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

Tedder[edit]

Final Tally (66/4/2) Closed by Avi (talk) Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:05:37 (UTC).

Nomination[edit]

Tedder (talk · contribs) – I have gotten to know Tedder through our mutual involvement with WikiProject Oregon. Tedder has consistently found a number of different ways to contribute to the development of high-quality content about our state. He has published photographs which inspire others to write; made small but significant edits; initiated and contributed to various collaborative efforts. He's even blogged about his approach to improving Wikipedia!

Through all of this, I have come to know a guy who is welcoming to new contributors, who responds well to criticism and to new ideas, and who incorporates his Wikipedia passion into his life in a healthy and productive way. In discussing the possibility of an RfA, Tedder has gone out of his way to point me toward incidents where he has not displayed the greatest judgment; but the transgressions struck me as minor, and more importantly, he found effective ways to smooth over conflicts and move forward after the fact.

Tedder is also active on several noticeboards, and has sought out areas where he can put his background as a computer programmer to good use for the project.

In short, I believe Tedder possesses the right demeanor for an administrator -- which I happen to believe is the most important qualification -- and has also worked hard to amass the kind of experience that will help him quickly become a productive wielder of the mop. With great pride and admiration, I present to you Tedder, candidate for Administrator on the English Wikipedia. Pete (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks Pete!
I've been on en.wikipedia since April 2005, though at a low velocity for a large amount of that time. I fell in love with Wikipedia while I spent 6 months traveling through Latin America by motorbike; I would cache about 100-200 pages, read them offline, then have another 100-200 pages queued up for the next time I found internet access (and power for the laptop!). In fact, I made a few dozen edits during this time period, and added some photos too.
I've spent some of my time working on antivandalism. However, I've done much more than hit the "vandalism" button: I also spend time cleaning up articles, adding infoboxes, and finding and verifying information.
When I'm bored or not tackling larger edits, I have spent time in the NewPages backlog. I made some early mistakes, but feel I have a decent handle on what is covered under the various speedy guidelines. I've learned to do more than simply mark for speedy or mark as patrolled: depending on how the article fits into Wikipedia, I'll tag the article for improvements, welcome the editor with Friendly, and (most importantly) add at least one WikiProject to the talk page. For instance, I proposed an article for deletion, added it to a project, and let the project know in case they were interested.
Thanks for your consideration.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My intent is to help with antivandal and article-building efforts through areas like AIV, RPP, and AFD. I have some experience in those areas as a user. I'd also like to get involved with the EditFilters, which is harder to do without having access to the EditFilter bits.
There are certainly admin backlogs I could contribute to, such as RPP. I've seen articles come across my watchlist or EAR that could use some quick page protection to facilitate discussion and consensus.
Finally, being able to review deleted content will help in me cases where an article has been recreated and I'm trying to investigate its history.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've started a few articles. I'm proud of the article on Black Rage (book); it's something I knew little about, yet I was able to research it and immediately have an impressive (if short) article. I've also created articles for Oak Grove Hydroelectric Project, Cash4Gold.com, Friends of Coal (done while motorcycling and camping across the US, which explains the speedy nomination), Ladd Tower (and the great photos on that page), First Regiment Armory Annex (plus its main photo), as well as few small articles for the barely-alive WikiProject Motorcycling, and the start of a page on the ARC TF Juan Ricardo Oyola Vera (check it out- very unique vessel!).
I also have a talent for "lateral editing". For instance, I've cleaned up every existing high school entry in Oregon, plus some additional communities well outside of Oregon (like this and this). Now that I finished the cleanup, I've been creating redlinked high schools in Oregon- in the above list, it's pretty clear where I've left off. (Lane County, in case it isn't obvious)
This lateral editing is part of the reason I want to wield the mop- to do things like noncontroversial speedy deletes for moves. I'm also proud that I got my first DYK for Clatskanie Middle/High School. I'm not a FA/GA creator, but I feel that I can make up for it with incremental improvements.
Finally, I'm happy with my "non-article" work, such as summarizing a longterm sock: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse.
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: Oh, certainly. I created a RFC/UC not long ago, and I should have represented myself better in the situation. There are also ongoing articles, like AGV Sports Group, which still isn't fully resolved. However, I've been able to deal with all of them in stride, never being blocked, nor losing my temper and getting pointy. I'll continue to deal with it as I have in the past- follow policies, contact the other user(s), then ask for a third opinion from another editor, a WikiProject, or a noticeboard as necessary.
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
4. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: Hi ThaddeusB. In my opinion, I like the razor (adage) of notability. It's a convenient shortcut in AFD discussions so we don't have to reinvent the wheel by applying full rationale of the five pillars to every article discussed.
I think that some sort of third-party coverage should be found for every article, and some (many) should require much more. For instance, proving that a large college exists might be enough, while an offhand mention of a Myspace band in a local gig sheet wouldn't be enough. So the bar for inclusion on bands would be higher than a large college, for instance.
Again, this is my opinion, as you (Thaddeus) asked. I'm not saying I'll apply the razor according to my personal stance- I love having and following established policy.
4a. What I was trying to get out is what do you personally consider a legitimate claim to inclusion. Is meeting the "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable" test always enough for inclusion? Or are there some things that might non be worthy of inclusion (in you opinion) even with said coverage. You seem to being saying some things are worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable (e.g. colleges). Can you explain why you feel this way?
A: There are reasons that "coverage in multiple" is not enough- both WP:BLP1E and WP:SBST give some examples. Otherwise, it's coming back to my feelings on the subject, rather than the established guidelines, and I'm decidedly not in either camp.
5. I see that you have practiced answering RfA questions. I personally don't think anyone should hold that against you since you could have just as easily done it off wiki & no one would have known. However, some might view this as evidence of being "power hungry" - how would you respond to such a claim?
A: Yes, I practiced it on wiki. I'd hope that my past actions show that I'm not being "power hungry"- I don't spend a lot of time getting involved with drama, and certainly don't troll or do other evil things. I feel I'm weak in the writing skills that would lead to a FA, so I wanted to begin practicing typical answers to RfA questions. In reality, the most helpful part was having it up so I could refine my statement and initial questions. To summarize, I'd hope it shows I'm taking this seriously, not that I have evil intentions.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: I knew this question would be coming, and it's a fairly abstract question I've given some thought to. Ultimately, User:Roux has identified and enumerated these rights in an interesting manner at User:Roux/Constitution/Rights. My job, as editor and/or mop-wielder, is to apply the policies behind the 5 pillars that have been established as fairly and honestly as possible.
Going down the abstract path, the rights associated with Wikipedia are different than what might be in the big blue room.
Additional optional questions from S Marshall
7. Scenario: An article at AfD is ready to be closed. It's a subject with which you're not personally familiar (say, "burial rituals in aboriginal cultures"). For you to consider are the nomination, which reads "Non-notable subject; I haven't found any sources", and six !votes: One from a new editor, saying "Delete per nom"; one from an IP address, saying "Keep and expand--this is well-covered in Frazer's Golden Bough"; one from an experienced editor, saying "Speedy delete as an attack page because the content is highly offensive to aborigines"; one from an administrator, saying "Merge and redirect to 'burial ritual' because there's not enough content to make a stand-alone article"; one from an experienced editor, saying "Keep per IP address"; and one from a new user, saying "Merge and redirect to 'aboriginal cultures'".

As a prospective AfD closer, please give your assessment of the consensus at this debate.

A: Thanks for the question, S Marshall. My first reaction would be to wait to see if a more confident admin wants to deal with it, since I don't have any idea where to even start researching such an issue. However, that's a copout for an RfA discussion, as I assume you want to know how I'd handle it if necessary.
Per the deletion guidelines, this is a case where there is no clear consensus to delete. I'd investigate the "highly offensive" comment: does the article appear to be offensive? Can I find anything while searching online to indicate this? Since it isn't a BLP article, the standards are slightly lower in terms of that comment, though it is still important for the article to have a neutral point of view.
AfD is not a vote, and the weights of each good-faith vote need to be considered. The nomination doesn't indicate they tried to find sources, and an IP implies that it can be verified in a source. I've discussed the "offensive to" comment. The admin (who is just a user in this discussion) says to merge, but "not enough content" is a surmountable problem if sources can be found. Finally, the last two votes show there's still no consensus, but it is leaning away from "delete".
Ultimately, assuming there's no way I can personally verify if the subject matter exists and is covered in depth (via searching and/or finding "Frazer's Golden Bough"), the best option would likely be to extend the discussion for another deletion period to see if consensus can be reached. I'd also make sure the AfD was delsorted correctly, to ensure interested parties can find the AfD. Sources have a way of being found if it is legitimate and the "keep" camp expends some effort.
A The Golden Bough gives some context, but ultimately Wikipedia isn't a reference for Wikipedia. Our theoretical article still needs reliable sources. Knowing that ultimately this referenced article doesn't help decide our AfD, I think I'd extend the debate and (especially) ask for clarification on the AfD from the "Keep and expand" and the "offensive" !votes.
I'm going to get some exercise from jumping to conclusions here. I expect you'll ask me to make an actual decision- for instance, the extend AfD happens a few times and nothing promising happens. In that case, I'd merge the article without prejudice for recreation, keeping the edit history intact. No reliable sources have been established, and I wasn't able to find one with a cursory glance. There's nothing wrong with the article being recreated, but unless even a basic source can be found, it's an essay. Any valid content can move to our theoretical 'burial ritual', and a redirect placed. tedder (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
8. In Q1, you state that you wish to close AfDs. I have looked through about 30 of your most recent AfDs and all but a couple you were the nominator. Is it correct that most the AfDs you have participated in were started by you or was this unrepresentative sample?
A: I try not to contribute to AfDs that I don't have domain knowledge in. Most of the AfDs I contribute to are either created by me, or are related to areas I'm interested in- motorcycling, Oregon, or schools (it's simply an accident that I've been involved with school articles on Wikipedia).
I'd say it's atypical; if you'd like, I'll go through and pick out some examples, it's probably good talk page fodder.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is that I try to be very careful when jumping into new areas. I'd rather watch how a process works than jump in blindly and start working. That's pretty clear from my edit history by time, and it's also true in how I've done content creation and participated in areas across Wikipedia.
9. I see that on at least two occasions you suggested a page be salted after it was recreated 1 time. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Shaabie you suggested salting because it was recreated (under a different spelling) after an A7 delete, while in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trail Blazers Street Jam that was recreated after a G11 delete. Do you believe it is appropriate to preemptively protect against recreation after being recreated one time? If not, how many recreations would justify this action? What if it is different content each time?
A. The recommendation for salting on Shaabie was based on the variations. If the three spellings are combined, it was the *fifth* creation of the article. So salting didn't seem premature.
Trail Blazers Street Jam was recreated several times by SPAs- but it started out under different capitalization- IIRC, it was "trail blazers street jam". The text was precisely the same, so after the third creation it seemed appropriate to request salting. Note that my request for salting was more of a suggestion, because I didn't know how many times it had been deleted. As it turns out, it was the third deletion between the two spellings.
Certainly salting shouldn't be used preemptively, as WP:SALT indicates.


10. An article is sent to AfD at 8am on August 1st. Assuming it is not a WP:SNOWBALL or speedy delete candidate and the debate is proceeding orderly when would be the earliest you would consider closing it?
A. If the AfD is run normally, it should stand 7 days. August 1 at 1pm (UTC, naturally) is a Saturday, so it'll run to August 8 at 1pm. In other words, 7 days is not to August 8 at midnight, or August 7 at 1pm.
Your answer is 100% correct, however current practice is that a majority of AfDs are closed sometime between 6d12h and 6d20h. If you are approved, I urge you to fight the temptation to close AfDs early. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, and I've seen that. "At least seven days" means 7 days, not 6.9. Not everyone spends all day online, which is part of why I assume that's important.
11a. Hypothetical AfD 1: Nominated as "not notable company," two commentators said "per nom" and a third said "doesn't seem notable to me." After 6.5 days a fourth opinion is offered which reads "Keep - clearly notable per coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are over 100 GNews hits for this company; of course a few are PRs or trivial, but there are plenty of good sources too. For example, The Guardian New York Times The Washington Post and many more." How would you proceed?
A. The amount of time doesn't matter- if the fourth opinion is correct that there are many sources with sufficient depth, the company will be kept. Hopefully the opinion was given with links that back this up. If not, that level of coverage means it shouldn't be hard to prove.
11b. Hypothetical AfD 2: Nominated as "seems spammy and probably non-notable," four commentators point out that the subject is notable & provide sources. A fifth opinion is offered that says "speedy delete - notable or not this a clear copyright violation" but offers no proof. How would you proceed?
A. This one will be very hard without more specific details. However, I'll try to generalize. "seems spammy" is different than "the entire article is spam". The former implies cleanup is a possibility. The same goes for the "probably non-notable".
Supposing the AfD closed with just the first five comments, it appears to be a clear case for keep. Sources were given to fix the notability, and poorly written articles can be cleaned up.
Once the copyvio argument is made, there is a new, more pressing concern. It's a serious concern, and should be assumed it was given in good faith. Generally blatant copyvio from online sources is easy to find with a quick search or two.


Additional optional question from Dwr12
12. Please interpret this question as you see fit, but as an administrator will you place more emphasis on doing what is right or doing what is ethical, and why?
A. Thanks for allowing interpretation. I'd hope there is no difference between personal ethics, overall ethics, and "doing what is right." If the issue is a conflict between my personal ethics and doing what is right for Wikipedia, I'll gladly recuse myself.

Optional Qs from [flaminglawyer]

13. This will require a bit of creativity. I'm going to give you a word/phrase, and I want you to give me the first thing that should pop into a perfect admin's head when s/he hears that word/phrase (a Wikipedia concept, an administrative duty, anything that'll show me you know what you're doing). I won't ask you what the first thing that comes into your head is, because I know you're not a perfect admin (yet?), but I do want to make sure you're able to think you're thinking like one.
A. harvest
B. bite
C. Latin America
D. fourteen
E. Russian reversal
A. Obviously you are looking for more than a Rorschach test answer. In terms of Wikipedia policy and administration, I'll answer how I can.
A. harvest = I don't know. I'm curious what you were headed towards here.
B. bite = WP:BITE. Do not bite the newcomers.
C. Latin America = I don't know. I'm curious what you were headed towards here.
D. fourteen = 14, per MOS
E. Russian reversal = I don't know in the context of Wikipedia administration what you are after, except it's a common online meme. I do see Talk:Yakov Smirnoff#Russian reversal generator mentions "rule 14", were you connecting words D and E?
Optional question from Risker
14. Please select an instance brought to the community via any of the noticeboards where you have helped to resolve a situation discussed in a thread (not just commented, but actually helped to resolve the situation), and describe what you did that helped to resolve the situation. Thanks.
A. Probably the best example of resolving a situation was the creation of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse to handle a long-term sock/vandal/troublemaker. This issue had existed in scattered places, but the combination of documenting the history and situation, and the edit filter specifically directed towards the editor's dozens of sockpuppets, has allowed the indefinite full-protection of Pioneer Courthouse Square to be lifted after literally years of protection and work.
Tedder, I think you meant "...allowed the indefinite full-protection...to be lifted..." - right? To all, I agree, that really was an excellent, creative, technical solution to a very long-term, irritating problem. -Pete (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, and I've fixed it above.


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. -Pete (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support excellent user with experience in many areas, and has the right demeanor. Triplestop x3 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Yay!! Never been third to support before :D But anyways, Tedder is a good user, good contribs, I've seen this user's edits around, should do fine. Good Luck!!! -FASTILY (TALK) 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I looked through his contribs and saw no issues, barring a huge reason not to trust him, I'll be in support here Alexfusco5 00:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I looked over some of his edits -- he seems reasonable, kind, and experienced, and he seems to have contributed a lot of good content. (I'll be sad to see his article contributions dwindle as he's swamped with admin tasks, which is what often happens to new admins, but that is no reason to oppose!) rspεεr (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Looking over his questions and contributions, I am confident that you will use the tools correctly. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Hard working, great contributions, civil, trustworthy, the whole bit. Will be a great admin. Good luck! :) LittleMountain5 02:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak support You make me a little bit nervous and I've found the Oregon project to be insular and bitey. But hopefully you'll be responsible, tolerant and show restraint as an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support; can't admit to having seen him around before, but I'll support pending any major concerns. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Yes. Tavix |  Talk  04:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I can only recall working with the candidate on a few occasions (nothing big), but seeing him all over WikiProject Oregon pages and not having to worry about his contributions matters alot. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 05:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support Tedder has been a model Wikipedian for many months: tirelessly doing heavy lifting—like working on all the Oregon High School articles, traveled hundreds of miles with camera, photographed, and uploaded a zillion photos and added them to the appropriate articles, and demonstrated great judgment in dealing with fellow Wikipedians. —EncMstr (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I'm with Julian, I can see no real problems here, and no reason why they should not have the tools. Andy (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. No reason to believe you'd misuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The oppose thing is a little concerning but seems only a small blemish on an otherwise very good record. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not going to delete the main page or blow up Wikipedia, so support.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Excellent candidate, can definitely be trusted with the tools. Aditya α ß 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I don't see any problems here (except the first oppose, but I trust you have learned from it). Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - haven't noted anything from a contributions review that suggests anything but a sensible and well-intentioned editor who knows what he's doing. While the PROD mentioned by opposers was clearly a mistake, I see no pattern of such mistakes and I feel the candidate handled the aftermath of it fairly well. No concerns here. ~ mazca talk 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per Zab's diff; shows civility and willingness to work with others. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I do not see a reason for opposing. — Aitias // discussion 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Sensible answers, enough content contribs to make me feel comfortable supporting. Wikiproject doesn't concern me, if it is that offensive, list it at MFD, if that is where you would.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No qualms here. Seems trustworthy. hmwithτ 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I'll expand on the reasons when I have more time, but I think that Tedder would use a the couple extra functions in a very positive manner. — Ched :  ?  02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC) ... apologies to the candidate for not providing a more supportive !vote earlier. I only met Tedder a couple months ago, but boy was I impressed. Friendly, helpful, knowledgeable, and one of the finest Wikipedians I have the pleasure of knowing. Fortunately I don't have to go dig out "diffs" to explain why at this point, but thank you Tedder for all you do here - and best of luck with your new tools. — Ched :  ?  06:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Does not have significant audited contributions, but is a longtime and committed member who I believe makes comparable effort in other areas. No immediate red flags, and opposes as of yet do not sway me. Per Hegvald, though, be careful with the newbs :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I see no oppose-worthy problems. Just don't rush through AFD closures when you do them, and make sure you're absolutely sure about your verdicts. Timmeh 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. User is an excellent editor, and opposes are not enough to sway me, particularly when two of them come from editors who normally auto-oppose over particular issues. Ironholds (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I have interacted with you at WikiProject Schools and I have got a good impression of you there. Your interactions at AfD seem to be good; I was impressed about how you handled a disruptive user at Corona del Sol High School. You remained civil despite the user not doing so and went to WP:AN3RR rather than edit war yourself. You also dealt with this attack okay [1]. By the way I have nothing against you keeping a record of this on your user page though over users might do. I don't think you did any worthy of note wrong with the PRODing or by being a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism. Overall, you look to me like a good candidate for adminship. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. No reason not to. Users should remember that this is a discussion of whether Tedder, if elected, will use the admin tools properly. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support clean block log, haven't encountered the candidate before but everything I've seen here looks OK. Also its quite possible to be a member of a project without being deemed to support everything said by any member of that project. ϢereSpielChequers 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I don't see why not. You could definitely use the tools. Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Per nom statement. America69 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, looks good. Tan | 39 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Has been around since 2005 and see that giving the tools to the user will only benefit the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support:User has a clue.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - No problems for me. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Dug around for a while, searched for some muck to be raked, but found nothing. No worries! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Tedder has shown a commitment to Wikipedia through regular editing over an extended period and handled himself well in a variety of situations. I would have like to see more thoughtful answers to some of the earlier questions, but the answers to 11a & 11b were excellent and won me over, as they show a proper weighing of arguments as opposed to vote counting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support See my previous neutral vote below though, please. However I realized if I had to break a tie or make the decision alone it would be a definite yes without hesitation. The large number of support votes shouldn't give me the luxury of being neutral just because I have a problem with the fact that you answered a particular question. Drawn Some (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support A long time editor with no problems that I can see. If userboxes were a reason to deny adminship then there might be a few existing admins who lose the mop too.    7   talk | Δ |   03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry to hear that. I am disgusted by the idea of administrators having hateful userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So all the editors that have userboxes professing their various religious faiths: those are also hate messages, then? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to see a hateful religious one, although it's certainly possible they're out there. Keepscases (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Looks fine to me. Dekimasuよ! 06:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Solid user. Looks unlikely to do any harm with the mop. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - perfectly fine editor and vandal-fighter, sure to be a good admin. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Man, this new crop of admin candidates makes me feel small. :) Excellent editor. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Lookin' good with great answers. Valley2city‽ 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I work with Tedder quite a bit at WikiProject Oregon, but he also edits in many other areas, which is a great quality in an admin, as is his mix of involvement, including article creation, routine maintenance, vandal fighting, and talk page discussion. His dedication to Wikipedia is evident in his stick-to-itiveness, especially regarding his work with Oregon high schools, an area that can be thankless and/or aggravating. Though we have sometimes had to agree to disagree on the finer points of layout, wordsmithing, etc., since we both have strong opinions about these things, he readily concedes when he may be wrong, and I don't mind conceding a point to him as he is consistently thoughtful, civil, and willing to discuss and compromise. Katr67 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, seems an excellent candidate who knows their way around. --candle•wicke 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support We need more atheist admins. No, seriously, his answers seem perfectly reasonable -- and he gets brownie points from me for having maintained his civil demeanor even at question 13. What the heck was that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Should be a net positive. Plastikspork (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support The PROD at issue below looks like a mistake, but not a terribly serious one. Other than that, a spot check of the record at AfD, vandal-fighting, etc., shows good dedication and judgement. Happy to support. RayTalk 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. No serious issues and user seems to have a WP:CLUE. Pmlineditor 10:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. WP:AGF seems qualified for the bits.--Caspian blue 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support as I see nothing which causes me to believe the tools would be abused. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support seems to do a decent job on AFDs, at least based on my observations. I also like the answers to the questions given. MuZemike 22:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Seems good. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. No major concerns. — Σxplicit 05:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Sensible and not too stiff, shows flexibility in understanding Wiki's policies and guidelines.--TitanOne (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Great editor. Until It Sleeps Wake me 12:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - why not? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support An excellent user. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Wizardman 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I could have sworn I supported already but I can't find it. If I did and am just overlooking it, please feel free to apply trout as needed. In any event, I have run in to Tedder a few times as of late and I've largely liked what I've seen. Answers to the questions are fine, and nothing scary in the contrib history. Should do a good job. Shereth 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support seems to be a decent sort, fair in editing and without bias regardless of issues involved--!---slappdash---! (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Hate to spoil the party, but I am disturbed by the way Tedder, in early May, proposed two articles by a new user for deletion ([2][3]), claiming in one case that the article was "Missing reliable sources to indicate notability of an individual", when this was clearly false. Both articles had references to entries on these individuals in the American National Biography (a reference work published by the Oxford University Press). Tedder's explanation to me was not satisfactory. Tedder seems to miss the point that not only is an entry in a major national dictionary of biography like this one a reliable source, but being selected for inclusion in such a work in the first place is also clear evidence of the person's notability. An additional point: the newbie "welcomed" through these deletion proposals has not (so far) returned to Wikipedia. --Hegvald (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that his response (more specific diff than above) demonstrates an ability to be reasonable and communicative. A lesser candidate would have, rather than ask for an explanation, just submitted it to afd with "contested prod" as part the rationale. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 10:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator. As I have stated countless times before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being an atheist, but when you see userboxes like "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" and "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself", we're talking about something a lot different than that. We're talking about people who enjoy patting themselves on the back about just how smart and enlightened they must be, and people who take pleasure in belittling others' beliefs. No thanks. Keepscases (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Discussion of this oppose moved to the talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. Unless there was a compelling reason for the PROD, but I haven't seen one. I have been a victim of this myself. If the subject or the article is obviously notable then don't PROD it. If you are unable to determine this for yourself, don't even consider becoming an admin. Edit: the remarks above about The Golden Bough were truly disturbing. Peter Damian (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think it was disturbing in any way, i know I've had few ify PROD's, and if he did prod it then either it was a mistake, or tedder did not think it was notable. Furthermore, this was a while ago now so hopefully he has learnt from his mistakes, and for me, the response that Zab provided, shows he did. We all make silly errors, adn I don't feel you should oppose over a couple of them, from 2 months ago. Regards. AtheWeatherman 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, No,NoWork with AFD is terribile. I've done better. And i also don't like his membership with a certain Wikiproject. --TheWave (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Indenting !vote by indefinitely blocked user. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Keepscases. Pzrmd (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I misunderstood something. Pzrmd (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but from reading this ANI discussion from today, I'm not sure that you're ready. I don't agree with SoWhy's contention that article creation is never disruptive, but I do think that this situation should have been handled with an attempt to interact with the user other than templates and an ANI report. A human conversation is an important thing to have if it's a good faith user. If it's someone who just wants to create articles concerning the parentage and/or sexuality of their classmates, ok, template away, but with someone like this who really just needs to be informed of our policies, templating him to death isn't going to accomplish anything. I come across this frequently dealing with copyvio images - when there are 100 image templates on their page, they probably ignore them because they have no idea what they are talking about, keep uploading the images, and just create more work for someone, but if you leave a human message explaining the policy, sometimes something useful comes out of it. Your RFA is probably going to pass, but please, take this to heart and have human conversations with people. --B (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Per Q7. I was looking for "Keep" or "Merge"; I'd have settled for "No consensus". "Relist" isn't intolerable, but I'm more than a little concerned by the candidate's desire to "personally verify if the subject matter exists and is covered in depth". To me, these imply the candidate is assessing the article rather than the consensus.

    Another worrying remark for me was "I don't have any idea where to even start researching such an issue". That's why we have an AfD: the debaters track down sources. What's the purpose of having a debate if the closer is just going to decide for themself anyway?

    Another legitimate concern being unearthed could tip me over into "oppose".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    S. Marshall, I personally don't see a lot of value in a contrived example like this. As an administrator, Tedder would be responsible for making judgments involving actual articles and debates. In this case, the scenario does not permit Tedder to look at the article itself, merely to take your description of it at face value.
    Tedder correctly identified that there is no clear consensus.
    Taking a detailed look at the article is not, as you suggest, a problem. When looking at such a discussion, there is a decision to be made, as administrators do not give up their role as Wikipedia editors; "Will I close this discussion, or will I participate in the discussion and try to move toward consensus, leaving the final closure to another admin? Or will I simply walk away?" You seem to be expecting Tedder to take the closure route, which strikes me as contrived. Tedder seems to take that expectation at face value, but I'm not sure he needs to.
    What compels an admin, looking at a clear case of "no consensus," to close the discussion in ANY way? I would say, absolutely nothing. There may be a desire to clear a backlog, but there's never an obligation to do so. A discussion isn't done just because a certain amount of time has passed, or a certain number of people have weighed in. -Pete (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall: I take no position on the hypothetical AfD above, as I haven't read it (nor have I read most of this RfA). Feel free to stay neutral, I don't care and I am not !voting in this RfA. But some things to consider with consensus and AfDs. First, an Admin must look at the article and make judgments, that's what they are "paid" for if you will. They are supposed to posses the judgment and experience to analyze an article and the debate and then judge against policies and guidelines. In case you have not been involved in the following types of AfDs, let me describe a common situation I have dealt with in AfDs: Stub article with no sources is nominated as lacking notability (often without the nominator actually looking for sources as they are required to do so by the deletion policy, but that is a side point) and several people come along and concur with the delete; then another editor comes along and adds say ten RS that have significant coverage and are independent, thus demonstrating notability; then those original people never come back and comment on the current state of the article; based on that alone the consensus could show that a deletion was in order, where in fact the article does now pass the standard. This is where an admin comes in and judges the consensus, but also judges the content, which leads into point 2 about consensus. First, in any AfD there is actually two consensus to consider: the AfD's and the overriding community consensus. That is to say, an AfD cannot override existing community-wide consensuses. For instance 10 editors cannot team up and get the George Washington article deleted, as though there might be consensus in the AfD (I know unlikely for that article, but very possible for lesser known figures in history that pass WP:BIO's auto-inclusion criteria) this does not override the community's existing consensus about notability for biographies (see WP:CONEXCEPT and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators). So the closing admin needs to look at the article to be able to tell what arguments made in the AfD are valid based not only on existing guidelines/polices, but also based on what the article looks like. This can include checking the sources personally, as I have had arguments at AfD for deletion saying the sources were not substantial enough of coverage (of course they usually forget that if a source is not substantial/extensive then you just need multiple sources, but another side point and pet peeve) to show notability, even though they admit they have not seen the article (in general, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (3rd nomination) as my classic example of many editors not knowing what the rules are and where you need an admin to distill the invalid from the valid, as well as other problems with understanding consensus and the WP:CONEXCEPT portion of that). So in the end, an Admin must judge the article too. Now, they are not free to ignore proper consensus based on guidelines/policies, say because they personally have heard of the topic and think the topic is notable or are a friend of the article's main author. Or in instances where there are valid arguments for an exception (such as completing the historical record) that the AfD has come to a consensus about, but under the usual existing guidelines/policies the article should be deleted. In other words, consensus can be wrong, which I see you also agree with. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning support Um... regarding my question, I was looking for a Rorschach test-style answer. I didn't actually have anything planned out for any of them other than bite, so I was looking for some creativity there... You've still got time to answer the remaining letters, but that's completely optional. Aside from the question: I see good things, but nothing really standing out. [flaminglawyer] 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind me asking, what information about the candidate did you hope to learn through word associations? Did you anticipate your vote being influenced by what the candidate spontaneously thought of regarding harvests and the number 14? Dwr12 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes a lot of gumption, I think, for editors to go through this process and get the kind of grilling they now receive, often on every edit they've ever done or comment they ever made. So it behooves us as questioners to show a little more respect, and frankly, I think, a little less self-indulgence, when it comes to concocting our own little psych. tests such as question 13. If you want to play, use the sandbox, not an RFA, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Change to support see above.) I don't think I've ever bumped into you, Tedder. but I was really impressed with your answers to the questions until I got down to #13. You should have just ignored it or perhaps politely declined to answer it because it seems quite inappropriate. I think you'll be a great administrator but please learn when to just say "no, thank you" either under your breath or out loud in a polite, calm manner. I hope to see you around AfD because your thinking makes sense to me, very thoughtful. Good luck as an admin. Drawn Some (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category