Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kelapstick (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 15 July 2012 (→Oppose: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bbb23

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (69/2/3); Scheduled to end 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination by Drmies

It is my pleasure to present Bbb23 for your consideration as an administrator. I have worked with Bbb since I guess the fall of 2011--in all honesty, I don't rightly remember, since he (I'm pretty sure he's a he) has become so helpful, so much a sounding board, that it feels like he's always been around. I can't remember when I thought he was wrong, though I am sure we have had disagreements; if he ever was wrong, he must have handled it with the appropriate sprezzatura. (As an admin, I can of course never be wrong.) I've been prompting him to start this RfA for quite some time since I think we can do with an admin like him: helpful to new editors, courteous, graceful under pressure. His contributions to boards like ANI are usually like oil on water, and I am quite convinced that he will reflect carefully and apply the proper hesitancy before blocking an editor or deleting an article. One may disagree with Bbb, but one can't claim he's a fool. Note also his many positive contributions at the BLP noticeboard: especially in the BLP area he could put a set of tools to good use.

We like our admins to have content experience also, if only so we know they know what it's like to have edits reverted or articles deleted. Bbb has plenty of article contributions but is hesitant, perhaps out of modesty, to create them--still, he has produced two, William G. Tapply and André Birotte Jr., which were more than adequate when he put them in main space, and show that he knows what a properly written and referenced article should look like.

I have great faith in Bbb. He is committed to the project and is idiotic serious enough about it to seek higher office. He knows policy and guidelines, he has proper table and board manners, he will not abuse the tools. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by LadyofShalott

I am glad to co-nominate Bbb23 for adminship, because I think he'll do a good job with the tools. Bbb23 is a level-headed user who knows policy, and is courteous to other editors. Those are exactly the kinds of traits we want in an administrator: someone who can calmly look at a situation and discuss it with the editors involved. Another trait that will serve him and the community well is that he asks questions if he does not know something or is unsure about it - nobody knows everything, but I don't think Bbb23 will rush in like a bull in a china shop acting like he does know things he doesn't. I believe he is committed to the project and will wield the mop with fairness and kindness. In short, he is a good servant to the community of editors and readers, and giving him the admin bit will allow him to continue that in more ways. LadyofShalott 22:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Dennis Brown

I've worked with Bbb23 closely in a number of forums over many months, and happy to be recommending him for adminship. In particular, when he and I disagree on any point, it has always been a positive learning experience for us both, as he is adept at actually listening and taking advice on board, while staying true to his ideals. He has a strong sense of fairness, yet is flexible in dealing with problems, and both traits will serve him well in dispute resolution. I've found him to be well versed in policy, yet not a slave to the letter, understanding that the intent of the policy trumps the individual words. More importantly, he is an independent thinker with abundant clue that we can all trust will do good things with the extra tools. I've said for a long time that he should be an admin, and I can't think of a person more deserving of my first nomination at RfA than Bbb23. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: My goal is to move slowly and help out where most needed, whether it be WP:RPP, WP:AIV, WP:3RRN, or whatever other forum has an administrator backlog or just generally needs administrative help. Once I feel more comfortable in those areas, I'd like to branch out cautiously into places I've had little experience, like CSDs and closures of AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

A: I've been a frequent contributor at WP:BLPN for a long time trying to resolve often very controversial issues. I've also participated at WP:ANI to help guide posters and responders to a solution of their problem. More recently, I wrote my first article, became more involved in RfAs, and engaged in policy discussions. I even uploaded my first picture. I was inordinately proud of that. It was surprisingly easy (I always expect everything at Misplaced Pages to be hard the first time you do it).

I'm also pleased with "mediation" in which I've tried to assist other editors reach a consensus about article content. I'm not always completely successful, but I like to think I had a positive influence. Some examples I can remember are: Andrew Nikolić, The Zeitgeist Movement, and Interlibertarians (most recent but less effort by me).

Although I've created only two articles, I have done some very time-consuming rewrites of articles. Two recent examples are Brad Birkenfeld and Tommy Morrison.

Finally, a big part of my work has been maintaining the integrity of articles (not just BLPs). That, of course, includes undoing garden variety vandalism, but also ensuring that articles are properly sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes to both.

Conflicts. Working on BLP articles often entails conflicts as, many times, the editors involved have rather entrenched views. It helps when there are other BLPN experienced editors who weigh in (we have some very good people who contribute at BLPN) so a broader consensus emerges. One-on-one conflicts are harder. Civil, calm comments go a long way with me. I sometimes react less well to aggressive, inflammatory rhetoric, and, particularly, to personal attacks, against me or others.

Even in non-BLP articles, conflicts arise, often about unsourced material and often with inexperienced editors. I deal with it first simply through edit summaries and perhaps a comment on the user's Talk page. If that doesn't work, I take it to the article Talk page.

For the future, my objective is to improve my reactions to problematic edits, something I've been working on for a while now. Unless it's an obvious 3RR exemption, I don't go beyond 3 reverts and will often stop at 2. I then open a discussion on the Talk page. The trick is to (1) not let attitude get to you (although I am human) and (2) step back and think, how much does it really matter to the encyclopedia if the "wrong" material is in the article while the issue is resolved. Things aren't always as urgent as we think they are.

Stress. My stress has reduced considerably over time. In dealing with difficult, inexperienced editors, I've figured out that some of their aggression may be attributable to defensiveness stemming from an experienced editor telling them what to do. Unless I have reason to suspect bad faith, I take that into account more than before.

Going forward, I plan to continue evaluating other editors' actions from their perspective.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Callanecc

4. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.

An IP user completely changes a large section of an article on a living from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level uw-vandalism4im warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits for 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Misplaced Pages hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Misplaced Pages), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback then reports the IP to WP:AIV.

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

A: I’m assuming you mean a BLP and inadvertently left out a word. I’m also assuming the article versions have precisely the same material, one with references and one without.

I decline the request.

What the IP did was not vandalism. Persistent change against consensus (even the rather unusual consensus you posit) is not vandalism. “Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.” And in this particular scenario, what the IP was doing wasn’t even “misguided”.

Some intervention and counseling are needed. First, I would look at the article Talk page to see how this “consensus” was reached. A decision such as the one taken here by the other editors cannot be a true consensus. A consensus is supposed to be based on “policy, sources, and common sense”. There is no policy that says an unreferenced article is more desirable than a referenced article. Obviously, there are no sources that the editors could have relied on. And the consensus defies common sense. I would advise the editors who apparently approved this “consensus” of the process of achieving consensus and wait for their responses to my advice. I would restore the article to a referenced version. I would advise them against “unreferencing” the article, but also explain that there are methods of dispute resolution available to them if they disagree with me.

Second, I would advise the registered editor that their labeling the IP’s edits as vandalism was wrong (“incorrect use of user warning templates, even if well-intended, should be identified to the mistaken user”). In addition, even if it had been vandalism, escalating templates should have been used instead of jumping to the end. Finally, I would advise the user that they should have responded to the IP’s question. Except in limited circumstances, discussion of differences is always a good thing, and one certainly shouldn’t give up on it before getting started.

I would also question the user as to why they think they should retain their WP:ROLLBACK privileges. Before asking, I would look at the user’s edit history to see when they acquired rollback privileges and how they have used them before this incident. Depending on the results of that review and my discussion with the user, I would consider revoking the privilege. Because I’m a new admin, I would consult with another admin before revocation to see if it’s reasonable to do this on my own, so to speak.

I would not block anyone for edit-warring. First, I see no technical breach of 3RR by either editor. The registered user made three reverts, I believe. Second, there was no warning of edit-warring issued by anyone to anyone.

I’m not going to address all of the BLP issues mainly because this answer is already too long, but very briefly, having a wholly unreferenced BLP article is problematic if there is ‘’any’’ negative information in the article at all. (I am now going to bed, so any follow-up will have to wait for tomorrow.)--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Minimac

5. When, if ever, should a vandal account who has not been warned be blocked?

A: Many believe escalating warnings (one through four in terms of the standard templates) are required before an account may be blocked for vandalism, but there is no rule requiring warnings. Per WP:BLOCK, “warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking.” See also WP:VANDAL (“While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block.”).

“sers acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.” WP:BLOCK.

One example. A new account’s first edit is to vandalize an article and the vandalism is egregious. Before any warning can be given, the account has vandalized three articles in a similarly flagrant style. Remember the purpose of blocking is to protect the encyclopedia: (“prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages” - WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE ). Also, sometimes editors revert vandalism without warning the user after the reversion. Or while the vandal is being warned, the account vandalizes more articles; normally, a new warning can’t be issued until the vandal has had an opportunity to receive the previous warning (“the user received no intervening warning between the edits”).

There is a list of account types that may be blocked without warning. See WP:BLOCK, section “Disruption-only”. The list is not exhaustive, e.g., see blocking for sock evasion.

What’s key here is that the disruptive intent is obvious and to hold off because no warnings have been issued would cause further damage.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

6. What do you think of the current BLP policy? How could it be improved or changed?

A: This is a very broad question, so I’ll pick one area where I think WP:BLP could be improved.

WP:BLPCRIME. I was actually involved in tightening this policy, and just as with any policy change, we proceeded cautiously. The gist is that unless a BLP has been convicted of a crime, we should not report on possible criminal activity, i.e., investigations, arrests, charges, even trials. Before I address the explicit exception, I would make the policy stronger. At the moment, it doesn’t prohibit the material; it says only that “editors must give serious consideration to not including” the material (emphasis in original). I would say instead that editors must not include the material (no emphasis needed).

The exception is WP:WELLKNOWN. BLPCRIME states that the policy applies to BLPs “who are relatively unknown”. That phrase is further illuminated in a footnote that says “BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.” However, WELLKNOWN is a policy that applies in examples other than criminal activity; perhaps more is needed in BLPCRIME itself about the differences between low-profile and "relatively well-known" subjects. Even though WELLKNOWN gives a couple of good examples of what kinds of individuals are encompassed by the policy, we often have disputes over who is well-known, and part of the problem stems from WELLKNOWN applying to material that does not involve BLPCRIME.

The opening sentence of WELLKNOWN is a bit problematic: “In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say.” To some, a reasonable reading of this sentence is the more sources that report the incident, the more well-known the BLP must be. In this day of instant celebrity, we often have multiple sources for an event concerning a relatively low-profile individual (and many times there is really only one source with the other sources simply repeating what the first says). In my view, what matters more are the depth and duration of the reports rather than just the number. Finally, the first example given implies a connection between the report and whether it is “important to the article”. Although said in passing, even with a well-known figure, the relevance of criminal allegations to the person’s notability should be emphasized in the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from MONGO

7. Please tell me which is worse: a personal attack against an editor, or a personal attack against a nationality?

A: An attack against a nationality is not a "personal" attack. WP:WIAPA lists "some types" of personal attacks (the “examples are not exhaustive”), one of which is an attack against a person's race, sexual identity, age, religion, political beliefs, gender, or disability "directed against another contributor" (my emphasis). Therefore, even if nationality were one of the types, an attack against a nationality would not be a personal attack.

That doesn't mean an attack against a nationality is appropriate. You’ve provided no context for the attacking comment. Is it on the editors user page? If so, the appropriate guideline is probably WP:UP#POLEMIC. Is it on a Talk page? If so, the appropriate guideline is probably WP:TPNO. Without knowing more, I can’t give you a more specific answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to confuse you and my wording may have been so. I suppose what I mean is: Is it worse to say, "he's an (blank)" or to say "he comes from a nation of (blanks)"...--MONGO 23:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the motive of the attacker, which we may or may not be able to discern from the context or from other comments. If the statement he comes from a nation of blanks means he's a blank and all his countrypersons are blanks, then the second statement is worse than the first. If, on the other hand, it means he comes from a nation of blanks but he himself is not a blank, then it's not a "personal" attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

8. Looking at question number 7, what do you think should happen to an editor who routinely makes nationalistic attacks against others? Additionally, what would you do if confronted with administrators that ignore or even endorse such behavior?

A: Your wording of this question is a tad confusing. It seemed clear to me in Q7 that you meant a pure nationality attack, not directed at any editor. Here you use the phrase “nationalistic attacks against others”, which may mean attacking a particular editor’s nationality against a particular editor. If it involves an editor, it is a personal attack and should be treated accordingly. If it is an attack against a nationality divorced from a particular editor, it would be treated in the first instance as I outlined in A7, depending on the circumstances.

WP:NPA has a section on responding to personal attacks. There is a subsection on “recurring, non-disruptive” attacks, which are not generally sanctionable, and there is a separate section that addresses disruptive attacks (Consequences of personal attacks). In my view, the answer to your question is heavily fact-intensive, meaning without some idea of what these “routine” attacks are, it’s hard to identify the correct response.

As for your last questions about admins, ignoring (inappropriate) behavior is different from endorsing it. I’m not even sure what ignoring it means because I don’t know the venue in which it is being ignored, or how one even knows it is being ignored.

As for endorsing it, again it depends on the context, but if editor x says, for example, “Americans are evil” and administrator y says, “that’s true”, then administrator y has effectively put him or herself in the same position as editor x, and the correct response to the initial comment by editor x should, at least in theory, be leveled against administrator y. However, if, for example, the correct response is a block of editor x, blocking an admin is technically and practically difficult, if not paradoxical, to do. The usual formal sanction of an admin is a desysop, and yet it seems harsh to equate the block of a user to the desysop of an admin. At the same time, if an admin routinely makes derogatory statements about a particular country, they would probably not command much respect in the community. A desysop normally happens at ArbCom unless the admin is open to recall.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

9. Please define INVOLVED in your own words.

A: There are two parts to WP:INVOLVED. Part 2 says that regardless of whether the admin is “involved”, they may still take administrative action if the action is objectively reasonable, meaning any other admin would have done the same thing.

The first part states that an admin is involved if it is in the context of a particular dispute with the target editor. The easiest example is when an admin, acting as an editor, is arguing on the Talk page of an article with another editor about the article content, the other editor does something, and the admin wants to block the editor. Unless exempt under part 2, the admin is involved and should not block the editor.

An admin may also be involved if they have had a past dispute with the other editor. Three exceptions may apply. The first is part 2 above. The second is when the past dispute involved the admin acting in an administrative role. For example, if the only past involvement was a block of the editor, the admin may block the editor again. The last exception is when the prior involvement was relatively “minor” or “obvious”.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from My76Strat

10. How long have you considered requesting adminship; and what, if anything, have you done to prepare for this RfA?

A: Sometime in the last year I began thinking I might make a good admin, but I didn’t have much confidence I would be successful if I ran.

In April of this year, several editors suggested I run, including some I didn’t even know, as well as some I know and greatly respect. Although touched and flattered, I still lacked confidence, so I did the following things (not necessarily in order):

1. I started watching RfAs and sometimes voting, commenting, or asking questions. That was an eye-opener, frankly, and it didn’t, particularly in the beginning, give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
2. I figured my lack of article creation would be a problem for some editors, so I wrote two articles.
3. I became involved in new page patrolling.
4. I started a CSD log (I wish it were retroactive).
5. I discussed the idea with editors I know and trust.
6. I did a lot of thinking.
7. I had bouts of insomnia in the week leading up to this RfA. If I am successful, I will be one exhausted admin. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Carrite

11. Have you ever edited Misplaced Pages using another user name? If so, please list all the names under which you have previously edited. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A: Oh, good, an easy question I can answer before shutting down for the night. No. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Optional questions from Callanecc

12. Would you please explain why you replaced a contested PROD and "warned" the user who removed it . This seems like it is going to be an issue for the RfA (especially since it happened yesterday) so I'm going to give you clear chance to explain it - you don't need to answer (by no means) it's completely up to you.

A: I was planning on retiring for the night, but that didn’t work. I will try to make this as succinct as possible.

I was unfamiliar with WP:CONTESTED. I do not remember ever prodding an article. The language in {{Proposed deletion}} does not clearly track the language of the policy. Based on my reading of the tag language, I thought if an editor removed the tag, they had to explain why they were doing so in their edit summary or on the article Talk page. Anyone familiar with the policy would probably not have read the tag the way I did, but I suspect others unfamiliar with the policy might have done. When the editor removed the tag without any edit summary or discussion on the Talk page, I reverted. My warning on his Talk page was consistent with my confusion.

The above is an explanation of what happened. It does not excuse my error. I should have read the policy rather than trust the language of the tag. Fortunately, the harm was avoided by User:Explicit who properly declined to delete the article because it had been contested.

For anyone interested in the details of the differences between the policy and the tag language, look at this discussion (it starts at about the middle of the topic).--Bbb23 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

13. What will you do to prevent something like this happening again (that is, what have you learnt)?

14. If, as an administrator, if you encountered a situation like this (if you were User:Explicit in this situation) what would you do to rectify the situation?

General comments

• Links for Requests for adminship: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Requests for adminship can be found here.

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support as co-nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom. LadyofShalott 23:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Investigation reveals plenty of well-thought-out posts written in plain easy-to-understand English. They seem to have an understanding of Wiki policies and have a good feel for the culture here. A nice mix of article, Misplaced Pages space, and talk page edits; their user talk page edits consist of custom-written prose, not templates, which is good. By the way, I also support more use of the word sprezzatura on this wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - I think Diannaa put it nicely. I don't see anything immediately standing out as a problem. Additionally, I think the words of the nomination statements are very persuasive. That puts it over the top if my general impression of Bbb23 didn't already. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Support per nominators and opinion of this editor. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support for all of the reasons previously noted. I don't recall ever commenting on an RfA, but I enthusiastically support this candidate. Bbb23's fair-mindedness, even temper, and knowledge of the intricacies of Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures have long impressed me. Bbb23 has been a tremendous asset to Misplaced Pages, and can be an even greater asset with admin tools. Cresix (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Support; I've worked with Bbb23 fairly often, on a variety of things. This editor is strong on BLP, on common sense, and on seeing right into the heart of an issue, which in particular is a talent an admin needs. One of the strongest candidates I've seen on RfA for a while. Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Support; clearly a competent editor, and has the ability to cut through invective to the heart of an issue. Both of those, especially the latter, are the most important skills of an administrator. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - per noms. Competent editor who will be a great help to the admin corps. Great BLP work too which for me makes up for shallow content. – Connormah (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
10. One of our best in BLPs Secret 02:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Assuming of course he can restrain himself, I cannot see anything worrying enough not to support. — foxj 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Support I've seen the user around a lot and often mistaken the user for an admin. Number of articles created is lacking, but quality of the two articles created is good. I see a lot of vandalism fighting and lots of experience on WP:BLPN.--v/r - TP 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    At least I'm not the only one who thought he was an admin.—cyberpower _Online 13:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

13. Support - Opposes below don't shed any light on anything that could be remotely perceived as a net negative. Therefore, net positive. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - Although there doesn't seem to be any massive number of articles created, there does appear to be a lot of article space editing and content addition. Article creation is a good thing, but you don't need administrative privileges for that; looking over the contribs there seems to be plenty of experience in the areas where administrative tools are used. - SudoGhost 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Support IMO, content creation is very valuable to Misplaced Pages but it's not as important as how admin button will be used by candidates for adminship. Not all of them must be expected to write GAs or FAs because it seems difficult for some people. However, first-hand experience is needed to deal with content disputes and Bbb23 is absolutely qualified enough for that--Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Oh, yes, support, if that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Support - Intelligent, thoughtful, courteous and well-spoken. All my interactions with this user, and there have been several, were positive and pleasant. I also think the work he does is very valuable to the encyclopaedia. More specifically, his BLPN-related work has been exceptional IMO. Also his approach to other users, from what I have observed, is even-handed and based on the assumption of good faith. This is a sine-qua-non trait for an admin. It doesn't get any better than that in this environment. Δρ.Κ.  05:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Support - Zero reason not to. Swarm 06:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
19. Seen him around a fair bit, always come across as sensible and knowledgeable. I also have Friends, which Bbb has made over 200 edits to, on my watchlist and his edits to that article demonstrate a good knowledge of content policies and guidelines. I actually thought he was an admin for quite a while. Only negative I could find was that he has spent more time than I like to see at ANI, but no one's perfect. Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
20. Support with real pleasure -- Bbb23 is a very sensible editor with a very even temperament. We have sometimes disagreed, but I've never found reason to lose respect for the way he has expressed any disagreement with me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
21. Support This user has proof of fully understanding certain situations, a key aspect for an administrator, especially with that professionally written answer to Q4. Minima© (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Per previous users' comments and the answer to my question. I don't have any problem with the seeming lack of content creation, the two articles look very good and the user has experience with admin areas (which I believe are more important than content creation). Thanks very much (and I hope you have a good night's sleep). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Support I have seen Bbb23 for some time on ANI and he has always been incredibly helpful. Also, looking at his contributions, i have no doubt he has what is needed for the mop. —Hahc21 07:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Great person to work with. He is knowledgeable, thoughtful and courteous. Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
25. Support answers to questions show the candidate is clued up on policy, while he hasn't created many articles, the ones he has done show sufficient awareness. Valenciano (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Seems like a great user who will use his skills to serve towards the betterment of the project as an admin. Michael (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
27. I do not see any problems with the candidate.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - Good editor to hand the mop to. Very impressed by the nominators/co-nominators statements and the quality of the support. The single oppose as of this writing is unconvincing, to say the least. Jusdafax 08:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    Support - Very impressive supporting nominations and statements. Content work does not solely equate to new articles, work on existing articles is just as important. KTC (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Moving to neutral. KTC (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

29. Support Bbb23 is the kind of editor where you forget they're not already an admin. I've greatly enjoyed our (too few) interactions. They are hard-working, helpful and definitely have a clue. I couldn't be more happy to support. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
30. Support per excellent nominations from respected colleagues, have seen valuable contributions at WP:ANI. I can trust Bbb23 with the mop. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
31. Support Good answers to questions, particularly question 4. I've come across this editor before and have seen no reason not to support, appears trustworthy. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. No concerns at the moment. Elockid 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - Evenhanded, fairminded and knowledgeable about policy and how to apply it, in particular WP:BLP. Re: content creation, it isn't the only way to demonstrate knowledge and skill in handling content and content policies. And if anything, at this time it's at least as useful to preserve the integrity and improve on the content already on Misplaced Pages, in particular BLPs, and Bbb23 has been extraordinarily prolific and competent at that. Siawase (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
34. Oppose User is too popular and has way too many co-noms. ;)—cyberpower _Online 13:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    Don't hate us cause we're beautiful (well, I'm not sure about Dennis). Drmies (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    Meh, I'm "bar pretty". After a few drinks in dim lighting, I look good enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    Inner beauty is what counts.—cyberpower _Online 13:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    * <--- The world's tiniest barnstar for one of the funniest RfA threads I've seen. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

35. Support No concerns--demonstrates understanding and competence. --IShadowed 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Seems capable and strong nominations.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
37. SupportWork on BLPN is as good a preparation (and indeed may be better than article creation) as any for the trials and travails of being an admin. It looks as though the tools will be in good hands. MarnetteD | Talk 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
38. Support - yes please! Fully trust the competence of the candidate as well as the sound judgement of all three nominators.--Jezebel'sPonyo 16:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
39. Support good answers and contribs. —HueSatLum 16:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
40. Support largely through past observations of this editor demonstrating clue. --j⚛e decker 16:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
41. Support Would be a net positive to the project. Simples.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
42. Impressed as hell by the noms and their support. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
43. Don't see why not. Monty₈₄₅ 17:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
44. Support. Bbb is one of the most consistently good BLP editors I've ever run in to. His blp work, even if not directly involving normal admin tools, is consistently solid enough as to remove any doubt about his judgment. He's so good, that I'm supporting him even though drmies nommed him...Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
45. Support. Appears competent, understanding, and definitely capable. Mysterytrey talk 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
46. Pile-on support for a competent candidate. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
47. Support. I normally view 90% of the dialogue concerning WP:BLP to be self-important intellectual masturbation. This editor is one of the exceptions, in my opinion. Much of what I read from him is interesting, and often undiscussed viewpoints on a subject that has consumed thousands and thousands of hours of time for the project. There are areas I would like to see a little more experience, but nothing at all that would shake my complete suppport. Trusilver 18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
48. Weak support. Unconvincing reasons for adminship, but generally good contributions. Axl ¤ 18:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Seen this username pop up here and there. They seem to be clueful and frinedly. Good luck!--Chip123456 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
50. Support Experienced editor. I don't see any reason to oppose this nomination. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
51. Support — No concerns. This is an easy choice. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
52. Support - Support. Obviously strong candidate. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
53. Support I know there is WP:SNOW for RfA's that will obviously fail. Is there something similar for RfA's that will clearly succeed? If so, it's time to use it. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

    You know there exists some idiots who fail although it doesn't look like...? mabdul 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

54. Support - Meets my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 21:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
55. Support - If I had criteria, he would meet them. Nolelover 22:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. Very impressed by this user: honest, conscientious, logical, practical, civil. Communicates exceptionally clearly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
57. Support User has been editing regularly since April 2010 .Feel l the project will only gain with the user having tools and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
58. Support...my questions above didn't annoy you in any perceptible manner, so here you go.--MONGO 00:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
59. Support - Wow! A triple nomination. Is that what it takes to pass an RfA these days? :-) Seriously though, I am impressed with Bbb23's responses to the questions, and I don't have any reason to oppose this nomination. While perusing his talk page archives I turned up an old, unsigned, undated 3RR warning from a couple years ago, but when I looked up the article in question I didn't see any clear 3RR violation, unless you call adding a reference or repairing a broken header a revert. I'm sure Bbb will be a great administrator. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
60. Oppose. Candidate looks well-qualified but I can't really approve until the nomination statement is purged of its unnecessary Italian.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

    Vaffanculo, S Marshall, at least until you find me a better translation of sprezzatura. I'll purge this when the cows come home! Drmies (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

61. Support Decent enough editor. No major concerns. Schmidt, 00:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. Answers to Q1-3 show Bbb23 understands the purpose of the questions. I'm troubled with "I don't go beyond 3 reverts and will often stop at 2. I then open a discussion...." WP:3RR is not a right. Q4 shows B understands restraint is desirable. I've noticed him around. I hope he will not lose too much sleep this week. Glrx (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
63. Support, but it should have happened sooner. :) Ishdarian 02:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
64. Support. I recall arguing with this editor about the structure of a political article a couple of years ago, and it was one of the most pleasant arguments I've had. We need more admins who can disagree with someone without being a giant (Redacted) about it. 28bytes (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
65. 'Oppose, too many edits. Er, wait... support, more than 1000 edits, no evidence that administrator tools will be abused. —Kusma (t·c) 05:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
66. Support. Swayed by the co-noms and some of the answers to the questions. -- œ 05:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
67. Support. Great editor. I'd trust him with the mop. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Trusted and good answers. Also opposes' aren't convincing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 07:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
69. Strong Support I've had the pleasure of dealing with this user at AN/I, and he is very helpful and acts like an Admin there. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)