Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1


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

Some have suggested that this closure is worthy of discussion and that it would be helpful to have a few words from the closing bureaucrat. I am happy to oblige. I think, notwithstanding that this RfA falls (numerically at least) within an area where bureaucrats are granted a certain amount of discretion in determining the will of the community, that this discussion demonstrates a consensus that Bsadowski1 should be an administrator on this project. In particular, I note that (as has been the case for a number of years) there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator. General concerns about "inexperience", though valid, cannot be given the same weight as (for instance) inflammatory exchanges with other users or prior misuse of tools. The concerns of those opposing are general and examples of improper behaviour (whether as an editor of this project or sysop of another) are noticeably lacking. Looking at the comments of those supporting this candidate, his contributions and status on other projects were clearly an influential factor. I have to say that I do not regard this as a particularly borderline call. I think the discussion between users in this RfA shows a consensus for promotion. WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing statement

Bsadowski1

 * Final 75/29/8. Close as successful by WJBscribe at 22.57, 28 July 2010 (UTC).

Nomination
– It is my pleasure to present Bsadowski1 for the community's consideration for the role of administrator.

I have worked with Bsadowski1 for a while (mainly as part of the Account Creation Team (ACC), where he has created 179 accounts since December 2009) and I feel that he is ready for adminship.

A few basic facts first:
 * has had a registered account for over 5 years
 * has been active since December 2008
 * is an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia (verify) and MetaWiki (verify)
 * is a checkuser on the Simple English Wikipedia (verify)

I'll be honest, Bsadowski1 has not got much content work - almost all of the work on articles is either removing vandalism, or correcting grammatical errors - although he has added information and sources to articles on occasion!

What he does have is experience of working at Sockpuppet investigations (both reporting suspected sockpuppets, and clerking-type work), UAA (reporting user names which are against policy) and AIV (reporting vandals) - all areas in which he wants to work should the community accept him as an admin.

From my experience of him, I know that he will not rush into using the tools, and will use them carefully and with consideration - and will ask for advice from more experienced admins if he is unsure of anything.

I would trust him with the tools, and so I am happy to nominate him for adminship. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Brian's work is admirable in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Over half of his contributions are to the mainspace, and while it's not content creation it is keeping our quality consistant. He has rollback and reviewer rights, and will not misuse block/protect/delete in any way, shape or form. I've seen nothing but civility, willing to learn, and the humbleness that we desire. This is one of those RfAs when we should really reflect on the gravitas of the admin flag and think about the 1,400 admins you've never heard of because they're just mopping, not talking. Keegan (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   22:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to be involved in helping to fight vandalism with my tools (blocking obvious vandals) as well as using them in SPI work such as blocking confirmed sockpuppets. I have, at times, have found small farms of sockpuppets (such as this and this) and I believe the tools may help me with that. I also will use them to protect articles that should be protected through RfPP. As I watch the countervandalism channel feeds, I can help to assist in that as well.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions would be contributing to SPI. I occasionally create SPI reports and also add suspected sockpuppets to some reports. I also have made small (but helpful) corrections to articles such as spelling mistakes and reference adding. I also have made a small stub article that includes references as well. I also report long term vandal accounts to stewards so they can globally lock them.


 * 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: Not presently, but I did have a few rollback mistakes when I first got it. There weren't any major issues with that.


 * Additional optional question from Richwales
 * 4. You seem to have a very small number of article talk space edits. Some people would feel that collaboration with other editors in content creation is important for an admin, no matter what sort of mop work they plan to do.  What would you say about this?
 * A: I do agree with that. However, when I make changes they are sort of minor. I do plan on doing some in the future if the change I would make requires consensus or agreement, such as a page title move or a section move. I would also make edits in the article talk space if I wanted to comment on a discussion. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   05:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Hobit
 * 5. Could you describe your work on Simple Wikipedia and MetaWiki? Specifically could you discuss what admin actions you take there and what type of collaborative activities you are involved in?  Links to good examples of either or both would be welcome.
 * A: At Simple Wikipedia, I mainly watch out for vandalism, open proxies, and sockpuppets. I have made a few articles there as well. I have also discussed issues on their version of the Village Pump. I have also talked with other admins on their Administrators' Noticeboard. There, I block confirmed sockpuppets as a CU, block abused proxy IPs, and articles that don't belong, and updating templates. At Meta, I have been deleting pages that don't follow their inclusion policy as well as taking care of vandalism. --  B s a d o w s k i 1   05:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. Have you used any other account or IP address to edit on en.wikipedia?
 * A: I have not used any other account (no doppelgangers or alternative accounts). And I don't think I have edited as an IP address. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   05:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from user:zzuuzz
 * 7. You mentioned that you intend to be active at RFPP. You appear to have made one edit to RFPP in all your time here, and that one's a bit dubious. I also note only 18 reports to AIV in the last year. How would you convince people that you have familiarity with the relevant blocking and protection policies on this wiki? Please provide examples.
 * A: I do plan on doing some requests at RFPP, doing the protections as appropriate. I will also make appropriate blocks as I have done elsewhere. I will do my best to follow both policies. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional question from delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~
 * 8. If a user were coming very close to copying the unique, former signature of a well known user for themselves would you say anything to that user about it when you saw the similarity?
 * A: Yes, I probably would say something. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   23:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:
 * 9. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?
 * A: If I came across a statement that involved threats of harm to self or others, I would first block the IP, bring up the situation at WP:AN/I, and then contact a CheckUser. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this correct? You've never contributed to ANI? My apologies. The search box on the ANI page appears to not be working for me. Diffs were provided to me. Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Jayjg
 * 10. Could you point to three articles whose content you feel you are the primary author of? These could be articles you've created, or articles in which most of the content was written by you.
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for Bsadowski1:
 * Edit summary usage for Bsadowski1 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

 * Follow-up to question #9, above: do you think that a distinction should be made between threats to harm others and statements of intent to harm self?  In the latter case, why would you block the IP? Bwrs (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (fixed wikilink 22:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

Support

 * 1) Support as nominator --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I remember meeting Bsadowski1 months ago when he was still a newbie. Over the past however many months, I've always been impressed by his cluefullness, his willingness to learn, and his helpfulness throughout the wiki. I've always seen him as a great editor, and it pleases me that he's finally running. ( X! ·  talk )  · @994  · 22:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Call me naive but I have come to the conclusion only in the past few months that persistent abuse by socks are one of the biggest - perhaps the biggest - problems Wikipedia faces. Excellent nom and co-nom... in short, this is an editor I want to see get those extra buttons.  I'm rootin' for ya to get 'em!  Cheerful best wishes, Jusdafax   23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * #Support Um, duh. I've never seen any issues from him. Courcelles (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Rethinking due to answers to questions, which show little depth of thinking. Courcelles (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) As the Chilean huasos say, "¡póngale no má' mijo!" (in short, support).  Diego Grez  what's up?  23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I anticipate there will be substantial concerns expressed in this RfA about a lack of content building. Those concerns are entirely valid. But I am happy to accept that (a) some editors just don't like or don't feel comfortable creating content; (b) those editors can still do an excellent job in backroom tasks; and (c) they can make for competent administrators who benefit the project in their own areas. From what I have seen this candidate satisfies those tests so I will support.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per Jusdafax due to the experience in sockpuppet work. In response to the first neutral by WFC, I'd say that while you have a point about Bsadowski1 having little article work, not all admins necessarily do. Less time in article can mean more time adminning the sockpuppet team. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I could quite comfortably support a candidate with zero DYKs, GAs, FAs or BLPs created. But I've seen no evidence whatsoever that this candidate understands BLP or deletion policy. This candidate is good enough that I wouldn't need to see a lot to be swayed, but I've seen absolutely none. --WFC-- 03:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Contributions look very competent. Anyone who can help keep the workload at SPI under control and reduce delays must be a plus. I don't think it's essential to be a big content contributor to be an admin, and what I see of the candidate's article edits and interaction seem good. Looks like a "net positive" to me.  Begoon  talk  23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) support This is one of those no brainier RFAs.-- White Shadows It's a wonderful life 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I recognize lack of content creation can be a legitimate concern to some, but this editor's dedication and hard work show me that their possesing the extra buttons would benefit the project.  Tide  rolls  01:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Familiar with your work. I remember your beginnings, and you've gradually grown and now I think you're ready to handle the tools. Take it slowly, if you will.  ceran  thor 01:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've worked with Bsadowski both on and off-wiki, and he's an all-around great guy. As The Thing That Should Not Be points out below, anti-vandalism and SPI is a dirty area to work in, and we don't have many people who do that. The admin tools rarely come into use with article work, and instead come in use with anti-vandalism and SPI work. Having Checkuser on Simple wikipedia is a huge plus, because that means that he's generally trusted in the Wikipedia community. Bsadowski is one of the greatst peope who I've ever worked with here on Wikipedia, and I hope that we can work together in the future. Best of luck Bsadowski, hope that you do well in this RfA. Pilif12p : Yo  23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support – We need more admins working in WP:SPI, which at the moment is very backlogged. The lack of focused article space edits somewhat worries me, but not enough to make me change my support vote. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support How could I not support? Yes, not much article work, but vandal-fighting is still a rather large area.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Keegan (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Strongest possible support The opposes do not convince me. Bsadowski1 has been immensely helpful on IRC when it comes to catching sockpuppets and the like. I think he is a great asset to the Wiki, and making him an administrator would only make that better. And, to counter Tiptoety's oppose below, I see asking other users for advice or help as a positive trait. I take it as a sign that he won't blindly rush into areas that he has little or no experience in. He will ask for help, and most likely take it slow if he wants to go into a different areas. And to counter the other opposes, I should point out that not all of us are writers. So what if he has only written a stub? Is learning the layout of articles, learning how to deal with disputes, learning the policies and guidelines without writing something that people are incapable of? (As a side note, I would say that vandal-fighting, cleanup, and maintenance have given me a very good view of how articles are made, sourced, debated about, etc.) I myself will attest that writing is not my best trait, but I do have my moments (like this one). Frankly everything that I would want to write about has... already been written about. A very large, simply massive amount of things have already been written about. The traits of the Wiki are beginning a transition more towards maintaining this collection of articles, and writing about recent events, and less about things that are already known. Why isn't the community's attitude reflecting that? The package of admin tools is descibed as the mop and bucket, not the pen and paper. Denying administrators because they would rather maintain everything else that has been written rather than writing things themselves is, in my opinion, a silly notion. Maintenance... vandal-fighting... SPI work... it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. And without the tools, we are very limited in the way that we can carry out those dirty jobs. The people who are already writing, and doing nothing but writing... let them write. It's the maintainers of this encyclopedia that need the tools, and I would say that Bsadowski1 is one of the best persons for the job. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support- Unimpressed by the opposes. We are discussing whether to grant a user tools to maintain the encyclopedia, not electing a Pope or selecting a diplomat. The lack of collaboration and discussion would only be a concern if it took the form of unresponsiveness to constructive criticism. Quiet, lonerish wikignome work is not grounds to deny a responsible user the tools they need to do their work. From what I have seen, this candidate is reasonable and intelligent. Granting them the mop would be a net benefit to the project. Reyk  YO!  02:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Nothing wrong with being a WikiGnome and I see nothing wrong with his edits. Expect good things from him.   Mauler90  talk 04:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support Oh, yes. I've known Bsadowski for quite some time, and I definitely think that he'll make a good admin. Good luck, Brian Bejinhan  Talk   04:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Really no complaints. I'm sure they'll be fine. Swarm Talk 05:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Seems trustworthy and able. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Experience of creating content is one route to achieving admin suitability, but doing lots of work in admin areas like SPI and UAA is another. From what I see I'm happy to support this candidate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support his temperament as an admin as evidenced on other projects is sterling and he is experienced in the areas he wants to work. extransit (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Everything looks good :) Acather96 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Jmlk  1  7  07:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I'm maybe a little concerned with the rather low overall contribution history (not related to "creation" edits), but I think there's enough of a dedicated vandal fighting history I'm willing to support. Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Support entirely per Phantomsteve's nomination. Minima  c  ( talk ) 08:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Good work with the sockpuppet cases, as such I support. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. I do not believe admins need to have a lot of content creation experience if they bring valuable experience in other areas. And I am particularly interested in seeing more admins at SPI to reduce backlogs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Wow Not yet one?  Aiken   &#9835;   14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Per above. Also very encouraged by the fact that this user is already an admin and checkuser on simple wikipedia. Immunize Contact me Contributions 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Support We could always use more sysops who are willing to perform unglamorous and sometimes tedious work to maintain the encyclopedia. Tyrol5    [Talk]  14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Support A valuable editor who will be more valuable with the extra buttons, and that this editor comes pre-tested as admin on other wikis gives me even more reason to believe I won't regret this !vote. Always happy to see more hands at SPI, but that didn't influence my decision. -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  15:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I would have preferred to see more in terms of content work, but overall this is an experienced, conscientious and competent editor. And SPI could certainly use extra admin help. Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have to think this one over, particularly in view of concerns raised by Tiptoety about the candidate's SPI work. Nsk92 (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I'm not seeing any issues. I may put up a question later, but I doubt it would change anything. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. The only two possible issues here - low number of talk page edits and limited content creation - are both unimportant because of the good work done on both counts at Simple English Wiki. Good contributions in other areas make this worthy of a strong support. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) T. Canens (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - enough edits, vandal-fighting, and admin rights on another wiki. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support One of the few editors whom I trust completely and fully.-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I've worked with him often on simple and meta where he does a great work. I'm sure he will do the same great work here. - Barras talk 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. All of my interactions with this clueful editor make this an easy decision. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support—looks good! Airplaneman   ✈  20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support – After training him as an SPI clerk and watching him improve over the past six months or so gives me enough confidence to support as an admin. Besides, albeit a small Wikipedia, he is a an admin on Meta and an admin and CheckUser on Simple, and he has already demonstrated enough trust with the more advanced tools. –MuZemike 21:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) I've worked alongside this candidate on simple, and I have great respect for him. He stays out of drama about as much as a CU can do, keeping his head down and doing what is necessary– content, admittedly, is not his strong point, but is it something that is needed to help with SPI or speedy deletes? I can say for sure that I am confident this user will be a good administrator and I trust his judgement. The lack of in-depth answers to the questions is, well, something he should know better than to expect this community to overlook, but not enough of an issue given my previous interactions with him for me to not end up squarely in this section. so  nia ♫♪ 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support You've always been helpful when I have questions about SPI and other things, and I'm sure that as an admin you'll be an even greater help.  —  Soap  —  22:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Definitely! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) I would like to see a little more consensus building and general discussion; however, there are no alarm bells, Bsadowski1 appears to be committed to the project and is working well within his chosen area of nuisance fighting. I see no problems on my random search, and nothing serious is being reported by others. I have a feeling Bsadowski1 will move slowly and carefully and should make a decent admin.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak Support Would like more content work, but Brian's UAA, Sockpuppet etc edits overcome the lack of content work. Otherwise no concerns.  IShadowed  ✰  01:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Hells yes. Brilliant editor, brilliant guy. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support nothing wrong here. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 02:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Weak support. Brian does good work at SPI, but is rather limited in other admin-related areas. Also, he has little content creation. Overall though, I think that Wikipedia would benefit if he receives these tools.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) NO WAY would I not support this awesome candidate! Tommy!  [ message ] 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per simple:Special:Contributions/Bsadowski1. — I-20 the highway  23:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Support, support, support, support... Did I mention I support this candidate? I did? Oh... :D  Barking Fish  Talk to me &#124; My contributions 01:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - this candidate has done excellent work here and has earned adminship on multiple other wikis.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Weak support - really not thrilled about lack of content contribution...but being round here a while makes one realise just how many chores to do. Better than even chance of being net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Methinks if he can be trusted with CU on one public project, he can be trusted with +sysop on another. Juliancolton (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - Per nom and co-nom  Mlpearc   powwow  17:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Why not?  Connormah  talk 18:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) I trust and respect Brian for his work at Simplewiki and Meta, and his experience will certainly be a net positive. Although his content creation is admittedly weak, he is one of the few I trust with the tools regardless. He knows what he is doing, and some people just aren't writers.  — fetch ·  comms   20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Normally I prefer editors who have started or made major contributions to good articles, but still, I see no reason not to support.  Thanks.  Bwrs (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)  Striking my support because of the lack of a response to the question that I posted in the Discussion section, above. Bwrs (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, why is there so much emphasis on article creation? It's not like being an administrator makes a difference, and that doesn't seem to be something administrators do much of.  I don't see a good argument that he would misuse the tools, so support.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support responsible, trusted user. Will do just fine. Pichpich (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The opposition comments are not unwarranted but I have worked with Brian for quite a while here on en, on xwiki work where he is active and as a fellow CU on SimpleWiki. I think in the end his benefit to the community as an admin outweighs the concerns especially since I have known him to always be careful and to seek help or advice if he needs it as he learns his way around.  James  ( T   C )  22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - The opposes are far from convincing. Leo 01:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support-He's an admin on two other projects and a checkuser on Simple. He seems trustworthy enough to me, and it looks like he would do a good job. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark!  02:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but being one of the 1700 people with admin rights on on one of the biggest and busiest websites in the world is a very different role to holding the rights on a project with a much smaller, quieter project. Nobody doubts that he can be trusted not to abuse the tools. The problem arises, however, when he's thrown in at the deep end, dealing with matters in which he has little to no experience. The buttons do the same thing, but how and when they're pressed is very different both in terms of policy and in terms of current "best practice" which one can only pick up with experience. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Brian is a fellow admin and checkuser on simplewiki. As a wiki, we get a lot of the same longterm sockpuppeteers as enwiki gets coming over to us and working their magic there. He does a great job in this area. He is one of the most active admins I know on the project. He knows how to be an admin. He knows what all the knobs and switchs do. He's got a great understanding of policy as well. He's very active in the protection aspects of a project but also gets involved constantly researching what needs to be done elsewhere as an admin and then doing it. I couldn't recommend him more! :) Good luck buddy!  fr33k man  -simpleWP-   03:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support: He is already a great admin and checkuser on simple wiki. In my mind he has proven himself. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - he's an admin on simple wiki anyhow.  Dwayne   was here!   &#9835;  04:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support trusted at this level and higher on other major wikis with no problems.  Royal broil  04:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Royalbroil and Dwayne.  Fridae'§Doom &#124;  Spare your time?  08:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) A university does not require its library janitor to be a professor. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. per good experience as a sysop on meta and simple. User is civil, can be trusted, and has a clue. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I've read the oppose section, and worried that the candidate might indeed be one of those trigger happy wannabe cops we sometimes see here. However I've now gone through the candidates deleted contributions for the past two months and I saw good CSD tagging. If the candidate's other edits are as cautious and uncontentious then I think Bsadowski will make an excellent admin. - I'll watchlist in case anyone in the oppose section can come up with difs showing recent mistakes by the candidate. But otherwise I'd ask the opposers to reconsider.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Proven and capable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) ʇɹoddns ¡ɯıɥ ʇɹoddns ı os ˙sןןoɹʇ ɯǝɥʇ ʇsuıɐƃɐ ǝʇɐpıpuɐɔ uǝʌoɹd ɐ sı ǝɥ puɐ sןooʇ ǝɥʇ spǝǝu ǝɥ --Zalgo (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Experienced sysop in other wikis and can be trusted to do a good job. Pmlineditor   ∞  09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I'm not seeing much evidence of collaboration or interaction with other users, especially in building an encyclopedia. While it is not required that everyone be a scholarly writer, most of your article edits are trivial or vandal reversions.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough collaborative work for someone who wants to use the tools on articles. Townlake (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that anti-vandal work qualifies for "using the tools on articles". ( X! ·  talk )  · @136  · 02:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Protection certainly qualifies.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have any substantial edits. You have more edits to your own userpage than you do to your own talk page or any article or, for that matter, any discussion page in any namespace. Further, your activity seems to have peaked in the middle of last year and has only started to increase from <100 edits per month recently. I'm not convinced that you have the practical, "hands on" knowledge of policy and current practice at places like AIV and RfPP that can only be acquired by experience. Further, I don't see any evidence that you've ever played a substantial part in any discussion of either content or policy. This is what pushes me into the oppose section, I'm afraid. The vast majority of admin tasks require interpreting consensus in some form or another and I'm afraid I just can't trust you to deal with that with only a theoretical understanding. Finally, I'd add, that while I feel strongly about this, absolutely none of it should be taken slightingly- if you took the feedback and got more involved and more experienced, I could easily support a future RfA. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'm not big on the idea you have to make lots of audited content, but I've not been persuaded you have the relevant experience with policies here. I can only see less than a dozen substantive edits to SPI cases, participation in only 16 AfDs (no CfD, FfD, MfD, RfD or TfD), only one dodgy RFPP edit, limited AIV involvement, limited article work, no template, category, or image work, only 3 minor article talk page comments, no helpdesk activity, limited interaction with noobs, vandals, or other users. The answers in this RfA are also quite underwhelming for someone without much demonstrative experience of policy in the areas they intend to specialise in. I'd like to see more examples that you're familiar with policies on this wiki. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The editor's limited content development and lack of interaction with other users make me uncomfortable with assigning delete and protect buttons. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per user:zzuuzz Francium12  20:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I am concerned about the candidate's apparent lack of collaborative editing experience.  I do not share the views of some who demand that admins must have significant experience creating featured content, but I do believe it is crucial for admins (even those who will be mostly fighting bad guys) to demonstrate good people skills.  I am willing to reconsider my !vote if the candidate can demonstrate that he does in fact have good people skills (possibly via an answer to question #4 which would highlight some of his best interactions on user talk pages).  Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) OpposeNobody can properly deal with things like protection unless they have some experience with the dynamics of how articles get written.  I've supported people here without significant content work if they intend to work in truly specialized areas, but anti-vandal work inevitably implies dealing with articles, in particular, people who are simply writing bad articles.    DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure they can. It's not just in edit warring that pages need protection, and even then it's pretty easy to determine when it needs protecting. A lot of the time pages need protecting (and it's not just articles) is when they are vandalised by many IP editors at once. Brian understand that a protection is a last resort thing, when discussion, warnings and blocks have all failed or been impracticable. As for deletions I seen Brian delete loads of articles under speedy deletion criteria. You don't have to close deletion discussions to know what to delete. :)  fr33k man  -simpleWP-   03:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per my previous comments in the neutral section, very weak answers to subsequent questions, and also per zzuuzz. The statement of intention to work in RFPP was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. As I've said previously, it's regrettable that adminship is an all-or-nothing deal. --WFC-- 04:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - When I first saw this RFA and started my review I was definitely leaning towards support. I came back today to register that support and read through the RFA one last time.  After that the answers to the questions pushed me here.  The answer to question 4 makes me think of WP:WAX.  I know that is a argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but seem to be saying that because other good admins have less content contributions than you, you should have the tools too.  This discussion should be focused on what you can do for the encyclopedia not what others have done.  This all brings me to the question whether I can trust you to close xFDs or other discussions based on consensus.  In answer 7, you don't even try to convince anyone that you know the policies.  Your answer is, I am going to do it and do my best to follow the policies, not a very convincing argument in your favor.   GB fan  talk 05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - the only article he created was a stubby one. If you can expand it to a full article, maybe bring it to B class or someting, OR create a new one that is not a stub, I will reconsider.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Regretful oppose - I have had the pleasure of working with Bsadowski in a number of situations on a number of projects, and have always found him to be respectful and generally willing to help. Unfortunately, there have been a number of situations in which he has (unintentionally) shown a lack of critical decision making skills. In particular, he was removed as an SPIclerk for a time because he was failing to "progress", so to speak, and on occasion would make some questionable decisions regarding specific SPI cases. The answers to the questions above raise some concerns surrounding policy knowledge, and I can personally attest to the fact that there are times Bsadowski has asked myself, or other users questions regarding policy and the appropriateness of certain actions. Additionally, I share the same concerns as others above. While I do not feel that article creation is a must for adminship, I do feel that working in more areas of the project than just anti-vandalism and SPI are. Sorry, Tiptoety  talk 20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I get what you are saying, and I agree with some of it, but at the end of the day, if his work in anti-vandalism and SPI could be helped by being an admin, why not?  fr33k man  -simpleWP-   03:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because like I said in the other portion of my statement, I feel he lacks the needed policy knowledge and at times lacks critical decision making skills to carry out the use of admin tools in those areas. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  NW ( Talk ) 22:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Per HJ's reasoning, Tiptoety's eloquent statement above and lack of attention (and a solid response) to a response that fell short on question #9. IMO, #9 deals with the most important work any of us will do here.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Seems like the user lacks the experience required to work in the fields where he stated he intends to use the tools, as many have pointed out before, and considers his best contributions in a field where he has been forcibly removed from. Also, answer to question #4 isn't really convincing, while I personally could be the posterboy for admins that never did a single content edit at all, the candidate didn't replied to the question at all in my opinion.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I must admit the enthusiastic support votes from people I hold in high respect gave me a (2-day) pause. However, answers do not convince me at all, and the lack of dialogue and content creation and policy work is just too much to ignore. After all, I cannot evaluate whether the candidate has sufficient clue outside SPI. --Pgallert (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't believe that the user has enough experience in article building to understand the relevant guidelines and policies, especially regarding BLPs. Lack of content creation is also a serious negative for me. Big  Dom  06:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose Article writing and skills associated to that need to be developed a bit more before i can support. Just too minimal right now for me to support for an admin. I am impressed with spi and the counter vandalism effort done though as well as nomination statement. I wouldnt think you would abuse the tools or anything the seeds are definately here for doing a good job. I just think if you did a bit more article writing, with that in hand you could be a great admin and be able to deal with a more broader ranges of issues (which may be applicable to AIV and SPI) that may come up in articles.  Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Opppose Minimum article expansion, no reason to trust at this time. Vodello (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Working in general admin areas on this wiki, and being an admin and a checkuser on the Simple English Wikipedia aren't reasons to support this user? The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  18:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Vodello (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, wait a minute... someone who works, and is experienced in administrator-related areas blatantly can't be trusted to work as an administrator in said areas? Forgive me for being blunt, but that's the worst, most contradictory reasoning I have ever heard. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  18:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I going to have to remove my vote because you're stuffing words in my mouth? This isn't simple wikipedia. I look at his contributions on article expansion here, and as cited by the other oppose votes that you haven't chastised, there is a considerable lack of work in this department. I am saying nothing more on this as I do not have to be the only one to constantly defend an opinion that I have over and over again while someone jams different meanings into a simple, easy to understand oppose rationle to twist the wording around. It's up to the bureaucrat whether or not to dismiss this rationale that is shared by many concerned editors, not someone saying that a lack of article expansion is the "worst" reason to oppose. I will not be bullied. Vodello (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I went over the line on that, but I myself believe that not having much article work doesn't equate to being untrustworthy. I've stuck some of what I said above. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  20:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Thing, you may have been a bit harsh but you were absolutely right to challenge the logic of Vodello and others. Working in general Admin. areas on this wiki, and being an admin and a checkuser on the Simple English Wikipedia are good things. Logic dictates the candidate will be a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was right to challenge the wording of this oppose. But while this candidate is a good admin on simple, I firmly believe that it's a different role here. It took me a while to oppose, but I did so on the basis that even taking that experience into account, some degree of content experience is needed to be trusted at RFPP. --WFC-- 10:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodello's oppose was perfectly justified in my opinion, it's pretty sad that he was questioned so harshly on his oppose. -- Jack ?! 23:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Insufficient experience, particularly in the area of content development, and only 100 edits in the article Talk space. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Not enough experience on this wiki, answers to questions above were quite short, uninformative, and not convincing enough to make up for lack of en-wiki experience.   Snotty Wong   verbalize 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per the weak answers to the questions (Q4 and Q8). The concerns brought up by HJ Mitchell (the lack of collaboration and the fact that Bsadowski has more edits to his userpage than his talk page), the lack of experience with Wikipedia's policies brought up zzuuzz, and the lack of substantial content contributions raised by Kayau and DGG compel me to oppose. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not a content creator but just another wannabe cop. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Long and completely irrelevant discussion moved to the talk page. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not enough experience, answers were a bit short, and only experience at AFD, and more recently, Sockpuppet investigations. Only 0.96% of the contribs are in the talk space. Although his/her account was created in December 2004, this user barely made any edits until November 2008. Décembër21st2012Freâk   Talk at 02:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Concerned about the lack of talk space edits and Wikipedia talk edits. Also the 'top edited articles' concerns me. Not this time. -- Jack ?! 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'm not satisfied with the main space edits because I go to the toolserver and look at your most edits in an article, it's 10. I think you need to focus more on an article that you like and know a lot of information. ActivExpression <sup style="color:#E62020;">Talk <sub style="color:#1034A6;">Guestbook  00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Also, answers are unimpressive, and Bsadowski1 has little content work. Edits to his top-edited article are racked up from reversions. Being an admin at Simple and Meta is no testament to the fact that he will be a good admin here. That only accounts for the trust factor, but not whether he is accquainted with the policies here.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose and it stuns me that I landed here. I saw the name, recognised it from SPI, and supported based on prior experience with the candidate.  The answers, though, are so lacklustre and lacking in depth of thought that I'm not comfortable with Bsadowski becoming an admin at this time.  Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Answers to questions seem a bit too terse and shallow, leading me to believe that there may be communication difficulties. A3 does not bode well for editor's policy knowhow. A8 - could one possibly create a more middle-of-the-road answer? A9 - immediately blocking an I.P. after threats of harm is worrisome when combined with lack of proven on-wiki communication skills - I fear this editor may over-react and, while their actions may be well-intentioned, they may likely result in causing more harm than good. Lack of content creation isn't really a dealbreaker for me, some excellent content creators would make / have made less-than-ideal admins, and some excellent admins are just not suited for content creation. One doesn't have to be a magnificent librarian to be a good traffic cop - the problem here is that I'm not terribly convinced that this editor would be a good traffic cop, either. Badger Drink (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral for now. I strongly agree with Jusdafax, and for that reason won't oppose. I'm not ruling out being convinced to switch to support. But In spite of the excellent case made, the fact of the matter is that this candidate's biggest contribution to an article is 10 edits, and their biggest contribution to a BLP is at most 5 edits. This candidate is a classic example of the problem with a lot of tools being bundled into one package. --WFC-- 23:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose. --WFC-- 04:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral per WFC. The Raptor  Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 01:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per WFC. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now changing to Oppose I don't feel I can support this candidate until I see some attempt to respond to question #4. For that matter, I would also prefer to see an answer to question #7 before I make up my mind.  Yes, I know these questions are "optional", but I think they are just as important as the optional questions #5 and #6 which the candidate did answer.  Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Candidate is an administrator on Simple English & Meta, which is a feather in his cap with respect to trustworthiness; however, his incredibly meager article creations (1 article, 2 redirects) and relatively weak answers prevent me from voting 'support'.--Hokeman (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Lacks the breadth of experience I'd like in an admin, however also unlikely to break things by going outside of his area of expertise. Lack of answers above also a worry, but either way I'd be here I think. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I'm not going to rant on the pros and cons of requiring content creation as a criterion for a successful RfA. However, despite having the privileges on Simple English and Meta, I'd need to at least see at least some significant gnome-level work at article maintenance, especially if the candidate intends to work in the AIV arena. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I'm fine with a potential admin having a relatively low proportion of article or talk space edits, as long as they can explain well how they are a good candidate in spite of these shortcomings. In his responses to question 4 he seems to be dodging the opportunity to proffer such an explanation, and likewise Q7 regarding policy knowledge in areas he intends to work. I have decided to remain neutral as Bsadowski has demonstrated trustworthiness and capability in his admin and CU roles on other projects and that is a big plus. I would probably be swayed to support if the candidate could satisfactorily expand on his answers to the aforementioned questions. <span style="font-family: sansation, sans-serif;"> AJ Cham  04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. I've spent several days swaying between support and oppose, so I suppose it's inevitable I'd end up neutral. Bsadowski clearly has experience in several areas where the tools would help - SPI is the obvious one, but CSD and others spring to mind. I'm not sold on the "lack of content creation" argument - their article and redirect creations exactly match mine when I went through my RfA, and additionally their articles at simple.wiki look great. My concern is around the lack of communication experience (and HJ Mitchell's oppose comment about more userpage than talkpage edits is a real concern): admins have to communicate well. I can easily see Bsadowski passing an RfA in the near future - once they've built on their existing strengths - but for now I'm not convinced. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral: switching my vote per lack of an answer to the question that I posted in the Discussion section, above. (A response would have provided information on how thoughtful the candidate is.)  Bwrs (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.