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

Bradv

Final (173/8/2); Closed as successful by -- Amanda (aka DQ) at 13:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Nomination

Bradv ( talk · contribs) – I nominate Bradv for adminship permissions.
Uncontroversial but not dull, quiet but not afraid – Bradv has a long record of demonstrating good judgement and character. Many of you will recognise Bradv's signature as belonging with some sensible or helpful comment in a discussion. Bradv joined the community in 2008, reactivating in 2016 after a hiatus. Outside our noticeboards and processes, Bradv is usually found improving articles or participating in article-related discussions. He has wrote or significantly expanded nearly a dozen articles, mostly biographies. Bradv also has a number of specific roles, as an arbitration clerk, a talented script writer, and the operator of one bot. Brad is spending an increasing amount of time submitting requests that admins do things.
I commend him to you on this basis and propose giving Bradv a mop. AGK  ■ 08:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Co-nomination

Members of the community, it is my pleasure to join AGK in presenting Bradv. His contributions to Wikipedia are wide-ranging. In the content space, he has written several biographical articles about academics, as well as a GA about the children's book author Derrick Barnes. You will also frequently see Bradv reviewing article submissions at WP:AFC, patiently interacting with new editors in the process. Outside of his content work, Bradv is one of our active technical editors. His Superlinks script is a great tool to integrate into your Wikipedia workflow, especially if you seem to find yourself opening too many browser tabs. Additionally, Bradv serves as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. In that role, Bradv also operates User:ArbClerkBot, where he is working on automating some of the more mundane procedural tasks of the arbitration process, such as noticeboard announcements.

Above all, I admire Bradv's ability to stay calm and reasonable in difficult situations. He understands that he is not infallible—if you think he has made a mistake, then Bradv will not hesitate to take a step back and talk with you about it. He will make it his goal to understand where you are coming from and reflect on his own position carefully and rationally. Some of you may remember his Strickland incident essay, which was published in the October 2018 edition of The Signpost, as a great example of this sort of introspection. For these reasons, I think Bradv will be a great administrator, and I hope that you will join AGK and me in supporting him. Mz7 ( talk) 10:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, with gratitude for the kind things said about me by my seniors above. I'll also provide here the customary disclosure that I have never edited Wikipedia for pay, and never will. – bradv 🍁 13:11, 4 August 2019 (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 would likely continue to work in many of the areas I already do. AfC and NPP can both benefit from more editors with admin tools, especially access to deleted material. As I gain more experience I would like to help out at AIV, RFPP, and CSD. I also enjoy closing discussions, so I hope to increase my participation in this area as well. Having access to the tools would also help with my work at ArbCom, as occasionally there are pages that need to be protected or blocks that need to be issued.
Regardless of what new areas I venture in, I plan to ask others who are experienced in the area for advice before taking action, and always ask for a second opinion whenever I feel unsure.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I joined Wikipedia because I believe in the idea of a collaborative encyclopedia documenting the sum of all human knowledge. I am grateful for any opportunity to help, whether it's directly related to content, helping other editors contribute productively, or doing behind-the-scenes stuff that readers will never notice.
I enjoyed writing Derrick Barnes. This is not in my usual area of editing, but it was a fun article to put together and it even made it to GA status.
I am also happy with the Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks script I wrote. It started as an idea by a fellow NPP reviewer, and it turned into a tool that has improved my workflow considerably in every area of the project.
But my best contributions to Wikipedia are the opportunities I have had to help editors settle disagreements and edit productively. These are mostly small things, like spending extra time to close a discussion with a thoughtful rationale, providing a third opinion for two editors who are talking past each other, or helping someone write something they're passionate about. Above all, I'm proud of the encyclopedia we're building together, and I'm thrilled to be a part of it. I try to make that come through with every edit.
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: About a year ago I performed a routine decline of a draft article on someone who would later win a Nobel prize. This incident attracted a fair bit of criticism both on- and off-wiki, and I tried to respond to questions and comments thoughtfully and carefully. I wrote an essay about it shortly after the news broke, which I think helped to put the events in perspective and provide a way forward. The discussion around all of this had a profound effect on me as an editor, and I have certainly learned a lot from the experience.
I also serve as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, a role which I have found quite rewarding. In my work as a clerk I am acutely aware of the fact that many of the people I interact with are under considerable stress, and I have tried very hard to have a calming influence at every interaction. I believe that my efforts have been well-received, and I look forward to continuing in this role, whether or not I am entrusted with the extra tools.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from PCN02WPS
4. Have you ever dealt with a problem on Wikipedia in a way that you now regret? If so, how would you now resolve the problem differently?
A: I referenced this essay in my answer to Q3, in which I expressed regret that I missed the opportunity to write about a Canadian physicist who would later become famous. But apart from that, there was a situation when I first started as a clerk where the conversation went a little differently than I expected. I paid close attention afterward, and now wish that I had worded things a little differently, or refrained from interacting altogether if I wasn't confident my contribution would have the desired effect.
Additional question from LessHeard vanU
5. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, of course, and you are already an arb clerk and article contributor. Sysopping will potentially cut into the areas you are presently active; where do you see yourself withdrawing to any extent? ps. RfA is not comfortable, but then neither is adminship sometimes - if you are able to withstand this, then you were correct in accepting the nomination.
A: I am hoping that I won't have to withdraw from any of the areas I currently work in, but I know that's not entirely realistic for everyone, which makes this a pertinent question. My goal in volunteering for this role is to continue to increase my level of participation in the project, and the extra tools will primarily help in the areas in which I'm already active.
I have already !voted, but my question was primarily to make you aware that you may have to consider how to manage workloads in the future. All the best. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 15:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Additional question from Reyk
6. What is the most important policy on Wikipedia, and why?
A. If Ignore all rules were less provocatively named, it might be called something like "Do the Right Thing". Combined with policies like NOT, NPOV, and V, which together define the goals of the project, this really should be all we need. That said, I generally try to follow policies and guidelines quite closely, as they reflect the consensus established by many editors over the years.
Additional question from Ritchie333
7. Some of your AfD !votes seem to be to be a bit slapdash and don't have as much detail as I would have expected from an experienced editor. I'm particularly thinking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School of Artisan Food, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuelle Waeckerle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Maness (where you say the subject's own CV is "not a reliable source" whose literal reading would imply you think Maness is a compulsive liar who can't be trusted about anything), but quite a few comments seem to be little more than "Not notable, fails GNG, get rid". How much time do you spend thinking about what comments to make at an AfD, and what work do you consider doing on the article before making a decision?
A. You've identified three very difficult AfDs that I participated in. The first is a case of undisclosed paid editing where the author has been blocked; the second was created as a copyvio, likely with a conflict of interest, which was later substantially reworked; and in the third case the author requested deletion which was largely ignored by the keep voters at the AfD. I'm still not convinced we got the last two right, and the first has not yet closed. I'm aware that not everyone has the same opinion about notability, but I try very hard to do my own research and comment based on what I feel is in the best interest of the project. I also try not to hassle people who disagree with me, as it is more important to me that we get it right than that I get my way, and we all contribute to that consensus together. To the last part of your question, I try to do a full BEFORE search before commenting, including checking the subject matter against any applicable guidelines. Editing the article itself doesn't make a subject more notable, so I don't usually take that approach unless the article is being proposed for deletion for reasons other than notability.
Additional question from MarginalCost
8. You stated in your Strickland incident essay that As an academic, the relevant guideline for establishing notability is WP:PROF. The general notability guideline does not apply to this article, but the rest of the notability guideline, including the section on requiring verifiable evidence ( WP:NRV) does apply. If a professor were to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, but did not meet any of the specific criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC, should that article be created/kept?
A. In general I would probably say yes. I know there are some editors who view WP:NPROF as both inclusive and exclusive, but I'm not aware of any broad discussion that established consensus for either position. If a biography meets the basic criteria, that is a suitable argument for inclusion in my view.
Additional question from RadioKAOS
9. How is it considered a net positive to the encyclopedia when editors specialize in a particular content or project area and their editing activity suggests that they have no clue or could care less about the encyclopedia as a whole?
A: It's probably fair to say that the encyclopedia is predominantly built by specialists who focus on particular content areas. There are plenty of obscure topic areas which I know nothing about, and I'm grateful for the contributions of the subject matter experts who do.
Additional question from Dolotta
10. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
A: I don't have a lot of experience with files. It's not an area that I have ever been drawn into, and I haven't taken the time to brush up on the relevant templates and best practices.

Discussion

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

Support
  1. With the reasoning in my statement. AGK  ■ 08:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  2. Strong support all around great editor, has a clue. Praxidicae ( talk) 13:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  3. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  4. Support: Very strong candidate. Knows his way around some of the back-of-house stuff, as well as how to write an article. Love to hear that he is interested in closing discussions - we could use some help in that area. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 13:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  5. Support Excellent candidate for the corps. scope_creep Talk 13:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Without doubt. Lourdes 13:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  7. Support I trust them, from what I've seen. Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 13:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  8. Support An excellent candidate. Thoughtful ahead of time. Reflective after the fact. These are great qualities in a sysop in my mind. Has a clear need for the tools. I am so pleased to see him here. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  9. Support - Passes the TonyBallioni test with diamonds and oakleaves. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  10. Support - very competent candidate and by being an admin could help out further. Already trusted in some high-risk areas. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  11. Support Very high comment to edit ratio, indicating communication is a premium tool. Is also an Arb Clerk, but never mind... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  12. Support I've known Bradv for a number of years now and consider them to be a capable and competent editor. They've experience of writing content, which is always a definite advantage; they've taken Derrick Barnes to Good Article status, it's always nice to be able to judge a potential new administrator by assessing their work on a recently written/expanded BLP, it's all in order, so that's a very large plus point. There's also some DYK contributions, which are also nice - there's more to writing than just GAs and FAs, so some other contributions are good to see. Their actual administrative ability has been ably demonstrated in their ArbCom clerking, a difficult field at the best of times, but particularly challenging with the virtual collapse of the committee this year and the significant dramatic events which have unfolded during the period Bradv has been clerking. I will admit to being particularly impressed with the DeltaQuad RfB too, where Bradv politely but firmly challenged a user (Foxnpichu) for their double standards - firm but polite and fair discourse, of precisely the type that will be necessary when trying to handle a dispute with intransigent users on both sides. The sort of behaviour honed by time clerking for ArbCom, in fact. The general maintenance tasks and the ArbCom clerking will make good use of the administrative toolset. In short, Bradv is competent, polite and will use the tools, a significant asset to the community, very much a net positive for the project. Nick ( talk) 14:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  13. Support Very competent user with lots of experience, can be trusted with the mop. - ZLEA T\ C 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  14. Support - Net positive for WP. Most of the areas they want to contribute in, could use some helpful admins.— N Ø 14:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  15. Support per nom clear net positive. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  16. Seen them around, have no concerns that they'd be anything other than a net positive as an administrator. I looked into the Donna Strickland incident quite deeply after it occurred; I cannot really fault the candidate for their role in it. AfC reviewers face a consistent and daunting backlog; that the candidate made a decision based on the information they had at the time isn't black mark against them. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  17. Support per nominating statements. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  18. Support, I have seen good things, and I was particularly impressed that the candidate wrote about the Strickland incident in so much detail, and with several good ideas about improvements to our processes. — Kusma ( t· c) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  19. Support learns and improves from past experiences. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  20. Happy with what I see after reviewing the candidates contributions. Statement by nominating editors compelling, haven’t see anything that leads me to believe that the candidate would be anything but an asset with the mop and bucket. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  21. Support Not so much a case of "I thought they were one", but I'd been wondering for some time why they weren't. Strong net positive, --jerk, ++clue. Let the mopping begin. CThomas3 ( talk) 16:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  22. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools -- rogerd ( talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  23. Support no brainer candidate with clear need for tools. It'll be nice to have another admin dedicated as an arbcom clerk. ( edit conflict) – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  24. Support per User:Bradv/Strickland incident. I'm impressed by the amount of work that went into explaining the thought process behind a controversial decision, backed by relevant guidelines. Bradv also included what he learned from it and tangible ways to move forward and make the process, and ultimately Wikipedia, a better place. This is exactly what I'd want to see in an admin, and am enthusiastic about offering my support. Good luck! -- Tavix ( talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  25. While I'm not happy with AFC and its stricter standards than apply in mainspace, I'm not going to oppose a qualified candidate who is active there. Also the Strickland incident certainly means the candidate is stress tested, and lastly, I enjoyed reading Derrick Barnes. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  26. Support - looks okay to me. Deb ( talk) 17:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  27. Support As the nomination suggests, I've seen Bradv around the place a lot, usually making helpful comments in a polite manner. He does a lot of good work here (free plug - I particularly appreciate his 'superlinks' script), and I have no doubt that he could do good work with a mop. GirthSummit (blether) 17:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  28. Wholeheartedly support. I've had the great pleasure to work with Bradv this year as an arbitration clerk, where he's been one of the most dedicated, thoughtful, competent, and diligent editors I've ever seen. As the clerk who facilitated the appointment and confirmation process, I know my fellow clerks and arbitrators feel the same. I know he is willing to heed advice, and I also know he's never afraid to tell me when I'm wrong. He has exactly the right temperament, experience, empathy, and broad perspective to be an administrator. Bradv has my implicit trust and I know he will be one of our very best admins. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  29. Support seems sensible/level-headed, and not seeing any compelling reason to oppose — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  30. Support . Editing has been more than just a bit sporadic over the years but it looks as if Brad will stay around if he gets the mop. Otherwise, fully qualified and trustworthy. The Signpost article is more than enough alone to demonstrate that Brad is no new kid on the block looking for something to brag about in the schoolyard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  31. Support seems sane enough. stwalkerster ( talk) 18:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  32. Support Seen Bradv around for years and never in a bad way. I'm sure they can be trusted with the tools. Number 5 7 18:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  33. Support Full of clue. Exactly the attitude we should be looking for in administrators. GoldenRing ( talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  34. Support I've seen enough of their work around the project to implicitly trust Bradv in the tools, and I'm not concerned about the one incident in the slightest, as I would have done the same. SportingFlyer T· C 18:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  35. Support No concerns. (I honestly thought you were one.) Nihlus 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Comment - did you mean to put Support above, Nihlus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 ( talk • contribs)
    Yes. Fixed. Nihlus 22:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  36. Support - Even when we've disagreed, they have shown a civility and level-headedness in their deliberations. I think they will be a tremendous addition to the admin corps. Onel5969 TT me 19:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  37. Support - Thought they were already an admin. Based on discussions I have seen in which they have participated, they are thoughtful, knowledgeable and overall respected. S0091 ( talk) 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  38. Support I'll be frank, already thought Bradv was an admin with their level of maturity and experience. Its my pleasure to support them for admin! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  39. Support. A fellow proud Canadian! Welcome aboard :) -- œ ™ 19:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  40. Support. Question 7 is a good question that caused me some hesitation. But I'm with the candidate on those three AfDs. In particular I recall myself investing about 20 minutes of time doing research on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuelle Waeckerle and was planning to !vote delete before getting distracted by a waffle or something. That AfD was wrongly decided--not by the closing admin but by the community--and The School of Artisan Food is an ad that should be deleted. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  41. Support. Helpful and competent. Haukur ( talk) 20:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  42. Support, an asset to the project. bd2412 T 20:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  43. Support, has the skill and experience, and has a strong commitment to WP. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  44. Support The Strickland incident was, from my observations, very well handled by Bradv. The fact that he reflected on this very incident shows at least a level of maturity that I appreciate in people. He could've just as easily waved it off and said "I'm right" and leave it at that. — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 21:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  45. Support. The only thing I could fault Bradv for in relation to the Strickland article is that in reaction to the statistic of 1/3 of new Nobelists not having Wikipedia entries at the time, he didn't comment on the paradox that Wikipedia, a review of knowledge, has much stricter requirements for articles on the people that research new knowledge than for film stars or people sufficiently famous-for-being-famous-and-nothing-else to be WP-notable. I don't see any easy solution to the paradox, which is why I'm only pontificating on this here rather than making a concrete proposal at WP:PROF. Getting more articles on how-many-angels-fit-on-the-head-of-a-pin-ologists who are well-known within the head-of-a-pin-ological community would not necessarily be a good development. Boud ( talk) 21:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  46. Support I have encountered him a couple of places at AfD, and I believe he has the temperament appropriate for adminship. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  47. Support I tend to think the reaction to the Stricland incident on Bradv specifically is a little unfair. There should have been an article on her, but to blame Bradv for this---and to not support him as an admin because of this---I think is a stretch. Both with this and outside of this, I've always seen a level-headed, knowledgeable, skilled editor. – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 21:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  48. Support Finally! I'm certain Bradv will make a great admin; all my experiences with them are positive and I regard them as a highly trustworthy and reasonable editor. Best regards, Vermont ( talk) 21:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  49. Strongly Support – I've seen Bradv around; seems to be a great person. Experienced, well-qualified candidate with no serious behavioral concerns that I've come across. I also concur with the opinions of other editors above. Bradv will make a great admin. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 21:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  50. ( edit conflict) Support with no convincing arguments in the opposition. You can't predict the future of a BLP you decline at AfC, and it was an okay decision anyway. The bar is higher at AfC than AfD. J 947 's public account 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  51. Support especially with two strong nominators. I'm sure Bradv will be great in an admin position. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  52. Support. I would have said Brad was already an admin, if someone had asked me in a closed-book exam. Clearly, from everything we read in the nom statements, and my own expericne of the editor, t ey are a clueful and experienced Wikipedian. Just the sort we need dishing out large dollops of soapy water with a nice shiny mop.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 22:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  53. Support - Candidate took some heat, much of it probably unfair, for the Strickland incident, remained calmer than I probably would have, and has been reflective about it. Satisfied with response to Q8. MarginalCost ( talk) 22:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  54. Support - No qualms. An unimpeachable name to see on one's watchlist. Thanks for your service. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  55. Support as co-nominator. Mz7 ( talk) 22:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  56. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 22:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  57. Support No use wasting bytes, so I'll just say "Per all above (And likely per all below)". Squeeps 10 23:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  58. Support Looks good to me. -- ferret ( talk) 23:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  59. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  60. Support. This is an absolute no-brainer. I have known for quite a while now that Bradv was not an administrator (I checked), but prior I had always assumed he was. I have enjoyed working with Bradv as an editor & look forward to (hopefully) working with him as an administrator as well. Best of luck with this RfA, though I'm sure you don't need it/will be fine. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 23:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  61. 100% -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  62. Easy support here. ZettaComposer ( talk) 23:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  63. Support mainly contra User:Catfish Jim's oppose below, which I think is most unfair. Bradv got it wrong here, as he is all too well aware, but I hope most of those who have delved in the Strickland affair - not as straightforward as the press stories make it appear - agree his actions were reasonable given what he knew, & his subsequent self-examination extemplary. Where he was at fault was making a judgement call about an area he didn't know well enough to appreciate the citation index for that field, and the significance of the presidency of the Optical Society (not the non-notable fellowship). Johnbod ( talk) 00:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  64. Support – An administrator in all but name. Time to change that. Kurtis (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  65. Support. Was sure he was one. Exceptional candidate. El_C 01:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  66. Support per Diannaa and Kevin. Excellent work as an ArbCom clerk assures me that they'll do a good job with the mop. Mini apolis 01:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  67. Hell yes. SQL Query me! 01:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  68. support per nominator statements and other rationales stated above. More than meets my standards. Since when do we accept information controlled by a subject as a reliable source? Please see WP:42.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 02:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Adjusting support rationale to include that of Peacemaker67-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 05:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  69. Support I don't see a reason not to support. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  70. Support, per nominators, and pleased to see the nomination. SarahSV (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  71. Support Why not? Double sharp ( talk) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  72. Support Should have been one a long time ago. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  73. Support knows enough about content creation and our quality processes, the nominators vouch for his maturity, has demonstrated insight regarding his missteps, has an existing track record as a clerk, and has a need for the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  74. Support I have told Brad off-wiki at least a few times that he should become an admin and am happy to see this RFA take form. Brad has solid character and proved himself to be trustworthy through his numerous areas of involvement on the English Wikipedia. Killiondude ( talk) 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  75. Support per nominator and the fact that I was impressed by their maturity during the Strickland incident. It was difficult time for them but they did not falter. Bradv is an all-round qualified candidate. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  76. Thought he was one. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 06:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  77. Support - Ticks all the boxes. FitIndia ✉ बात 08:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  78. Strong support: AFC and NPP are heavily backlogged areas of the site which need the most attention and another editor working there who has the tools could make a big difference. It's an unfortunate coincidence that Bradv declined the Strickland draft, and I do think the draft was in a state to accept at the time (though I'm perhaps more of an inclusionist than most), but I do not think it reasonable to hold one false negative in their lengthy tenure against them. Quite the opposite – their Signpost essay was excellent reflection and showed remarkable restraint in not lashing out at the harsh criticism they received. Unless an opposer demonstrates any temperament concerns, I can't think of any good reasons to not trust Bradv with the tools. — Bilorv ( talk) 09:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  79. Support Sure, in part for behaviour during the Strickland "affair". Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  80. Support. Bradv has demonstrated a degree of reflection and research of Wikipedia policies that would make him an asset to the admin corps. Loopy30 ( talk) 11:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  81. Support, based on review. Kierzek ( talk) 13:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  82. Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  83. Support - I can't say "I thought he was one already", but I have thought "Why isn't he one already?" CLUE and HERE and decorum and all that. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 13:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  84. Support - I honestly thought he already was an admin!, Excellent candidate, No issues here. – Davey2010 Talk 13:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  85. Support Editing work checks out. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  86. Support net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  87. Support Good level-headed editor. The Banner  talk 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  88. Support The right temperament for the job combined with answers about content that appear passionate combined with no red flags make an easy thumbs-up from me. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 15:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  89. Support Apparently I'm not the only one who thought Bradv was already an admin. I'll second/third/fourth other editors who say Bradv seems to have an ideal temperament for the job: authoritative, but not authoritarian. Nblund talk 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  90. Support Appreciate the willingness to reflect on his actions and carefully consider policy. Vexations ( talk) 16:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  91. Support A useful addition to his tools and to the project, thanks for your contributions Brad. Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  92. Support - experience speaks loudly - ditto what Nblund said. Atsme Talk 📧 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  93. Support experienced and trusted. Jianhui67 T★ C 18:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  94. Support Wait... you mean to tell me that you’re not an admin already? Let’s fix that. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 20:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  95. Support Why not? - FASTILY 20:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  96. Support - I like what I see, the tools would be in good hands. -- Giooo95 ( talk) 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  97. Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  98. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  99. Support-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  100. Support per noms, and because I didn't find the opposes compelling. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  101. Support, have seen Bradv around as an arbcom clerk and am sure that the candidate will be a valuable addition to the corps. GAB gab 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  102. Support Excellent reflection about Strickland, wrote a Good Article, so I'm not sure how anyone can think he hasn't contributed enough content, wrote a tool, thoughtful, modest ... strong support. -- GRuban ( talk) 23:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  103. Support Seems pretty good TurboSonic ( talk) 00:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  104. Support I encountered Bradv early in my editing through his activity in responding to requests for third opinions, and he was one of the editors who I followed for a bit to learn how Wikipedia works as well as how to handle editing disputes. I think his thoughtfulness, temperament, and ability to explain issues in ways that deescalate tensions makes him an ideal admin candidate, further supported by his content and backroom contributions. Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 01:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  105. Support Will benefit the project with the tools; has my trust. Spencer T• C 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  106. Support absolutely, no reason to oppose. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  107. Support Good candidate with good temperament. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  108. Support consistently calm and level-headed. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  109. Support lots of supporters I respect, not impressed with the opposes. Seren_ Dept 05:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  110. Support – unlikely to delete the main page. – Leviv ich 06:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  111. Support - have had good interactions with this editor. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 07:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  112. Support. I've seen Bradv around a lot doing all sorts of things, and I see no problems. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  113. Support seems reliable wikitigresito ( talk) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  114. Support all the best with the tools. Tolly 4 bolly 10:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  115. Support Sure. Fish+ Karate 12:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  116. I endorse the nomination statement. – Juliancolton |  Talk 13:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  117. Support: Ditto! Will make a great admim. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  118. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  119. Support no concerns. Mkdw talk 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  120. Support I've been impressed by Bradv on the occasions I've interacted with him. Given that we've now fallen below 500 active admins, we really need more folks of this calibre to step up. Thank you, Brad. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  121. Support Self-reflection after the Strickland incident, and recent courage going to arbcom about something where he could have stayed silent both speak positively of BradV. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  122. Support. See no reason to think Bradv will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  123. Support -- solely due to their work as Arb Com clerk. -- Dolotta ( talk) 20:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  124. Support. Per their handling of the blow-back from the Strickland incident. They explained themselves with policy backed reasoning and remained calm during the criticisms levied at them. That alone shows the type of demeanor that I'm looking for in an admin. Valeince ( talk) 22:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  125. Yes SilkTork ( talk) 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  126. Support Net positive.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  127. Support No concerns from my interactions. All the best and don’t F it up ;) N.J.A. | talk 01:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  128. Support I've seen Bradv around and I trust his competence. Best of luck. Daß  Wölf 02:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  129. Support. –  SJ  + 04:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  130. Support user can be trusted with a mop -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  131. Support may even be overqualified. He has worked in almost all the popular admin areas and has been active for the last 18 months. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 06:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  132. Support Bradv's comments on any topic show great composure, respect for policy, and courtesy to other editors. His ability to reflect on and reasonably respond to criticism is a great asset, and I'm sure he'll be a good administrator. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 10:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  133. Support Surprised to see this name here, thought Brad was one already! Λυδ α cιτγ 10:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  134. Support Basically per Tony, but I also agree with their call in the Strickland affair. ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 14:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  135. Support Not convinced by the opposes and the Strickland incident is not something that should prevent Bradv from becoming an admin.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 14:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  136. Support. I like to cite WP:NOBIGDEAL, because I believe it's important that we have a lot more admins, and I'm inclined to support anyone who seems unlikely to misuse the tools. In this case, though, I think I need to support Bradv per the Strickland incident. If I had been responsible for such a public screw-up, something which hurt Wikipedia's reputation the way that decision did, I would probably have hid in a hole for a year. (This isn't a criticism of their rejection of the AFC - given the draft submitted, their response was reasonable.) Instead, Bradv responded thoughtfully, without getting defensive, and took this as an opportunity to reflect and grow. This, in my opinion, is precisely what we want from an admin - the ability to take criticism, and to learn from it. Guettarda ( talk) 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  137. Support Actually, Brad falls into the category of "I thought they were an admin already?", for me. Strikerforce Talk 15:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  138. Support per many of the above. From what I've seen so far I think Bradv will use the tools wisely. 28bytes ( talk) 15:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  139. Support I had a different take of the Strickland incident than my colleague in the oppose section did, especially after the candidate's reasoned explanation of the event offered in the Signpost which helped to explain their side of the incident and which was much appreciated, demonstrating how the narrative established by the media can be suspect, and how the plain and simple truth is rarely plain and never simple.  Spintendo  18:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  140. Support I sympathise with you over the Strickland incident, which demonstrates a lack of understanding by the media of Wikipedia policies and notability issues. I'm sure you will make good use of the tools. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 19:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  141. Support, with high enthusiasm. I've seen the candidate around a lot, and consequently am able to form a clear opinion without needing to do much research. Nothing in the oppose section raises any red flags for me. And the candidate clearly has the right kind of experience and temperament. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    This does not at all change my support, but I do feel the need to make a small caveat. I think that the candidate got some things wrong in his comments about the recent conflict here. Nothing disqualifying, but just that I disagree, and I hope that the candidate will give my concerns some thought. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  142. Yeah, I saw this coming and always intended to support you if you ran. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 00:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  143. Support, partly per nom; no red flags or obvious problems. The oppose !votes, while valid, don't coalesce around any particular set of problems that would cause question. – SchroCat ( talk) 07:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  144. Support precious -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  145. Support per Nick. Lepricavark ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  146. Support Why not? VibeScepter ( talk) ( contributions) 12:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  147. Support A good choice for the job. Capt. Milokan ( talk) 12:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  148. Support Decent answer to Q10. Airbornemihir ( talk) 14:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  149. Support with thanks for volunteering for the additional responsibilities. Aside: The Strickland incident exposed mainstream media's, and arguably even wikipedia's, systemic gender bias but, as that of an individual volunteer, Bradv's actions were reasonable during the events and exemplary in the aftermath. Abecedare ( talk) 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  150. Support. Has a clue. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  151. Support, no issues with the nomination, wish Bradv continues his exemplary work. — kashmīrī  TALK 19:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  152. Support —  MRD2014 ( talk) 20:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  153. Support Bradv is an even-keeled and quality editor. I also appreciate the self-reflection in their Strickland Incident essay. All qualities to be expected of a good administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  154. Support Fully qualified. His composure during the Strickland incident, where he was unfairly maligned, was quite impressive. Nobody under the sun complained that George Smith (chemist) had no Wikipedia article when he won the Nobel Prize at the same time as Strickland won hers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  155. Support. A very reasonable candidate. The Strickland incident essay was a well-written response that de-escalated a high-pressure situation. —  Newslinger  talk 09:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  156. Support Thoughtful, experienced in lots of areas, good comments here and elsewhere on notability, AfD and AfC, have seen that he is open to changing his vote at AfD when other editors present more evidence. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  157. Support Reasonable. Collect ( talk) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  158. Support likely to be a net positive Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  159. Support A worthy candidate. Shellwood ( talk) 22:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  160. Support - good qualification. JohnThorne ( talk) 00:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  161. Support - At least one oppose seems to inadvertently provide evidence for support. If I were the candidate, I would reassess their original comment that brought about Oppose 7 though. Usedtobecool  ✉  ✨ 06:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  162. Support Absolutely. Strong candidate--naturally--and no concerns. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 07:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  163. Support. Good contributions. Also, I don't see a problem with Bradv's approach to the "Donna Strickland" draft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  164. Support per nom. — MarcoAurelio ( talk) 14:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  165. Support - Clearly meets my criteria. EclipseDude ( Chase Totality) 17:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  166. Support per the noms. ST47 ( talk) 17:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  167. Support – Sensible and communicative. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  168. Support Seems like a good candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  169. Support Why not. Masum Reza 📞 22:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  170. Support Solid editor with a good record. No red or yellow flags. Clearly a net positive. The opposes are not persuasive. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  171. Support I looked first at the opposes and like Ad Orientem above saw nothing persuasive. Then the nomination statements and finally scanned through the supports. They all back my own experience with the candidate and I'm convinced he'll be a good wielder of the mop. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  172. Support Absolutely JMHamo ( talk) 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  173. Support. Has both a need for the tools and the experience needed to use them wisely. – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. Oppose You say the Strickland incident attracted a fair amount of criticism. That's one way to describe it... another would be to say it was one of the most damaging incidents in Wikipedia's history, played out in the highest-profile, international news media... "Wikipedia criticised after it emerges female Nobel laureate had page rejected", The Independent, October 5, 2018; "Donna Strickland's treatment on Wikipedia shows how women have long been excluded from science", The Independent, October 6, 2018; "For Just the Third Time in 117 Years, a Woman Wins the Nobel Prize in Physics", New York Times, October 2, 2018; "Wikipedia rejected an entry on a Nobel Prize winner because she wasn't famous enough", Quartz, October 2, 2018; "Donna Strickland had no Wikipedia page before her Nobel. Her male collaborator did.", Vox, October 3, 2018; "Nobel prize winner Donna Strickland wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia", The Times, October 4, 2018; "Physicist Donna Strickland Had to Win a Nobel Prize to Get on Wikipedia", The Observer, October 4, 2018; "Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry", The Guardian, October 4, 2018; "Wikipedia rejected an entry on a physics Nobel laureate right up until she won, saying she wasn't famous enough", Business Insider, October 4, 2018; "The Nobel prize winning scientist who wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia", The Irish Times, October 3, 2018. An administrator needs judgement and credibility, and I don't think you are suitable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac ( talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  2. Oppose as does not meet criteria. Not enough created content to be an admin. GregJackP  Boomer! 19:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac ( talk) 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose - Not the best fit. CLCStudent ( talk) 20:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    discussion moved to talk page — Ched :  ?  — 05:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  4. Oppose I’ve not been impressed by most of Brad’s participation at admin boards. This recent uninvolved, one sided, and unnecessary AE filing shows Brad cares more about arbitrary rules than substance. Participation in other dispute resolution areas doesn’t give me confidence. Mr Ernie ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Obviously. ∯WBG converse 13:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    @ Winged Blades of Godric: what's obvious to you may not be obvious to others. Would you care to elaborate? Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 15:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Err ... I seem to be in the wrong section, somehow. ∯WBG converse 15:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    🤦😁  —  Amakuru ( talk) 15:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose: In the candidate's many years on the project, very few articles started (19) - and only 37.4% of edits are in the main space. I believe that an administrator needs to have more experience creating content and more experience editing in the main space. Lightburst ( talk) 15:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    @ Lightburst:, content creation lack is obviously a legitimate oppose reason, and is also one that everyone has different points on. What (rough) number of articles and editing % would be reasonable in your view? Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Nosebagbear I would like to see at least 50% in the main space. The candidate has 11 years on the project (6 with little or no editing): If I were to pick an arbitrary number: perhaps 10 - 20 articles per year x 5 years (actively editing) - for a total of 50 - 100. Comparing the candidate to the other two RFA candidates... AmericanAir88 has been on the project for 2 years and started 41 articles. Chetsford has been on the project for 2+ years and has started 227 articles. And each of the other candidates have more than 50% of edits in the main space. Lightburst ( talk) 00:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Lightburst, Xtools tells me that Bradv has 8,236 (37.4%) edits in the mainspace. This looks quite good to me. Am I missing somthing ? I have more than 22k edits in the mainspace but it still is only 41% of the total. I am sorry but I feel your criteria of 50% seems unreasonable to me. Perhaps you can add riders to your criteria to make it more realistic. BTW, a fun fact, with 1,287 (47.8%) mainspace edits even you (Lightburst) don't meet your own criteria. cheers. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 06:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Neither Lightburst nor DBigXray are up for nomination here, so any figures about them are completely irrelevant. Samsara 12:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Lightburst, mainspace editing percentage has no clear relationship with content creation. Re-categorizing pages using AWB yields massive amounts of mainspace edits with no content creation. Brokering a compromise in a complicated edit war means a lot of talk space edits that indicate content creation, even if they mean only one article space edit. Talk space edits, however, can also be purely administrative, or can be wikiproject tagging or quality rating.in other words: without looking at what the edits are, the namespace they are in does not tell you much. — Kusma ( t· c) 06:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    I second Kusma-- DBig Xrayᗙ 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Yes and some people create articles almost entirely in their User space, or in Draft, and then only use one main-space edit to create an entire article. Articles created is not a metric in particular, because you might spend your time expanding stubs or polishing up poor-quality existing articles. Ultimately you need to look at the quality and nature of the content, not just raw numbers.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 15:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose per Mr Ernie and what I consider somewhat misguided NPOV reverts in political articles. Although Bradv was not a party to the Canadian politics ArbCom case, his "not neutral" reversions were linked a few times in the Evidence page. Similarly in American politics, one reversion of "POV edits" of what seem like factual statements to me (whether undue in the article is a different question) is not good. Not a big fan of NPOV judgment. Otherwise seems like a "house candidate" who will certainly run for the ArbCom after this RfA has inevitably been closed as succesful. -- Pudeo ( talk) 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    The linked revert actually strikes me as somebody with a very strong grasp of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV - and should count as evidence supporting adminship. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Agreed! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  7. Oppose Inability to be questioned without taking things personally. In this afd discussion, I pointed out that Bradv should not have accused an editor of editing in bad faith when simple ignorance could've been an explanation. In response, Bradv took it as a personal attack and kept saying I was the one not assuming good faith. An admin should be able to handle discussions like this rationally and without taking personal offense. Additionally, it's important not to assume bad faith of editors when there's not substantial evidence pointing in that direction, as it can scare editors into not contributing. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Hmm, I think your use of the introductory phrase "shame on you" was perhaps a little strong and elicited that response. The nomination as a whole was rather lacking in WP:BEFORE, and is yet another example that makes me think that with the diversity of knowledge Wikipedia holds, we may eventually need subject-specific competence requirements to stop people from nominating things they know nothing about in addition to ones they don't like. Samsara 11:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    @ Samsara: Reading over that again, you're right that "shame on you" was unnecessary. Nevertheless, I expected more from Bradv than what was essentially "no you". I don't think competence requirements are a good idea as "meritocracy" just ends up favoring the privileged, but that's tangential to the fact that Bradv was accusing someone of acting in bad faith without any evidence. An admin should be able to deal with perceived incompetence/other worldviews without descending into attacking people's motives. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose per Mr Ernie and Pudeo. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Neutral
  1. I'm going to have to throw my lot in this section. You have the right noms, and you seem to have checked off all the right boxes and all, You also have a ton of support, so I'll assume that you'll breeze in with a high percentage. I'd imagine you'll be pretty much a "by the book" admin., but there's been something bothering me. That Strickland incident. It's not that incident itself, but rather the editorial you chose to write after it. I've read through that a couple times, and then I looked at the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions; specifically the #User made a mistake section. The thing is even though I can't fault you for your actions regarding the article, it's your method of explanation that troubles me.
    It just reads too much like a denial or a deflection of blame than any "I'm sorry" or admission of any mistake. Even if you had posted parts of that in ongoing discussions somewhere I wouldn't have thought twice about it. It was the whole matter of basically taking an ad out in the paper (Signpost) to explain why it's everybody else's fault. We have a few of those "this is what the policy says" admins about already. Now like I said, I don't see enough to oppose, and my "neutral" is more from a gut instinct than anything else. So all that being said I do wish you the best of luck with the new mop. — Ched :  ?  — 19:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Ched, I'm not sure if this matters at all, but when I wrote that essay I didn't publicize it anywhere other than a link on my own talk page. I was not aware that it was going to be in the Signpost, and I did not write it with that audience in mind. – bradv 🍁 20:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Well that's fair. Yes, I think maybe it does make a difference. I'll think on it a bit. — Ched :  ?  — 20:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Well, I'll speak out now as that is a point that has also bothered me. Specifically, the absence of a section in that essay called "due diligence". That, I think, is the big elephant in the room - what independent research did Bradv as the assessor of the draft do to verify whether the person might in fact be notable. Declining it only on the basis of the sources within the article is not good enough in my opinion, and this is an issue that will surface in many areas of admin work - protection, dispute resolution, deletion, you name it. We must make sure that we're not pulling the trigger against a position that is obviously the one much better supported by sources. We need to be more than clerks flipping switches. We are the last bulwark of facts not being relegated to the archives for the foreseeable future, or, in some areas where few people work, forever. So we must be prepared to make last minute checks to ensure that the decision we're enforcing "per consensus" or some other rule perceived to apply isn't insane. I write this not as a characterisation of the Strickland incident, but of issues that come up on a daily or weekly basis. The Strickland incident was simply "fortunate" in that it raised the alarm bells because it became rather obvious that the wrong call had possibly been made (again, it depends on what was available at the time, and that is not clear to me retrospectively). So for me, a clear commitment to due diligence is important in an admin, and ideally a demonstration that they will apply this. Samsara 11:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  2. I'm not aware of this editor's history, so I will stay neutral on this. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
General comments
Unnecessary commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Before I vote, I would like to bring up this. I feel that you were not listening to anything I had to say, and simply defending the more "popular" user (if that makes any sense, I'm not a needless attention-seeker, but get annoyed at behaviour that comes off as snobbish). If you were to become an admin, would this happen again? Foxnpichu ( talk) 13:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Foxnpichu, first if this is a real question you want answered you should ask it above in the place for questions. But just so I'm clear what you're asking bradv is whehter he would defend a more popular user again? Because what I see there is one now blocked user who was very rude to you and bradv who explained why he thought that incident shouldn't be disqualifying for the candidate. And did so politely if firmly. I understand why it would be frustrating but I don't think it was conduct unbecoming of a sysop. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    @ Foxnpichu: What in particular would you like to bring up about DQ's RfB ? Nick ( talk) 13:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Nick Check the 2nd oppose !vote. - ZLEA T\ C 14:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    @ ZLEA: I'm supposed to be a mind-reader now. What happened to supplying a fucking diff ? Nick ( talk) 14:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Nick Bradv's comments can be found under the 2nd oppose !vote of DeltaQuad's RfB. Including diffs would be unnecessary as you could find Bradv's comments by simply reading the discussion (it's not long, and Bradv's signature stands out). - ZLEA T\ C 14:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    The key phrase from that exchange is Foxnpichu’s comment I might be acting a bit unfair here [...], which bradv was correctly pointing out. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    foxnpichu Diffs are your (and mine) friend - in both cases. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Foxnpichu From what I can see, I have to agree with Bradv's comments, it does appear that you were applying a double standard. What DQ did was a mistake, and the unblocking admin originally assumed that your main account was a sockpuppet of your actual sockpuppet without checking. You wanted others to assume good faith towards you, but you then assumed bad faith on DQ's RfB. - ZLEA T\ C 14:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Exactly! DQ went ahead, blocked me without sensibly checking and got out scot-free. Imopposed her RfB because I felt untrusting of giving her such a high rank. I try to explain this to Brad, but he didn't listen! Foxnpichu ( talk) 15:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    There's a difference between not listening and not agreeing with you. There's no evidence Bradv didn't listen (indeed, there's quite the opposite) but what we have is evidence he doesn't agree with you (like a great many people, myself included). Nick ( talk) 15:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
While DQ made a mistake, your sockpuppet was incorrectly marked as the sock master. This is a very rare occurrence, and there is rarely a reason for an admin to check which account is a sock master unless the issue is brought up beforehand. Bradv tried telling you that it was an honest mistake, but you took it as an assumption of bad faith. - ZLEA T\ C 15:18, 4 August 2019 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bradv&oldid=1142577072"