Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:54, 26 June 2006

Badlydrawnjeff

Discuss here (60/4/0) ending 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) – Badlydrawnjeff has been around since February 2005, and his activity levels have increased steadily over that time. The quality of his edits is generally good and often very good, but I think he's best known for his presence on WP:AFD and WP:DRV, where he is a staunch defender of articles, always from a basis of policy. I think it is safe to call him an inclusionist, but never to the extent of defending uncited or unverifiable or non-neutral content. AfD regulars won't necessarily have noticed his steady work in the background chipping away at the uncited and biased. He has around 4,800 edits, including 2,000 main space edits and has also done much to promote the WP:MEMES draft guideline. He has a sound working knowledge of policy and guidelines and appears capable of being firm without being aggressive. For the record I disagree with him on just about every AfD and most of his political opinions as well! But this is supposed to be No Big Deal, right? And I have no personal doubts about Jeff's sincerity or his commitment to the project. Just zis Guy you know? 17:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I sincerely and humbly accept, and I especially appreciate JzG's kind words, as we have clashed many a time on deletion issues. I'll be glad to answer any extra questions people have as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Meets my standards, as far as I can see. NSLE 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Great contributions, especially to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages:talk namespace. Combine that with nice answers to the questions and 2000 article edits, and you have an admin. AdamBiswanger1 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Badlydrawnsupport I've been hoping to see this RfA. Good work on AfD! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Having a dedicated administrator so interested in championing "ugly duckling" content will be a great boon to Misplaced Pages. Plus, he's a kind fellow. Xoloz 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Hey, I wanted to nominate this guy. Anyway, I agree with Jeff on some things, I disagree with him on others. But every encounter has left me with the impression that he is reasonable, will always discuss things calmly, and is willing to listen to criticism and dissenting views, and actually wants to understand them, rather than just disagree with them. Should make a good admin. --W.marsh 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support One of the most active guys at the AFD. Excellent user overall. --Srikeit 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
7. I normally don't agree with Jeff, especially on notabily on sports articles, but I personally believe he won't abuse the tools so Easy Support Jaranda 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per all above. Roy A.A. 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - per all above -- Tawker 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, absolutely. bikeable (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Reviewed User talk: and Misplaced Pages: contributions and approved of them. — Vildricianus 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support nice guy - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Great user...everything I've seen has been thoughtful and level headed. Rx StrangeLove 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
15. I dunno, doesn't know the difference between "flair" and "flare"... oh, what the hell, seen this one around, support. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Never, he'd make a terrible admin. --Rory096 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

    In case anyone is wondering, this is a support. --Rory096 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

17. Support Regardless of whether you agree with his AfD positions or not, you always get the impression he's taken the time to consider them carefully, and he's open to discussion, which are two of the most important qualities in an admin. Very sound grasp of policy, generally polite, so I'm happy to support. Good luck! Ziggurat 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support with cliche "I thought this person was an admin!" I've seen this editor a lot, and while I too have disagreed with some of his positions on AfDs and such, I've also agreed with him on a lot of them as well. Produces good work and highly likely will be a good admin. Good nom, Guy! Agent 86 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support passes my rfa criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per above.--Kungfu Adam 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. DarthVader 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Naconkantari 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Pepsidrinka supports. 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support seems like he would do well to have the extra tools and a pledge to stay away from issues where he might have a POV (some XfD's) shows an honest self-analysis and a good show of responsibility hoopydink 00:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. I may not always agree with his opinions, but I can't find fault with his wikiwork. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
26. digital_me
27. Support See him around a lot. Dlyons493 Talk 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support absolutely. I disagree with his stance on many AfD's, but this user is committed, works hard, and is openminded. Wholehearted support -- Samir धर्म 01:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support --Jay(Reply) 03:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support—looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Indie Support Good record, solid civility, and a degree in history to boot. Teke 04:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Having looked over the comments given, I believe this user is worthy of adminship. Chacor 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Good user, will be great admin. Yanksox 04:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support ... and all this time, I thought he was already an admin. BigDT 07:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. A pretty radical inclusionist, yes, but probably won't misuse the tools. That arbitration case looks extremely one-sided so far (against 8bitJake.) Meets my criteria. Grandmasterka 07:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Great user and will make good use of the tools. TigerShark 09:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Badlydrawnjeff is wikipedian whom I don't know well, but he meets all of my criteria, and is a very nice user to work with. The Halo (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Cliché "I thought he was one" support Will (message me!) 10:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Merovingian {T C @} 10:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Keep Pretty far into the inclusionist camp, possibly even the most inclusionist regular contributor on AfD currently. It's commendable that Jeff has remained staunchly true to his views without becoming dogmatic or confrontational about them. While it's safe to say that we don't always agree, I think Jeff will make a good admin. Welcome aboard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support have seen loads on xFD. Am very confident in his skills! Computerjoe's talk 13:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per the contributions I've seed on AfD and the answers to the questions. Great admin candidate- Peripitus (Talk) 13:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Strikes me as having all the right stuff somewhere. robchurch | talk 13:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Add me to the list of folks who don't always agree with Jeff in AFD, but respect his dilligently researched arguments, his civility, and his awareness of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. OhNoitsJamie 18:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support From what I have seen, badlydrawnjeff would be the perfect admin. joturner 20:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, great editor, very active on AfD--TBCTaLk?!? 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
48. More candidates like this one, please! Support Sorry to be cliched, but I seriously thought he was one already. He's more inclusionist than I am, if such is possible, but well reasoned, not rabid. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support solid editor and professonal in that he uses summaries and avoids starting conflict. — Deckiller 04:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. SushiGeek 05:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support good work on AfDs, also per the support of several above --Deville (Talk) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 11:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Thoughtful, well rounded user. His work in AfD has seriously impressed me. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support.Agoodperson 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
55. SupportWhether or not you agree with his inclusionist/conservative leanings, you must agree that his edits put the improvement of the project above all else. He first gained my respect when he took the initiative on internet memes, even if I did not completely agree with him. He will most certainly be fair-minded, objective, and disciplined in his use of the buttons and will all the while whack vandals with the proper balance of the carrot and the stick. It is truly an honor to be a small part in his promotion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. I don't always agree with Jeff myself (despite the fact that I would possibly be described as a moderate inclusionist) but that's a matter of personal philosophy, and per the excellent answer to Q1 isn't an issue here anyway. What is important is that he is always sensible and polite, and that he genuinely seems to care about the issues at hand. Strong support. Badgerpatrol 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Like a lot of people, I don't always agree with him, but I can't fault his work here. -Hit bull, win steak 01:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. - Merzbow 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support passing observations of user has left a positive impression; contribs look fine.--Kchase02 T 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Is this a joke? I can't think of a single user that is less qualified to be an admin. He is petty, loves to wikistalk, is prone to edit wars, and enforces a heavy right wing POV in almost every article he graces with his "Edits". He is a troll and I don’t use that phrase lightly.--8bitJake 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   ...And as such, I would like to see examples, preferably in the form of diffs. Grandmasterka 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   I have had the misfortunes of knowing him due to his questionable edit wars on

   Christine Gregoire Henry M. Jackson Dave Reichert Morgan Spurlock Debbie Schlussel and His alliance in edit wars with former user "FRCP11"

   He is a perfect example of “The Great Failure of Misplaced Pages”.--8bitJake 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   User:8bitJake is currently involved in an arbitration dispute with User:Badlydrawnjeff. Naconkantari 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   So I guess that qualifies as being involved in disputes, despite the the minor notability of the Arbcom._{Sarcasm per my disclaimer}Teke 05:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose: Both for temperament and for his stance on the include/exclude of articles. Geogre 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

   This must go on record as one of the very very few occasions where I disagree with Geogre :-) I don't see inclusionism as incompatible with adminship, especially when assessing speedy deletions. I usually err on the side of caution, and will more likely userfy an nn-bio than delete it; in the end there is pretty strong consensus that speedy should be used with great caution, and I believe some admins are a bit too gung-ho, substitution no notability for no assertion of notability. I don't believe Jeff would wheel-war, and I don't believe he will abuse the tools (if he does I will be at the fornt of the lynch mob). I do believe he will be cautious about speedy deletions, and that is a good thing IMO. I will continue to disagree with him at most (probably nearly all) AfD and DRV debates. Finally, there seems to me to be a systemic bias towards deletionists in the RFA process - the "trusted, seen at AfD" people are generally deletionists like me. I could be wrong about this, of course, but that's how I see it. I'm not going to try to persuade you here, but I wanted to make it plain that I have a broadly similar view of Jeff's opinions (i.e. disagreeing with pretty much all of them) but this does not lead me to believe he would be a bad admin. Just zis Guy you know? 08:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per above concerns --Arnzy 05:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose for pretty much the same reason as Geogre cited. Also, he vigorously defends articles that make Misplaced Pages look very, very foolish and frivolous. I think he's about as fit to be an admin as I am, and me being an admin is probably a horrifying thought to most people. I don't want to accuse him of wikistalking, because I don't have conclusive proof, but I've gotten the distinct sense in the past from both his edit history and messages to me that he follows me around and closely watches what I do and actively tries to cancel out what I do. I suppose that's his right, but I don't like it, and I fear that if he were an admin, he'd be even more aggressive in this behavior. I've also found him unwilling to compromise. I'd be willing to be more accepting of his ideas on internet fads if he'd quit almost singlehandedly sabotaging so many of my deletion proposals that I feel very strongly about. He has harshly criticized my attempts to delete foolish and ridiculous sexual articles, accusing me of being prudish or anti-sex without even asking about my views on sex. He makes a lot of assumptions and jumps to conclusions about me in that area. I'm actually very open-minded and have had diverse experiences, but I dislike slangy dicdefs and anecdotal or word-of-mouth type sourcing for articles. I think sexual articles should be held to the same rigorous standards as medical articles, because that's essentially what they are. He seems to think that sexual articles should be filled with current mass-market media or "pop culture," which I think trivializes a very important aspect of human behavior. He was also pretty nasty to me in the talk page for Hogging because I tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost. He accused me of tagging it after he'd begun working on it, which is completely false. In fact, after he fixed the article, I voted on AfD to KEEP it because he brought it up to minimum standards, and I couldn't ignore that, even if I thought an article on the concept was more suited to a slang dictionary. He openly ignores policies such as WP:WINAD and thinks that pretty much any published newspaper or magazine is a reliable source. Having been a journalist, I know otherwise. He strongly opposes CSD A7, which as an admin he would be duty-bound to enforce. I imagine him getting very creative in finding assertions of notability to get around deleting under CSD A7. He spent an indordinate amount of time and effort trying to save an article on "cock blocking," a concept better covered by something like Urban Dictionary. He scoffed at me for nominating a completely obvious dicdef, Dust bunny. He's had a pretty negative impact on my overall Misplaced Pages experience, and I fear that if he becomes an admin, it will become even worse and I will have to quit contributing under my name, get another account, and focus on radically different things that he doesn't follow, like biomedical science, clinical laboratory medicine, pharmacology, linguistics, and classics, subjects I know but don't want to completely restrict myself to. I dread seeing his signature and avoid him whenever I can, but it seems that he always turns up. I apologize for being so negative, but I'm trying to be honest rather than offensive. Brian G. Crawford 07:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If Brian actually IS trying not to be offensive, then this is indeed a rare occasion for celebration- see e.g. here, and here. He admits to using multiple socks and there is some doubt as to whether edits made from this account are genuinely him or not- . All in all, strange. Badgerpatrol 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Badlydrawnjeff (over the 4857 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 467 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 23, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 13, February, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 92.78% Minor edits: 95%
Average edits per day: 31.6 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 264 edits) : Major article edits: 99.47% Minor article edits: 97.4%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4857 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.37% (18)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 9.68% (470)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 22.52% (1094)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 58%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1752 | Average edits per page: 2.77 | Edits on top: 8.21%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 52.09% (2530 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 17.15% (833 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 7.99% (388 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 15.77% (766 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 41.18% (2000) | Article talk: 11.26% (547)
User: 3.34% (162) | User talk: 7.21% (350)
Misplaced Pages: 25.74% (1250) | Misplaced Pages talk: 6.59% (320)
Image: 4.04% (196)
Template: 0.56% (27)
Category: 0.04% (2)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.06% (3)

• See Badlydrawnjeff's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Badlydrawnjeff's edit counts (from User:Interiot/Tool2):

Username Badlydrawnjeff
Total edits 4858
Distinct pages edited 1883
Average edits/page 2.580
First edit 01:11, 13 February 2005
(main) 2000
Talk 547
User 162
User talk 350
Image 196
Image talk 2
Template 27
Template talk 1
Category 2
Misplaced Pages 1251
Misplaced Pages talk 320

Is this a joke? I can't think of a single user that is less qualified to be an admin. He is petty, loves to wikistalk, is prone to edit wars, and enforces a heavy right wing POV in almost every article he graces with his "Edits". He is a troll and I don’t use that phrase lightly.--8bitJake 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll only note, for clarity's sake, that I've had a number of conflicts with 8bitJake which have resulted in the unfortunate need to open a Request for Arbitration that is still in process. I'm confident to allow my record to speak for itself further in this particular dispute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that Badlydrawnjeff is the worse example of an editor that I have encountered on Misplaced Pages. It would be a massive mistake to give him Admin rights.--8bitJake 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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

A: Along with helping out in any backlog situation that could occur that I'd be an asset, I'd be most interested in pitching in with Speedy deletion and prod, which often gets backed up as I've noticed from time to time. I'm also interested in becoming much more energetic in dealing with copyvio, and a mop will help tremendously in working in that area. Help over at WP:3RR and related areas is always a good place to help out as well. Perhaps the future will bring me into a great mediation/dispute resolution role as well.

One area I will be avoiding, for the record, is the closing of controversial XfDs, as I'm a) usually involved in them, and b) know that I have a deserved reputation of being a hardline inclusionist, so I don't want there to be any question about using any possible powers for my own agenda.

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

A: I make a lot of stubs, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Of my 2000+ mainspace edits, almost 10% of them are new article creation or rewrites. My most major project thus far involved creating articles for The Elephant Six Collective, and creating a template for a collective of musicians that lacked any sort of centralized source. The project, of course, is still ongoing.

For specific articles, I'm currently in the process of making The Reputation into a Good/Featured Article-worthy entry, and I'm pleased with the work I've done on Kroger Babb, as well. I'm also fairly happy with how Mark Eitzel has come out so far, considering it was a day away from being deleted via WP:PROD when I found it.

Finally, I'm also someone who's not afraid to dive into political/controversial articles. I was able to deal fairly well with a situation a couple months ago revolving around Lew Rockwell and Joseph Sobran, and I feel I've made positive contributions in articles such as Michael Moore as well, where tempers and POV issues can flair up in a moment's notice.

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

A: Oh, absolutely. If I have one major personal downside in my WP history, it's probably the types of conflicts I end up getting into.

Some have worked out well, or at least according to whatever guidelines are laid out. Early on, conflict at Karl Rove was worked out fairly harmoniously, I've had some decent conflict resolutions at articles like Debbie Schlussel, and I've had to go to mediation/RfAr for one situation that the typical "try to work it out" method didn't solve, and have been more and more open of late to using requests for comment.

Others, not so much. I still regret how some issues with User:Nathanrdotcom went, I wish things weren't so continually tenuous with at couple other users, I know full well I haven't always handled my issues with WP:SNOW to the best of my ability, and I sometimes speak up in a knee-jerk fashion when approaching people regarding articles I feel strongly on at AfD. It's something I'm always aware of and always working on, and the longer I'm here, the more I'm using the tools available to reach the best result for the greater wiki, even if it doesn't end up the way I want it to.

Either way, I'm very fond of using talk pages, I have recently started using IRC and it has greatly benefited my ability to work through policy/guideline issues. Communication is key, and that's what I'm trying to stay focused on.