers for blocking, not knowing that policy he never intends to have to use is a bit pointless. No one is an expert in all Wikipedia policy, that's why
    WP:IAR was always policy, though no one considered it such. So long as he's willing to read up on issues and consult the policy and other administrators before acting, his prior knowledge of specifics is a non-issue. Besides, the question asked his stance, not what he would do. One can disagree with a policy but enforce it, or not enact what they'd rather have, all the same. KV(Talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Weak oppose - I have changed from neutral as I really do not see much improvement in the way of fixing some of the questions in regards to blocking, specifically Q16. I also understand the IAR can apply to blocking, but do not really care for your answer to Q13 as policy does state that cool down blocks should never be used and I do not feel that your reasoning behind why you would implement one is justified. Along with the concerns raised above by Cameron (which I agree with), I must oppose. Please understand that I recognize all of your great DYK work but feel that admins need to be well rounded, especially in the most common admin ares (blocking, deleting, ect...). Tiptoety talk 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – I rarely if ever comment on an other persons opinion on Rfa’s. However, I have to say I can see,
    3RR rule. However in reality, is this not a "cool-down block"? ShoesssS Talk 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Oppose In question 13 Tiptoety asks "When should cool down blocks be used and why?", and part of this users response was "If the editor in consideration has a history of placidness and all of a sudden becomes heated, then maybe use a cool-down block..." Wikipedia policy says that cool down blocks NEVER should be used. The response to question 13 makes me think this user would misuse of the tools by blocking people so they have time to cool down. Your first answer to question 16 bothers me as well. You said that it is okay under some circumstances to give IP's and indef block. That answer makes me think you would give an IP an indef block, which again, would be misusing the tools. However, you have done lots of positive things for the encyclopedia. Please continue:-) Also, if you don't get the mop, improve yourself and try again:-)--
    SJP (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." As stated in policy it seems that "cool down" blocks are just "not a good idea", and not "forbidden under all circumstances". Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose First of all, the ignorance of the very straightforward rule about cool down blocks (never is pretty unequivocal, it doesn't include any maybes) is disconcerting. Second, your broad inexperience in many common admin tasks and areas (AIV or XFD). Last, anyone who says that they have not once been in a conflict of some kind is either lying or is too inexperienced to make a good admin. Dealing with conflict, either your own or as a mediator, is inevitable whatever area you choose to work in Wikipedia as an admin. Combine a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of actions such as blocking, with a lack of conflict resolution experience, and I don't feel comfortable knowing you'd have the tools. I say go through admin coaching and get some experience outside the mainspace, and I'd be ready and willing to support.
    Tucky 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    CommentI never said that I have never had conflicts on Wikipedia. Heck, one of those supporting me is someone I did have a brief conflict with a few months ago. Reread what I said.--Bedford 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and am I to understand that you aren't going to answer the question I asked about NPOV above? If so, add that to my oppose rationale. Your use of divisive, regionally-factional language doesn't exactly promote harmonious editing, much less inspire my trust when it comes to upholding NPOV.
    Tucky 19:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wikipedia:Blocking policy says: "Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." It doesn't use the word "never". Bedford's answer was: "Cool down blocks have an habit of inflaming passions more than actually cooking (sic) down hotheads." (I'm assuming he meant "cooling down".) I think he's demonstrating a good knowledge of the rationale behind cool-down blocks, and that he's aware of the consequences of what might happen. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't put quotes around the word never for a reason, but it means the same thing to me. "Should not be used" is also unequivocal. And again, it's not just a blocking policy. It's a combination of things. I honestly do not feel comfortable knowing this RFA will pass and he will have the tool to block me or enact a protection, however good a general contributor Bedford is.
    Tucky 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Neutral
Neutral for now - You look like a great editor, but per your answer to my question I can not support at this time due to lack of an understanding of the blocking policy. You say that "If the IP is from an household computer with a history of vandalism, then it can be indefinitely blocked" - This is incorrect. IPs should almost never be indefinitely blocked, the fact an IP is static certainly doesn't mean it can be indefinitely blocked. Additionally you say "If the IP is from a school or public library, then it should not be indefinitely blocked, although a block up to a few days may be warranted". This portion of your answer concerns me as well, specifically the "up to a few days" part. Just today I blocked a school IP for a year, which is perfectly within the norm of blocking procedures (although fairly rare to block for this long). For first and second blocks a few hours or a few days is appropriate, but after that block lengths should generally increase exponentially, usually going from a week, to a month, to 3 months, to 6 months, and then a year, or some similar variation thereof. That being said, you do still seem like a very good editor that would most likely make a very good admin otherwise, so I will consider switching to support after you read Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses (and perhaps Wikipedia:Blocking policy) and change your answer appropriately. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A sensible editor with good judgement, but some wider experience in admin related areas would be preferable. Epbr123 (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - Overall a good candidate, but answers to some of the questions in relation to blocking worry me. Read up on the blocking policy, re-answer the questions and I will be happy to change to support. Tiptoety talk 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, for now, while I request an elucidation of the imho overly restrictive interpretation of
    WP:WHEEL in the answer to Q 22. Note: my concern isn't that it demonstrates that he isn't up to date on the ins-and-outs of policy; its how he demonstrates it. The answer seems to show excessive deference to a single other opinion. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But wouldn't the reference to ArbCom signify the exact opposite? Meaning that he has little deference to a single opinion, whether it be the original blocking admin, or his own opinion? --
    Holla! 13:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No, the question is why even not knowing the block policy, hi instinct is not to contact the other admin, discuss it, and if sure the block is wrong/was excessive, unblock, or modify the block. (If unsure, kick it to one of the noticeboards for discussion.) That is, in the end, the only low-intensity check we have on a theoretical abuse of the block button, given
    WP:WHEEL. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But that was his instinct. Heck, he even mentions
    Holla! 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Exactly. But WHEEL protects the unblocking admin, not the blocking admin, and for good reason. I'm concerned that his instincts don't take in the difficult job of saying "no, on this one you're wrong" without kicking it to ArbCom... --Relata refero (disp.) 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, alright. I get what you're saying. I think the confidence to do that, though, would come with time/experience. --
    Holla! 12:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Neutral, leaning on Support: Waiting for an answer to #17; otherwise, keep it up. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In his defense, he had to answer 27 questions. I mean, having to go through most of them is trying in and of itself. Wizardman 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, at least one of the replies given are misleading in it's detail. Saying that some of the questions are beyond me so it doesn't surprise me they are testing, so for quickness to reply, I'm going with neutral.
    talk) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (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/Bedford&oldid=1146801365"