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

BD2412

Final count: (183/0/0) ended 00:07, Thursday, December 8, 2005 (UTC)

BD2412 (talk · contribs) – BD2412 is a great Wikipedian. He has been here since February and since then has amassed a whopping 32,763 edits! He participates a lot in VfD and has written (or participated in writing) many law-related articles which have reached a quality that I envy. He is civil, intelligent and I know that he would use his SysOp rights very carefully. I'm sure he would make an excellent administrator. Izehar 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: edit count is 34,178 as of 14:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC), per my update with this alternative to Kate's tool. Prodego^talk 14:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With gratitude to Izehar - and everyone else who has offered - I accept this nomination, and hope for the approval of my peers. BD2412 T 00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. No fair jumping the gun! Support -- DS1953 00:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've found BD2412 to be very reasonable and helpful, even if he does spend an unhealthy amount of time at AFD. We can certainly use more lawyer Wikipedians, though how one can find time to make 30000 edits and still pass the bar is a wonder to me. Dragons flight 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, that's not all that unique an accomplishment...  ; ) Postdlf 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong support. An excellent editor. I thought he was an admin already. Mushroom 01:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Even stronger support. Didn't think he was an admin, but knew he should be. All due apologies to the community for not having nominated him sooner myself. Tomer^TALK 05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, with no reservations. Jkelly 06:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Massive Support BD2412 has been unfailingly one of the very best of the good eggs. Admin this one fast, before he changes his mind...Hamster Sandwich 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongly Support Everything above clearly sums it up. Prodego 17:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, Why not!?

   I Am Ri¢h!^{My Rich Contributions}/^{My Wealthy Talk} 2024-03-16 15:32 UTC

9. Support. I kid you not, I came to this page via Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate as I was preparing to post BD's nomination at 00:00 GMT, about 15 minutes from now. Hall Monitor 23:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No problems here. Good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. (after edit conflicts) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Wow, just wow. Okay, I'm leaving again. Quentin Pierce 00:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Lukewarm support in expectation of an extremely easy passage. Tintin 00:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Universal support - Is this an April-Fool's Day or a December's one?!! I've always thought BDA was the president of Wikipedia! -- Svest 00:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

    Hey now, don't get me confused with this guy! Would've been a regular riot if I'd waited until next April 1 to accept a nom, though. BD2412 T 16:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't mean the king! But really, as Tito comments just an inch below; I was like this guy has always been an admin! -- Svest 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

    I am not sure about the record of support votes ever gotten by a candidate but I guess that it would be around 208! Don't ask me how I got that number! -- Svest 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

15. (after five edit conflicts, this isn't funny!): Oppose, not enough edits. No, seriously, Strong support, extremely active Wikipedian, has a ton of substantive edits to the Project namespace, and I seriously thought he was an admin when I was a newbie. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Excellent and dedicated contributer. Sango123 (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support; he's not one already?! Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Cue (yet again) I thought he was an admin support. SoLando (Talk) 00:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong Support; he's a ridiculously dedicated editor who I've seen around, and been impressed by, many times. For months I've thought this was long overdue. --Idont Havaname 00:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Summa cum support - Without a single reservation. FCYTravis 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support I thought he already was one. --Wikiacc (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. NatusRoma 01:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support vote is a no-brainer Dlyons493 Talk 01:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - I thought he was an admin already too. Cookiecaper 01:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. support he is a good person Yuckfoo 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, good guy. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support I don't believe he isn't an admin. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Strong support Absolutely. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support; been impressed by this one for a while now. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support seen this user around doing good things. And so many edits!!!--Alhutch 01:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Will make a fine admin --Rogerd 01:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong Support of course. Great work at AfD! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
33. Seriously, not an admin?! Andre (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support This is only a formality, and a long overdue one at that. This will greatly enhance Wikipedia's quality level.--MONGO 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Looks like Christmas came early this year! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
36. Geesh. Take a few hours off and look at the Support pile already. --hydnjo talk 02:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
37. Speedy Support Just close this already and promote him a perfect canditate for adminship --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 02:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong support. Can't believe he isn't... etc. Cnwb 03:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Look ma, a bandwagon! Can I jump on? Huh huh please? Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Mom 07:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Wah! I never get to do anything fun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

40. , without a second thought. Splash^talk 05:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
41. Easiest RFA decision ever. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose I will leave Wikipedia if he gets admin! zomg cabal! erm...I mean.....Support, for obvious reasons. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 05:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
43. OH MY GOSH, BD's becoming an admin! Super-super-super-super-super-super SUPPORT Yeah, I sorta think he's qualified.  ;) Xoloz 05:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, I guess I can't really add much other than to say that I also very much respect BD's judgment and look forward to his help in admin tasks. Dmcdevit·t 06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I thought he already was an admin. --TheParanoidOne 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Absolutely. Excellent contributor to the encyclopedia and the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support, just piling up here :) Lectonar 07:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support oops, I'm too late.  Grue  07:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support --pgk^(talk) 07:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose. He wouldn't stand when I offered to nominate him (pout). Grutness...wha? 08:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC) oh, all right. Support, then. [reply]

    For the record, Grutness was the first editor to extend such an offer, and more than six months ago at that. BD2412 T 16:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

51. Support – =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Hey, I honestly thought he was one already. I've had much positive experience with him. He's a sure candidate. — JIP | Talk 08:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - I too must join the "I thought he was one already" bandwagon. Lets see if he can get 100 support votes - he sure deserves them. Thryduulf 09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - a very familiar name, a very deserving name. Barneyboo (Talk) 09:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oh my god you're not an admin yet support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
56. I plead the fifth err I mean support.  ALKIVAR™ 10:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
57. Disambig Support. - Darwinek 12:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
58. Supreme support. One of those names that pops up everywhere. --bainer (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support: This has been a looooong time coming. He is the epitome of deserving. I've joked with him before that he kept delaying a nomination so that he could set the record for most supported nomination. I suspect the joke might become true. 59 support votes in ~13 hours. Wow! --Durin 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Hiding talk 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose. 32000 edits in 9 months is silly, I want proof that he isn't some editing-machine... Bah, see as though it's nearly the holidays, I'll Support. Rje 14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support we don't always have the same view, but this guy is a great contributor and will use the mop wisely. Alf ^melmac 14:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong Support! - I've worked with this editor on Pizza delivery Always helpful, always easy to work with. I'd love to see him get the mop! ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 15:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong Support - Why did you make us wait so long? ;-) Now we have to figure who will take your role as the best non-admin at en.wiki. NoSeptember ^talk 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to say Kappa. BD2412 T 16:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

65. Support! He has essentially been doing admin work for longer than many admins, and doing a fine job at that. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. Insert lawyer joke here. --Deathphoenix 17:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
67. Speedy promote and delist from RFA. Silensor 17:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
68. You're not? I could have sworn you were. Wow. Ral315 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
69. It's 'bout time Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support.It's time Looks like a good choice. It's time.--Dakota ^{t e} 17:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. FireFox 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
72. —Cryptic (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. --Kbdank71 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Why havent I supported yet? The old clichè, I seriously thought he was a senior admin. Great guy, great editor, (will be) great administrator. Banes 20:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. I think he will be a fair admin. Also, I see his name everywhere. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support So many edits?? wow, just based on that alone you get my support, good luck. Gryffindor 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Very worthy. PJM 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
78. Michael Snow 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
79. Extreme "Sorry I'm late" support - How could I have missed this? --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)support -[reply]
80. Yeah. Yippee, I'm 80! JFW | T@lk 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
81. Duh BD2412's so good that I don't need to tell you how good he is, so i'm going to talk about Chewbacca. karmafist 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Seems like good admin material, and I've encountered this user many times while reverting vandals. Wait, that didn't come out right... Honestly, another person who I already thought was an admin. :/ --Syrthiss 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
83. Speedy promote per all above. — Phil Welch 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
84. You have got to be kidding me. --Merovingian 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support for the guy with the green sig --TimPope 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support I thought he was already, as others have said. Tedernst | Talk 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support thought he was already an admin, definitely deserving. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
88. — Dunc|☺ 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - about time! Guettarda 23:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
90. TO PILE IT ON!εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support, BD2412's green sig has been followed by too many eye-catching sigs, also I suspect that this vote was conceived only to catch as many support votes as possible, hmm. feydey 00:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
92. Strong support One of the greatest Wikipedians. CanadianCaesar 01:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
93. Strong Support. Its about damn time. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support yayness! --cj | talk 02:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
95. EXTREME SUPPORT! I thought BD2412 was a bureaucrat already....wow. How can you have that many edits and not be an admin? :-D I'm glad (and downright proud) to have this support in my contributions list, and to have the opportunity to support you, BD. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 22:44, 1 December 2005 (CST)}
96. What!? He's not already an admin? Support. --TantalumTelluride 05:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
97. Gasp! Flowerparty■ 13:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
98. The first time I can truly say I THOUGHT YOU WERE AN ADMIN! Now all those awkward glances and strange discussions make sense. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:06
99. Support Joke137 16:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
100. 100th Supporter Support ∾ → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support This person is arguably the most important person to Wikipedia right now, and if he wants the mop, he should have it. Youngamerican 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
102. I don't usually bother voting when an Admin candidate already has a clear majority, but in this case I'll make an exception. Support, support, support! --Angr (t·c) 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
103. Going for the record support. He deserves it. Lord Bob 18:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
104. . Like he needs this vote, looks like a good bet.--Che Perez 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
105. Unnecessary but very enthusiastic support vote. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 20:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support, I've seen this editor around frequently; good edits, reasonable, polite. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support How can I not? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. I never thought I'd utter the cliche RfA words "I thought he was already an admin," but I'll be damned. 108 votes, I love it (go for the record!) -Mysekurity 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support --tomf688^{talk} 01:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support December is a cold month, this is a cold editor, I can see why he wanted to wait until December to stand for adminship. Smmurphy 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
111. Baaaa (-: JYolkowski // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. I thought he was an admin too. Very positive contributer. Jtmichcock 03:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support. Near record-breaking support vote. Carbonite | Talk 03:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

     Wait a second...My vote did break the record! Congrats, BD2412, you deserve it. Carbonite | Talk 04:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

114. Support I can't believe he isn't an administrator yet. Johann Wolfgang 04:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. Jonathunder 04:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support may it please the court. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support, seems overdue to me. Everyking 06:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support, I thought I had done so after he checked with me on my talk page re our dispute before. I think BD is often a pain in the butt, but usually in a good way. He can be reasoned with and he keeps things cool until the details are worked out. A good editor, no reason to expect he won't be a good admin. --Gmaxwell 07:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support. Promote him! --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. Seems almost pointless to vote, given the overwhelming consensus, but he's really good. -Colin Kimbrell 08:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support. Why didn't I think of nominating this guy? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support. BD isn't an admin? Really? :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support ... seems a little silly to add myself to this list, but he deserves it. besides, I like getting thank yous. (j/k) jnothman ^talk 13:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. Even though we may have some differences of opinion in other RfAs, I bear you no ill will and think that you'd be a welcome and wonderful addition to the Admin ranks. At this point I think we can call it unanimous and a landslide. LOL --Martin Osterman 15:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support, as "every vote counts". Really a fine editor. --Bhadani 16:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
127. Strong Support. You are not an admin?? Absolutely unbelievable. I always thought you were. deeptrivia (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support. I had assumed BD already was an admin. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support regularly see his name. The JPS 17:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support, though this seems like overkill. Mindmatrix 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support Didn't realize he isn't an admin already. Ashibaka (tock) 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support See him everywhere (can't miss that sig can ya?) and it all looks good. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
133. Of course. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support. Great editor. - SimonP 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
135. Well, when your RfA is 37k long with nothing but support votes, you must be doing something right. Support — unnecessary, but shall we shoot for that 208? :-) Hermione1980 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support freestylefrappe 01:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support. Looks like a NEW RECORD!!!WOW! Good work :-).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
138. Miami Brotherhood SSSUUUPPPOOORRRTTT!!! It's about damn time! -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 03:17, 04 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support Tuf-Kat 16:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. Willmcw 18:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support. It's about damn time, too. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support. While I don't usually post to an RfA where the support consensus is clear and I would have voted support anyway, I also have a policy of always supporting users I am very familiar with and have had good interactions with. This is one of them. Bonus points for the Sinatra ref in your answer as well. :) Turnstep 19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
143. LET'S GO FOR A NEW WIKI RECORD Support What they said. Plus it means he'll have one one to thank once he's Sysopped Muuuahahahaha!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support- JCarriker 00:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support. It's the hip thing to do. Ambi 06:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support after carefully reviewing every one of his edits. --DDerby-(talk) 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support - wow, you mean he's NOT an admin? our loss. Bornhj 10:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support of course. jni 12:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support He's been quite helpful to me. Agnte 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support. Apreciate all the work with link repairs —Bmdavll ^talk 15:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support per concerns oppose votes may carry this nom. Marskell 18:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support. He is an enthusiastic communicator and the green signature has become a beacon for vital and quality discussion. If you'd asked me what his contributions are I'd say he was a full time WP:DPL repairer, his enthusiasm with the project is unparalleled. Take the new link repair sub-project, the slightest breath of life from BD has resulted in one of the most fulfilling projects I have particpated in. I read above and see that's a minor part of what he does here, amazing. --Commander Keane 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support. Wow im late. Jobe6 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support, Pavel Vozenilek 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support. Well I would have supported had you needed it, so I won't not support simply to avoid giving a me too vote. A vote with grammar contortions just short of "the cat I had had had had..." :) Thanks, I'll be here all week, er a long time, er whatever - Taxman ^Talk 19:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support. Maybe this is just piling on, but I really did think BD2412 was already an admin. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support. One of the leading lights of Wikipedia.--File Éireann 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support, Not much more to say that hasn't been said already. Promotoe this user! xaosflux ^T/_C 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]
160. Strong support. One of the best. Postdlf 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support. AnnH ^(talk) 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support this pile-on --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support. I ought to oppose it just to keep it from looking like and election in the The People's Democratic Republic of Elbonia, but he's definitely one of the good guys.RandyKaelber 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support. I wrote a crummy alternative to Kate's tool. Somebody used it on BD2412. It turns out that BD2412's edit history (via Special:Contributions) is literally a 20MB download. Good enough for a pile-on, I say. --Interiot 02:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support I hate to use a hackneyed expression but I already thought he was one -- Francs2000 02:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support, man, you won the popularity contest. O_O gren グレン 08:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support, with a high number of edits, sure to be an excellent admin. --Terenceong1992 10:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support Not a pile-on, BD is an excellent and respected editor. SchmuckyTheCat 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
169. RfA Cliché #1. --Carnildo 00:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
170. support. --Irpen 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support --Deepak|वार्ता 05:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
172. Oppose. Just because. This guy seems like a loser. >_< just kidding, of course! Support, duh Matt Yeager 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
173. "This page is 47 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." utcursch | talk 06:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support Long overdue. Acetic Acid 06:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support per 174 before me. I am glad to give someone I have seen so regularly on VFD (are you sure you haven't closed any yet?) my first vote in an RfA. --WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 07:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

     Actually, I've closed quite a few, once I found out that was allowed (see response to question 1), and continue to do so from time to time. BD2412 T 18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

176. Strong Pile-on support. I also suggest that this be shown as a link rather than being transcluded. Anyone wants to vote on that? ;) --Gurubrahma 10:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
177. Me of course support. --Pamri • Talk 13:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
178. Guess what……Support! the wub "?!" 18:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
179. Hell yeah. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
180. Thoroughly unnecessary support - but I feel it's deserved anyway... CLW 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support. He is one of the most helpful, hard working editors I have come across. The way he works has been so thorough and skillful I thought he was already an admin, and surprised to find his RfA! :-) --BorgQueen 22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
182. Oh well, One more can't hurt. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
183. Coming really late, here's one more vote: support for a master disambiguator. Kusma (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following support votes were made after the deadline:

1. Support. You aren't already an admin? *shock* Enochlau 02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support For the sake of posterity, I still will support this RfA. :) This gent is one of the best editors at Wikipedia. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• I intend to accept this nomination - but I've said time and again that I will not stand for an adminship until December, so I'll accept as of 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC). Until then, cheers! BD2412 T 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See disputes below, I was mistaken as to the source of the quote and was wrong. BD2412 did an excellent job-clearly explaining the reasoning behind leaving the quote- and I support him fully. Prodego 17:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't believe no one has mentioned Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell, one of our best user subpage accomplishments. :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the compliment, but it's really no great accomplishment - it's funny, but what does it do to advance the encyclopedia? Also, it needs pictures - some real Dante's Inferno type stuff. BD2412 T 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Once again, looking for odds and bets on breaking the record ;-) Guettarda 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing this - who's going to call the spread? By how much is BDA going to break the record? 10 votes over? 20? Guettarda 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the record? --hydnjo talk 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 112 according to User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may be true but we are aiming for 208! -- Svest 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}[reply]
          • Ah... I remember the good old days (May 2005) when User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records listed only 14 users [1] ... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Ahh... more proof that RfAs tend to get more support now than before. I remember when 30 or 40 support voters was considered extremely high, and how some people passed with only a dozen support votes... :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, so the options are over, under, or exactly 208. What are the odds, where are the bookies? Guettarda 16:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd have to say about 2:1 odds against breaking 208.  ALKIVAR™ 19:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I hope the bookies would not bring sockpuppets!!! -- Svest 19:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}[reply]
                  • Anyone want to offer any odds on when the first RfA to attract 300 votes will be? Thryduulf 03:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although BD2412 is well on his way to officially breaking the record with the most support votes, I hope all of you are voting based on his contributions here, not solely to help him break the record. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Why 208 anyway? Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See vote #14. BD2412 T 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Don't ask," you say?!? That's hardly a tactful responce from a soon to be mopper ; ) Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it translates into "pure guess". I highly doubt the final tally will approach that mark - the regular RfA voters have already cast their votes. BD2412 T 04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if BD2412 intends to thank everyone for voting on his RfA...That would take a while don't ya think...lol KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do (and it will). BD2412 T 00:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but think of all the extra edits that will get you. You are a little light, you know. -- DS1953 02:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OMG. I was thinking I could really use a beer, or 18...but then I just came to read BDA's RfA, and laughed so hard, I think I'll be good for a while w/o any... :-) Tomer^talk 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder how many "congratulations" archives he is going to have on his talk page....Banes 07:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Where do you keep finding these people who haven't voted yet? I mean this is only the biggest RfA since sliced bread!--Alhutch 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't resist linking the ref, Alhutch - I wrote that article! BD2412 T 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sweet!! :-)Alhutch 15:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I’ve already been closing AfDs (within my limitations) for a while, so as an admin I’d be able to do that for those that run in either direction, and the same for categories, images, redirects, and miscellany. I have also had a number of occasions to bother admins with requests for page moves, and would like to be able to handle those myself. I have no compunction about blocking an obvious vandal – I was recently reminded of one time when I really wished I had administrative powers, when my friend Hamster Sandwich was being spoofed - twice in two weeks - by a vandal who signed up with punctuated variations of his user name.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Being a lawyer, I’m most pleased with the work I’ve done on Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, and on the law portal. I believe that those of us who have worked on that project are taking some concrete steps towards making Wikipedia the most comprehensive free internet source of information on the common law. For no particular reason, I like diversity jurisdiction, abstention doctrine, minimum contacts, lost, mislaid, and abandoned property, and I think demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States is coming along nicely. About half of the articles I’ve started have been law-related. I’m also very happy with the look of the many law-related templates that I started, which can be seen here right under Wikitools.

Outside of law, I've also been a regular on several projects, particularly disambig fixes – I’m sure I’ve done at least ten thousand by now. I have several a regular offenders on my user page which I check every few days to correct new links as they pop up. I’ve done a lot of work on Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, and on the Encarta missing articles project before it was deleted over copyright concerns. I prodded Beland to start Wikipedia:Templates with red links, and I also made and maintain the MiniAWFP, which I’m delighted to see is now a stock feature of the Wikipedia:Community Portal.

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

A.Conflicts? I've had a few… but then again, too few to mention. I did what I had to do, and saw it through without exemption...

I've had several articles nominated for deletion (mostly early on), and each instance was upsetting, since I obviously thought them to be valid topics. In the early cases, I had failed to source or develop the articles sufficiently, or had written from a POV. I guess I resolved those pretty much by learning to write the encyclopedic way. I was too snippy when Self-induced abortion was so nominated (though it was resoundingly kept), and I apologized for that.

I had all kinds of controversy regarding Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina, which I started as a sponge for "alternative" theories and conspiracy theories that were getting stuck in more mainstream articles about that event. It was nominated for deletion and came through about 50/50, but it raised some other disputes. One with Gmaxwell about the global warming materials, and the other with Prodego regarding his desire to censor some rather nasty quotes. Both were resolved through talk page discussion – with Gmaxwell, we just had a miscommunication – he was opposed to claims that global warming caused that specific disaster, while I was just trying to demonstrate that such claims were being raised in the context of Katrina, not that they were true. With Prodego, I just had to lead him to understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and now we get along fine.

Most recently, I've been in a running dispute with some tax protesters over articles such as Tax protester, Income tax in the United States, Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Irwin Schiff. I've worked in a federal court and seen the consequences of tax evasion imposed firsthand. I doubt many people are coming to Wikipedia for tax advice, but I still think it's dangerous to allow certain such theories to be put forward without pointing out that courts have, in fact rejected these theories at every turn (and people who follow them may go to jail, and will definitely end up paying those taxes). I and a few other editors have been reverting the wholly unsupportable assertions, and neutralizing the POV inherent in the claims that sound reasonable, but are based on erroneous statements of law. Of course, as I'm involved in these disputes, I would never use the power to block an editor or protect a page as a tool to forward my position there.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.