Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dennis Brown

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

Dennis Brown

Final (134/31/2). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 20:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Co-Nomination from Pedro

Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) – I'm delighted to offer Dennis up for the tools. Dennis approached me to consider his readiness six months ago [1]. I responded [2] that whilst his editing history was clearly impressive there were some minor concerns over speedy deletions, specifically tagging too quickly or not quite accurately. As a mature editor, Dennis responded well to my hopefuly useful feedback at that time and has been careful and diligent in this area.

Dennis recently asked me to reasses him, and after considerable input from many members of the community on his talk page, has been persuaded that he should ask for the extra tools.

The candidate is a tenured editor, albeit with a break for a couple of years between 2008/2010. Since returning to active editing Dennis has amassed many thousands of edits, with a sensible balance across the mainspace and project areas. The usual housekeeping items are all in place - block free, sensible user page and signature etc.

In summary, a well rounded courteous and dependable editor who learns from rare mistakes. I can't put it much better than User:Orangemike who recently wrote "Solid but not showy, moderate and civil". Indeed. Pedro :  Chat  14:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Co-Nomination from User:Elen of the Roads

Late to party (as ever) but I am delighted to nominate User:Dennis Brown for the mop. Since his return to active editing, he has involved himself in many areas of the project, and has proved a sensible, moderate and reflective voice. Some want perfection in their admins. I prefer a hardworking candidate, who promptly puts his hands up if he has missed something. Dennis is a mature candidate, who can communicate well, take feedback on board, and generally act in a grown up way to keep this project on track. And he makes less mistakes with the Mediawiki interface than I do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (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: CSD, ANI, vandalism, and likely copyright issues within a year. I have 30 years working with computers, 15 with Linux and Perl, so assisting on a somewhat more technical level is possible down the road.

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

A: I've created a few articles on regional topics and uploaded several images, but my better contributions have been more gnomish such as sourcing List of nocturnal animals, a topic I knew nothing about but enjoyed the personal challenge. Looking at the article on Lexington, NC (my new home) before [3] and after [4] my contributions shows some of what I like to do over time, including researching and adding all the climate data. I don't mind repetitive type tasks with no end date, and try to always have something like that in the works. I've begun working with others in settling disputes, which I find satisfying. Being a generalist by nature, my contributions have been in a wide variety of subjects, often making minor corrections to articles that I was simply reading about. I've begun to like adopting new articles by new users and polishing them up. I've also done a reasonable amount of work over the years patrolling for vandals. I would like to think I have a good sense of fairness.

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: I intentionally involved myself in the debates over merge in MMA articles as an outside party, with the goal of trying to bring some order to what was then, a large and ugly battlefield full of sockpuppets, meatpuppeting, blocks and incivility. To be truthful, it was part of a self-test to determine if I was capable of keeping a cool head and remaining objective, as a prerequisite to considering a request for admin. In the end, I feel I did an acceptable job, along with the help of many others, in eventually defusing what was an explosive situation. Many of the strongest objectors are now working on improving the new omnibus system. As to other examples, I have learned over the years to simply avoid any topic to which I have a personal interest, COI, or strong personal feelings. This greatly reduces the stress as I don't have a personal investment in the topic. I'm a much happier person this way. I've never been afraid to ask an admin if my actions were too strong or improper, or if my understanding of policy is wrong. I do this quite frequently. When I make a mistake (and I do), I am quick to admit it and have discovered that others are usually just as quick to forgive when you are sincere.

Additional question from 28bytes

4. What are your thoughts on this A7 mentioned in the neutral section? Leaving aside the question of notability, is an appearance on an ABC Family TV show and an IMDB entry a "credible claim of significance or importance"? Why or why not?

A: Having a role on a cable television show is not quite the same as having a major role on a network program, particularly when reliable sources, then as now, are not readily available. Even with the lack of notability, as demonstrated by a lack of significant coverage, however, it likely was enough of a "claim" that I should not have tagged it, and instead waited a day and PROD'ed it. While I still have doubts as to the notability of the subject matter, (as you point out) that isn't the issue at CSD, so in the end, it wasn't my best call. Short answer: It was a little sloppy.

Additional question from Yasht101

5. I went through your contributions and found that you have a success rate of 91% while dealing with CSD using (Denominator and Neumerator). Most of your declined deletions are A7. So how would you deal with a CSD:A7 request?

A: I trust your 91% calculation and note that many of those were from 2008. To be honest, I'm surprised my ratio is over 90% when you go back that far, as I was much less cautious then. I know I've struggled with A7s in the past, which is why I've worked so hard with CSDs now. Part of it was just not getting it, confusing it with notability (no one really explained it back then). Part of it might have been a little laziness on my part as well. This was before I installed TW, and I likely saw it as an alternative to manually adding an AFD. But my perspective is different now. To answer your question directly, how I expect to handle A7s when I have the mop is to only delete the most obvious ones, and ask for opinions on the others, A7 or otherwise. This is the only way I know how to learn. Just the other day, I found an image that I was sure was a copy vio but I had a tiny reservation. Instead of nominating it, I went and asked RHaworth [5] who promptly deleted it. That doesn't show up as a red link, and this isn't the only time I've done this recently, but the main point is that I'm already much more conservative about nominating for CSD, if anything, I will be more cautious when weilding the mop, as the stakes are higher, and the likelihood of someone fixing my mistake is lower.

• Please note Scottywong's comments below, at the top of the discussion section, calling this ratio into question.

Additional question from Dpmuk

6. Please briefly explain your understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies, why they are important and how we deal with potential problems. I'm not looking for a really detailed response but rather something that convinces me you have enough of a clue in these areas to identify problems and know where to go to sort them - the sort of thing I'd expect from any admin rather than the more detailed knowledge I'd expect from someone working in this area. This is also the reason for a very generic question, as if I gave a specific question it would be too easy just to look up the answer to that question, so, with that in mind, feel free to answer this in any way you wish.

A: Wikipedia owns no content, everything here is borrowed from other people, usually the editors themselves. The nut of the copyright policy is to make sure that we clearly have permission to borrow the text or file, or when there is no Free licensed version available, that there is a justifiable and documented Fair Use rationale provided. Copyrighted text and files are property, the fruits of someone's labor. When there is a violation of their rights as owner, we remove the violation by deletion, or in the event of minor plagerizing or paraphrasing, by rewriting the entire section and providing clear references to the original source. This is why we prefer GDFL or CC licensed material (versions that allow commercial use) over files with a Fair Use rationale, as they have already freely given everyone permission to use it. When a situation is more borderline, we should to err on the conservative side and often remove material, then discuss it in an open forum. This is to both protect the rights of the copyright holder, and because copyright issues can add an unnecessary legal burden on the Foundation as a whole. It boils down to the 3rd pillar "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.", which is why we have setup several methods to deal with potential violations. When there is an obvious case of wholesale infringement, a simple CSD#G12 will suffice. For less obvious or more complicated situations, WP:CP, WP:PUF and WP:CCI exist to open up discussions. Copyright policy enforcement is an area of Wikipedia I am interested in due to my real world experience, but as I've stated before, I want to first spend more time researching policy, learn the common outcomes, and gradually participate more as my confidence level goes up. Unlike most content disputes, there are broad legal considerations when you are talking about copyright issues.

Additional question from Achowat

7. You had indicated a desire to work in Vandalism; while working at WP:AIV, under what circumstance would you block an editor who had only been given a {{uw-v4im}}?

A: Blocking after a single warning (or without any warning) is pretty extreme and should be limited to when it is the only option to prevent serious, imminent disruption at Wikipedia. Some circumstances that *might* justify it include outing someone with obvious malicious intent, adding BLP material so outrageious that requires a redaction, malware injection, a very obvious or self-admitted and disruptive sockpuppet or other behavior that is extraordinarily bad combined with a clear and obvious reason to believe that the behavior will continue. Otherwise, the normal process of issuing escalating warnings before taking action should be followed. My observation has been that too many editors jump to issueing a single 4im warning where it isn't warranted. Many level 1/2/3 vandalism warnings are also more about content disputes than actual vandalism, and often, no one has tried to discuss it with the editor outside of a template. Othertimes the real problem is the person giving the warning, not the person receiving it. In these cases, the solution doesn't require the tools, just explaining the difference between vandalism and bad editing.

Additional question from Mr little irish

8. You stated below that you would stay away from CSD if requested. Please take a look at the oppose section, editors have stated they would consider supporting you if you met their guidelines. Could you confirm if you are willing to comply with these suggested guidelines?

A: Of course I would. Even outside of an RfA, if the consensus of editors is that $admin shouldn't work in $area, it would be the responsibility of $admin to voluntarily comply. If my peers believe that I should wait 6 or more months before entering CSD, and/or seek mentoring when and if I do, I would have no problem with that and see that as reasonable. I'm not arguing against their observations that my history with tagging CSD has been lackluster, even if it has improved noticably over the last month or two. It hasn't been my strong suit, and I've been open and honest about that. I can always improve (and prove) my CSD skills using my existing tools, even while using the admin tools in other areas. As I stated below, the desire to serve there was solely because I felt there was a need. There are plenty of other areas where I think I can make a positive contribution, whether or not I ever step into a role at CSD.

To add, Boing! said Zebedee has offered to provide mentoring [6], including letting me submit my CSD opinions to him before taking action, obviously after a few months of avoiding the mop at CSD, per consensus here. That was very generous of him, and I would take him up on that offer. I truly understand the concerns raised here, and appreciate the tone of those making them, and I hope you understand that they are not falling on deaf ears.

Additional question from Interchangeable

9. If you discovered you had been wrongly blocked, and could prove it, would you remove the block on yourself first or submit the proof on your user talk page?

A: That is a pretty clear cut situation: No, I would never unblock myself, even if blocked by a rogue admin. I would expect to be blocked if I unblocked myself in this way, for abuse of tools. Admins have to maintain a wide and clear gap between what they are involved with as an editor, and their use of the tools. Just as I would never block any editor that I was having a good faith content dispute with, even if he got more than a little rude. Better to let an admin who isn't involved do it. It isn't enough to "be right" and the principles involved are more important than a single block.

Additional question from Mark Arsten

10. Is it ever acceptable for for a user to make more than three reversions on a page within 24 hours? If yes: in which situations is this allowable?

A: The exceptions I've usually seen to 3RR are obvious vandalism, reverting your own edits, or when dealing with known and obvious sockpuppets. I know copyright violations also qualify, although you have to be careful if it isn't a very obvious case. I've seen the rule relaxed when it comes to removing unsourced negative BLP content. Then I went and looked it up, and I see exceptions are also allowed for illegal material in the state of Florida USA, and extra leeway given for articles on the front page, which makes sense, just not something I've run across before. Over the years, I've seen a couple of instances where an editor clearly violated 3RR but reverted themselves and "came to their senses" and made it clear they wouldn't revert back, so a block would have been inadvisable as the threat of continued disruption was no longer present. Not exactly what you were asking, but a related tangent.

Additional question from Keepscases

11. Do you think there should be a Wikipedia Hall of Fame? Why or why not?

A: Now that is a question I haven't seen before! That is difficult to answer without more information. If you don't mind, can you explain what would be the focus of the Hall? Editor achievements, article popularity or what exactly would be the criteria for being included in this Hall of Fame? Before I give an answer, I want to make sure I fully understand the question.

• I've waited a while, and while I would prefer more information, I will try to answer the question as stated. If you are referring to a Hall of Fame for Wikipedians, then I would have to say that I fail to see the need and can see the potential for some negative side effects. I think that most good editors contribute because of the personal satisfaction it brings, simply enjoyment, or their desire to play a small role in something bigger than themselves. Putting too much emphasis on patting our own backs is not likely to improve the quality of contributions and would likely cause some editors to focus on the wrong things, perhaps pushing against WP:HERE in extreme cases. In this scenario, it is likely that I would be against it. If it was a Hall of Fame for some metric such as article traffic or other technical point, then I would have to remain neutral without more information. I don't see the point, but it may be because I simply don't have enough information.

Additional question from Hghyux

12 How would you respond if somebody made a call for you to step down if you made a mistake using your tools?

A If we are talking about a single person, it would depend on who that individual was as to whether or not I would just step down without a larger discussion. At the least, I would want a second opinion. If a couple of admins I knew and completely trusted came to me in private and said "Dennis, you are really screwing up and we think you need to drop the mop" then I would quietly comply. This is easy to say at your own RfA, we both understand this. In my case, I have a long history, including participation in areas with high drama (as some point out below), without ever being sanctioned. In part because I have privately asked for help and listened to a few, trusted admins who were kind enough to tell me when I was getting too intense. Even early in my Wikicareer, when they advised me to "step back", I did even when I felt I was in the right. I have plenty of flaws, but I've always been quick to listen to the advice of others and admit a mistake. Because of this I know that I would drop the mop without drama if asked by my peers, but more importantly, I will listen to advice along the way so they are never forced to ask.

Additional question from Monty845

13. When, if ever, should an IP vandal without a previous block history be blocked without a final warning? (Assume they are not an identified sock)

A: If we are limiting this to vandals at WP:AIV (ie:not legal or physical threats), then there a fairly limited number of circumstances. If they are running a script and dumping a metric ton of garbage or malicious code, obviously it is justified. If the vandalism does something that quickly requires redacting (like I said above), such as limited types of serious outing or outrageous and clearly malicious BLP violations, then it may be needed to prevent further and ongoing disruption. There are probably other circumstances I've never thought of, but where the only way to protect Wikipedia is to push the big red button and shut the IP down. To address your concern earlier today at ANI: There are times when someone is stealthily adding vandalism that could go undetected, and has a history of doing only this type of vandalism, managing to stay just under the final warning, where it might qualify because the risk of the vandalism going undetected in the future, but only if it is done in plain site with consensus at a public forum like ANI, as I called for today, after first directing the editor to AIV, then gently floating out the idea. A look at the rest of the same ANI page makes it pretty clear that I'm not a fan of blocking and will take extraordinary steps to avoid recommending them when there is even a tiny possibility that the editor is acting in good faith. Dennis Brown ® © 01:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• I can say with confidence that the method used in Q5 to determine the CSD tagging error rate is definitely not 100% accurate. The numerator is based on how many pages that Dennis has tagged for CSD which haven't been deleted. While most of these are declined CSD's, some may have not been deleted (or may have been restored) for other reasons. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 13:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Of the first 20 I checked, 5 are redirects, 1 is leaning delete at AFD, 1 is in user space, so the lifetime CSD ratio is likely higher than 91%. Doesn't justify the misses, but there are less of them than previously thought. Dennis Brown ® © 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As per my nomination statement. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong, edit-conflicted Support - I've had this watchlisted for several days now. Dennis is a clueful, humble, hardworking editor who will only become more valuable if given the tools. He's had a trial by fire in the mess that was the MMA discussions and came out unscathed, with a head just as cool as ever. From what I've seen, he's not afraid to admit to his mistakes (the few that he makes), and has worked tirelessly to improve his knowledge and application of policy. Dennis is also often a voice of reason on the drama boards and will be able to do even more in defusing drama/conflict there given a mop and bucket. No reservations here. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
3. SupportTotal Support, and beat the co-nom!--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. Easy decision. Dennis Brown has been popping up in all sorts of discussions offering thoughtful and valuable opinions in a clear and calm way, and I've kept thinking he'd make a great admin. We won't get any drama here, just calm and rational mopping up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Clued in. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Support: An arb thinks he's good. That must be something. Good contribs. Good work in the community. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Significant contributions, good balance across all areas. Quick learner, accepts behavioral feedback, can pick up things fast. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Support - Clueful, level-headed user who I would have no problem supporting in adminship. I am also impressed by his seeking additional opinions on adminship - he seems like he'll respond well to criticism, which is always an important trait to have in an administrator. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
9. Support I've only seen good things from this editor. SÆdon^talk 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Great (and plenty of) contributions from him, and works hard against vandalism. Drla8th! (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
11. Support I greatly admire someone who can step back and objectively repair mistakes they've made. You have my full support Dennis; I have little doubt you will make great use of your mop. --Nick Wilson (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
12. Support based on noms and spot review of CSD tags. No concerns here.  Frank  |  talk  21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
13. Support – Dennis' history shows that he can use good judgment in messy disputes of the kind that admins often face. This gives us some assurance he will be a valuable addition to the admin corps. Not just somebody to whom it is safe to entrust the tools, but a person who we can anticipate will do useful things with them. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
14. Secret ^account 21:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

    I just realized his previous username and its a strongest possible support, I'm glad that he decided to do an RFA. He was one of the best voices of reason in AFD back when AFD was just as bad of a drama shithole as AN/I. Would make a brilliant administrator. Secret ^account 22:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

    Strong Support - Really a good editor and have seen him around for while. No doubts... Yasht101 21:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose Yasht101 04:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

15. Support A review of his input to AFDs shows he is thoughtful and level headed in general. His pattern of edits shows a good percentage to articles and their talk pages rather than a high percentage on dramah boards. I expect good things from his use of the mop. Edison (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
16. Support I had participated in the the MMA discussions for a while, and the work Dennis did there was commendable. He is quite helpful at ANI from what I have seen, and can easily be trusted with the tools. Much deserved, and overdue on this one. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
17. Support as co-nom. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
19. Support I've found this editor to be very reasoned and professional in my interactions with him. I've also noticed his attempts to be a voice of reason at ANI. I think he exhibits sound judgement and I believe he'd make a fine admin. Mojoworker (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
20. Support - I've briefly examined this users' history, and I see the user's been here since 2006, has a clean block log, has demonstrated, in my opinion, good judgement in recent history, and has not engaged in any questionable activities in recent history. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
21. Support Why not? --Guerillero | My Talk 23:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
22. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
23. Bmusician 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Why not? Editor appears familiar with the policies and sounds as if he's getting more knowledgeable about the A7 speedies. I'm particularly impressed by the answers to question #7. Moreover, we need more gnomish admins; people say that it's important that an admin be familiar with writing substantial content, but if that be true, it's also true that it's important that an admin be familiar with small thankless tasks. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
25. Support. And my response to the opposes? The ItsZippy RfA should set a precedent, some CSD mistakes is by no means a reason to reject a nomination. Noms give strong basis on which to support, and answers to questions support my thinking that Dennis is clueful. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
26. Per Lord Roem. I trust that the candidate will take the concerns on board by those in opposition, and tread carefully around CSD. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
27. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. While a couple of Scotty Wong's problematic speedies are troubling, others are less so. To me the open and self-critical tone outweighs the fact that the candidate is not perfect at the task he seeks to do. And really, who is? I have good confidence that this is a level head who will learn on the job. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - No concerns. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. Moved from oppose. Was tired earlier. Sorry. CSD concerns seem relatively minor. A412 (Talk • C) 05:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - Highly confident that candidate will be a credit to the project as an admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
31. Support; like Vensatry and others no concerns. Mtking ^(edits) 07:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
32. Support; I was waiting for this to go live yesterday so I could support it. Dennis is an outstanding editor with plenty of clue. So what if he has made mistakes in the past with CFD's. It's all in the learning curve. We're only human. Not only that, but I like his answer at the bottom of the page. I wish Dennis well, no matter what, but he's going to be great with the tools. MrLittleIrish^(talk) 09:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - I see no problem here. Deb (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
34. Support Should be able to handle the mop Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
35. Support User has agreed to not perform CSD deletions. This editor will make a great admin.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. There are some legitimate concerns, but his response convinced me to support this nomination.--В и к и T 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
37. Support. Rock-solid attitude. Has the invaluable ability to cut through drama and end disputes. Trustworthy, no reason to withhold the mop. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
38. Support A pretty good history of editing and behaviour, and some great responses to some of the concerns raised. Handing the mop to an experienced, trustworthy and mature editor who is still willing to improve seems like a sensible choice to me. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Nothing wrong here. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
40. Strong support Very good call over at Talk:Major depressive disorder on Leah Hirsig's RfC. GMolewaterdelaRiveBox (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
41. Support I've seen this user around, and I think the community will benefit greatly if he becomes an admin. Well everyone makes some CSD mistakes, so according to me, the ratio is quite not striking me. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
42. Support. I see nothing unduly worrying. There is a slight issue with some speedy tagging but they seem to be aware of this and I have confidence they will act according. I also don't think it's a big a problem as some have made out. It seems that same require near perfection with speedy tagging but this ignores the fact that there is reasonably wide variation in how the speedy criteria is interpreted. By requiring near perfection in candidates we would only get admins at the stricter end of the scale and I don't think this is a good thing. I know that I personally agree with many of the rejected taggings given by the opposes. Yes there are one or two that are plain wrong but this is a small proportion and not a show stopper to me given their assurances. Dpmuk (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
43. Support - User shows excellent editing patterns and excellent understanding of policies. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
44. Support -- Good luck. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
45. Support - Answers to Q5 and Q8 settle the CSD issue, as far as I'm concerned. As long as he stays away from any speedies that aren't perfectly clear, he'll be fine. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - He would make a great admin. Dennis has been fair, dedicated, open-minded and displays a willingness to help others. Ferddog (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
47. Support Seems like a level headed person well verified by other level headed people. I'm not concerned about CSD issues (the world keeps turning even when an occasional article is mistagged or deleted or not deleted) and the "not seeing examples where this users benefit to the program will be increased by additional user rights" makes little sense to me. Hopefully, we'll see some examples down the road. If we don't, I don't think we'll see any costs either? --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
48. Support - good amount of Clue, good editor. I have some concerns about CSD tagging, however, I do believe that CSD is a two-part process: Non-admin tagging and admin deleting. Because it requires two editors, I'm ok with a tagger tagging some borderline pages with hopes that the closing Admin will make the final judgment call. The Opposition being exclusively concerning CSD tagging, I am sure that Dennis will be especially careful of using that tool. Achowat (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
49. Support I've seen him around quite a bit and have always felt he is a level-headed, knowledgeable editor with a solid grasp of policy. Since he's given assurances of starting slow with CSDs, I see no reason not to support. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

    Support I have not investigated deeply, but I am impressed by nom statements. The candidate's work on CSD has included mistakes, including a failure to read the lede in one example in 2011, given by Hegvald; let all of us (especially those of who don't recognize that they twinkle-toed articles without reading the lede more recently) pledge to do better.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

50. Support Per very impressive responses to the questions. Every mistake that he made was a learning experience and he shows that he is a more knowledgeable editor as a result. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
51. Support. Seems sensible and trustworthy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
52. Support No concerns, seems to be able to be trusted. CalumH93|talk 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
53. Support My concerns have been addressed. I think the candidate has taken the concern about CSD seriously and they can be trusted to move cautiously through CSD with an admin mentor.--v/r - TP 22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

    Support Seems fine; trust he will play to his strengths until he gets the hang of the single area of weakness identified. --John (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

54. Support Capable, and willing; a good choice...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
55. Support Impressive responses, has the potential.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  01:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
56. Support per the noms, many other support votes, and those who have had their concerns addressed and have reconsidered their opposition. Doc talk 01:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
57. Support despite being a little too quick on the trigger sometimes. At speedy, it is not as much the error rate as the nature of the errors, and some of those pointed out are quite careless, rather than just misjudgments. With experience , one learns to immediately spot what isn't in one of the A7 categories, but until then, one has to go slowly and check the wording every time. I normally would not support an admin candidate on the basis that they'll learn on the job, suggesting instead that they reapply once they have finished learning. This time I'm supporting; I think it's clear that he will not be one of the admins who doesn't actually care whether a speedy meets the conditions, but is surely willing to learn--especially as I too will be watching. I wouldn't say he should wait, just go slowly and pay attention to the feedback he will certainly get, from several of us. I think he can play a very useful role in dispute resolution. I worked with him on the MMA problem a little--for the same reason, that having no personal interest at all would make it possible for me to be objective , and I was quite impressed. The buttons are not strictly necessary for most dispute resolution, but they provide a backup authority which is very helpful; making clear one has the authority to block usually makes it unnecessary to actually do so. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
58. Support Solid answer to my Q, contribs seen fine, and editor is showing a clear intention of responsibility of using the tools. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
59. Strong support looks like an ideal candidate from my point of view, and the proven level-headed approach to dispute is a strong asset for the admin team. Samir 03:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
60. Support I see no reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
61. Support I've seen them around, always seems clueful and respectful to others. Appears to show a mature attitude, and trust the noms. 2eschew surplusage (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
62. Support Torreslfchero (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
63. Support This user is now ready to handle the tools and take the mop simply because of hardwork, experience and civility. Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 10:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
64. Support. Dennis has many qualities that would be an asset to an administrator. His approach to editing is thoughtful, conscientious, and intelligent. He is patient and civil to other editors, even when he clearly doesn't like what they are doing: I wish I could say the same of all admins. He frequently consults others, rather than jumping in unilaterally, and is ready to listen to and learn from other editors' advice. He has extensive experience of a number of admin-related areas. I do have some reservations about Dennis's speedy deletion record, but the problems have been greatly exaggerated. Some of the examples on Scottywong's list are debatable, rather than clearly wrong, and in at least one case I think Scottywong is unambiguously wrong. However, there are some genuine problems in that area: particularly at least twice nominating for speedy deletion as "as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" where the article is not about a company, organisation, etc. Also, I have seen Dennis report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism where the edits were misguided but made in good faith. For many editors, these problems would be enough to push me into the "oppose" camp. However, there is one fact which, in Dennis's case, persuades me that this is not necessary: he has agreed to accept a kind of "CSD-mentoring" from Boing! said Zebedee, and my experience of Dennis leads me to believe that he will stick to his promise, and will learn from the help. I also regard Boing! said Zebedee as a very good admin, who will do a good job of helping Dennis. Under these circumstances, I think the few small negatives are far outweighed by the many large positives. (And, as far as my description as "few small negatives" is concerned, even if we were to accept all of Scottywong's list, that would be nine doubtful CSD nominations in a period in which Dennis made a total of 216 CSD nominations, the vast majority of which were fine.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. Smart, mature, personable, modest. I think the CSD issue has been addressed sufficiently, and to reject him on that basis alone seems to deny his capacity for growth and to accept some sort of illusory model of perfection. I also think the CSD issue is overblown.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
66. Support Really helpful edits, no serious concerns.--Deathlaser ^talk 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
67. Support - per dozens of thoughtful supports from respected editors above. As a dabbler in CSD noms in the past, I don't think a few bad ones are a major concern, and JamesBWatson puts that issue in perspective brilliantly in his support. Opposers fail to convince, and I thank the candidate for willingness to run this Rfa gamut and their overall service to the project. Jusdafax 16:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
68. Support. I agree with DGG's statements. I would like to add that I've seen Dennis Brown a lot when they're on patrol, and would like to urge them to be even nicer to IP editors. Brown is not bad compared to the other patrollers, but should keep firmly in mind that IP editors are innocent of vandalism until proven guilty. Good luck with the tools: it seems they are coming your way. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
69. Support. Spot on with the answers. Well versed in policies IMO. Would be a great addition to the admin corps. Suraj T 16:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
70. Support, total support, no concerns. Cavarrone (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
71. Support I'm not familiar with Dennis' editing, but his answers to the questions above are very good and give me confidence that he'll use the admin tools wisely. I note in particular that these indicate that he has a good sense for where the grey areas in policies and guidelines are and where admins should use their discretion when deciding on a course of action. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
72. Support Although I originally opposed this RfA and then said I was going to !vote neutral, I've decided that my concerns about any perceived adminship eagerness are insignificant, and that the CSD tagging issues are something that, although still a serious doubt, can be dealt with. I believe that the candidate will hold true to his promises regarding CSD work as an admin, and believe that he will be a net positive.--Slon02 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
73. I am prepared to support based on cluefulness and willingness to learn. -- Dianna (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
74. Support He is certainly qualified, but more than that, is level-headed, thoughtful, and trustworthy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
75. Support I watched how Dennis stepped in and tried to help out with the MMA meltdown a few weeks ago. He wasn't pushy, he wasn't rude; he tried working things out between the two sides of the issue, and he handled it beautifully. Dennis has always been level-headed and more than willing to listen to both sides of an issue. Personally, I think the CSD issues are small potatoes. If he makes some bad calls, yes he's going to get ass-blasted by some editors, but I fully believe Dennis is the type of person to learn from his mistakes. Good luck! Ishdarian 06:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
76. Support - Nothing more to add to what's already been said above. Orphan Wiki (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
77. Support - Delighted to offer my support, as I think Dennis has one of the traits I most like to see in an admin: clue. :) Several others have mentioned his ability to learn from his experiences, and I believe based on my observations of him and our interactions that he does not venture heedlessly into areas where he's uncertain but will take time to learn his way and moderate his approach as necessary. I think we will benefit from giving him the tools. (I should add that I'm not intending to minimize the concerns of opposers - in fact, I think hasty and out-of-process speedy deletions have a tremendous potential to discourage good faith contributors. I am persuaded, however, that his basic disposition will allow him to benefit from Boing's mentorship there. I would encourage him to act conservatively in that area in general and refrain from action unless 100% sure the article qualifies for the criterion.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
78. Support, candidate seems able to learn from mistakes. Great work here, and I'm sure that they will be able to contribute more with the sysop bit. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
79. Strongest possible support: Edit-history confirms much user-talk activity as well as articles and photos, and the answers above seem grounded. I like his instructional photo File:Propane_smoker.jpg (2008), and he shows a well-rounded attitude with his article "Pigs in the City" ('needs update') for statues in Lexington, NC, just as Houston has its cattle statues, and Pensacola has its pelicans. When do we hold the barbeque to celebrate his adminship? -Wikid77 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
80. Support Seems willing to learn both from mistakes and advice - one learns one heck of a lot AFTER getting the mop (like which end goes in the bucket for a start). Good nominators, and some well respected supporters too. I like the way questions have been answered, especially the caution used in approaching KC's questiion, and can't see him deleting the CSD page... Peridon (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
81. Support - While I agree with those opposing where there are CSD concerns, I do not agree with them that this justifies an oppose !vote all by itself. RFA candidates are people, as is any user. This means they are not perfect and in my opinion expecting perfection in an RFA candidate harms wiki overall. In my view this CSD concern can be worked through. Therefore, I strongly suggest to the candidate that he go slow in the CSD area for several months until he learns more about the area.PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you for your comment about expecting perfection, with which I wholeheartedly agree, although if you watch WP:ANI, you'd think otherwise (one mistake by an admin and some editors want to tear off their buttons).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

82. Support; clueful and competent. It's brave to go through RFA in the current climate, where if you make one mistake a horde of angry people will likely be baying for blood. I remember a time when adminship "wasn't a big deal" but that's long ago. Anyhow, I recommend being more careful with CSD tagging. Antandrus (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
83. Support CSD is a very complicated area with a lot of technicalities, I'm sure someone as calm and reasonable as Dennis will take the time to learn the ins and outs before delving into actually deleting csd nommed pages. We need more admins lime Dennis, happy to support. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
84. Support I find the CSD issues worrying, but if DGG feels it's not a dealbreaker, then I don't see how it can be for me. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
85. In accordance with my faith in Pedro to filer out all but the best candidates, and in spite of the answer to Keepscases's question. "Putting too much emphasis on patting our own backs is not likely to improve the quality of contributions" — this is simply not true. Everybody is more likely to contribute and improve their skills when regularly applauded and praised for their actions. Even my dog does tricks better when he gets treats and pats on the head. In order to retain and recruit editors, we need to fully embrace the truth that barnstars, showcases, and other shiny things are necessary to the project's health. Juliancolton (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
86. Support I had my concerns regarding CSD tagging, but Dennis Brown's responses so far, including promising a very cautious approach to deletions have mitigated my concerns. As I think he is an otherwise well qualified candidate, I have moved to support. Monty₈₄₅ 01:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
87. Per Pedro nom and Julian above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
88. Support. I'm sure Dennis will be a fine admin. I'm not overly concerned about the CSD tagging, as he has agreed to go slowly with speedy deletions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
89. Support per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 09:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
90. Support I have some reservations in regards to the CSD issue raised below, and in particular the A7 tags. However the rest of the contributions and the answers in general are more then enough to offset that worry. Just be careful when pressing that delete button, and you will be more then fine with the extra tools. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
91. Support Before finding out that Dennis wasn't already an Admin I thought to myself, "What a good Admin!" —MistyMorn (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
92. Support I don't know the guy but going off his contributions and manner I'd say yes, good admins are always needed. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
93. Seeing the two nominators in agreement is enough for me. My76Strat (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
94. Support Nothing to blabber about.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
95. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
96. Support, thought he already was one. I see no problems here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
97. Support WP:100. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
98. I say, OK. God speed, Dennis. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

    Support Hey now, adminship is no big deal, so sayeth Jimbo. You seem like a fellow who wouldn't screw things up. 140.247.141.140 (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

    IP vote indented. As has already been mentioned to you, IPs cannot vote in RFAs (due to sockpuppetry issues), but they can participate in the discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

99. Support - Per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
100. Support - I had concerns in the past, but the defusing of conflict I've seen (some of which referenced in the above comments), has been a model example of how an admin should be, and the CSD pile-on below isn't persuasive in the slightest. Less than 5 of the less than dozen or so cited examples seem technically wrong out of the over 250+ (I think that's the # cited above) recent CSD tags. That's hardly cause for concern. Shadowjams (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
101. Support When I've encountered him, I've always found Dennis to be a very reasonable and level-headed editor. The only possible issue is the CSD thing, and frankly, it's been blown out of all proportion - Dennis has already demonstrated both his ability to improve in unfamiliar areas, and his willingness to be subject to mentorship in CSDs. He'd be an excellent admin; give the man a mop. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
102. Support I believe the A7 problem has been made sufficiently clear to Dennis that he will take the advice offered and tread cautiously. In all other respects he's been diplomatic and moderate, and I see no reason why he wouldn't make adjustments in the single area for which he's been criticized. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

     Support Generally clueful, has agreed to work on lapses before acting in that area. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

103. Support with the expectation Dennis will carefully consider any CSD actions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
104. Support. I was unaware of this RfA until I saw this quasi-canvassing post from an editor opposed to Dennis receiving the mop. As by coincidence I had been wondering whether Dennis was an administrator, and if not why not, it seemed an opportune moment to add my voice in support. Just to be clear; my support is based on my view of Dennis's editing, not a reaction against Kiefer's message. The latter was just the happy accident that drew my attention here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
105. Support per work with people at ANI and dispute resolution skills. His CSD problems are, however, quite large (per SW and others). I'm trusting he will work on the identified problems while mostly spending time on things that play to his strengths. Hobit (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
106. Support as DB will surely not repeat the very specific blunders at CSD highlighted below. Oculi (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
107. Support I was also made aware of this through the canvassing of the oppose voter, although that had no effect on my vote. I've also seen him around the joint, and per Kim, had thought he was one of those good new admins who sometimes sneak through this process.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
108. Support per recent comments at WP:ANI. We need to recognise good contributors. We also need to trout those who think it's a free pass against WP:CIVIL. I'm in favour of an admin who's not afraid to say so. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
109. Support I'd trust him with the tools. --Jayron32 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
110. Support level-headed user who will do a lot of good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
111. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
112. Support - While I have a few minor reservations about CSD, as those in the opposes have mentioned, it's not something that is enough to cause me to oppose (especially since I've seen admins with mops so old, they mopped the floor uphill, both ways, and they liked it! ;) doing the same thing sometimes). Overall the editor here has a good grasp of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CIVIL, both of which are something sorely and lacking these days at times, and I believe he can be trusted not to run rampant with the tools, rather to use them in a manner that will lead to the betterment of Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
113. Support - good candidate ....civility is paramount with me. No qualms about this candidate at all. Wikipelli ^Talk 21:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
114. Support. My only concerns are really pretty minor and look likely to be resolved with the staying away from CSD/ getting mentoring on it before moving in. Other concerns: I'm uneasy about the sudden increase in stuff at AN/I, and I'd particularly like a personal resolve (not necessarily a formal commitment) to make sure that background research for any non-emergency, non-vandalism (etc.) blocks is really thorough, as things can look very different when one researches previous interactions between people, and takes into account basic personality clashes, and so on. I'm relatively confident that, having read this, he may well make such a personal resolve to do really, really good background research, or stay away from possibly-contentious blocks. So, on the whole, support. Pesky (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
115. Scottywong's gave me serious pause (enough almost to oppose) but a deeper look around Dennis's edits ove rthe last few days has convinced me otherwise. A remarkably clueful editor (albeit one who has learned a lot about CSD this week which wouldn't have otherwise come out: remember, kids, it's extremely important never to give a candidate constructive criticism until his RfA) whose insight would be a significant benefit to the admin corps. The less said about those opposes not derived in good faith from Scottywong's the better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
116. Support. I'm not particularly familiar with the candidate, so I looked rather carefully at the other comments here, including the opposes. I'm very satisfied that the candidate has clue, and is not going to overestimate his own abilities. For me, that's a big part of RfA: a good candidate must not be inclined to abuse the tools. The candidate's responses during the RfA process, along with Elen's support, have satisfied me that I can trust this candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
117. Support Dennis will make a fine admin. No single admin needs to jump in to any specific area right from the get-go and there are many areas where I trust him completely with the mop. He has already expressed his understanding of the concerns raised here and I am confident he will stand by his word. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
118. Support Not a big deal. AniMate 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
119. Support: An active, able editor. I'm unimpressed with Scottywong's assertion that a promise not to be involved in particular areas is non-binding, with the implication that a prospective admin must be expert in every conceivable aspect of the job to merit promotion. Really? So, Scottywong, could you pass a similar test? Ravenswing 01:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
120. Support. The candidate's answers demonstrate a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy; his work has been of good quality and the issues raised really shouldn't disqualify him from adminship. dci | TALK 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
121. Support · I see a healthy dose of respect and rationality from this volunteer—and in areas in which there is administrative need. The speedy deletion concerns, while admissible, should not cast the candidate in darkness. It is clear that he is prepared to be scrupulous in his dealings with WP:CSD, the criteria of which appear to be inscrutable when we count the number of times their meaning has had to be explained over the years. His promotion will supply net dividends. NTox · talk 03:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
122. Support with reservations - There's something not quite right here, I've been looking over Dennis' contributions and I do feel uneasy, though I can't put my finger on why. Having said that, based on the comments above (and below), I cannot see any reason why he should not be an admin. Very much a case of "why not"? Worm^TT · (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
123. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
124. Support - No concerns. This user seems clueful. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
125. Support...tread lightly on CSD's...no brownie points are awarded to those who act with haste...better to be cautious and methodical....MONGO 14:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
126. Support. Even 91% hit rate for CSD would be high enough - and considering the metric is actually a vast underestimate, he certainly deserves to become an admin handling CSDs. I don't see the 9% or less being a problem: speedy-ing a page takes at least 2 people. Deryck C. 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

     It doesn't if you're an administrator, which is the point. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

127. Support. Seems a thoroughly sound candidate.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
128. Support I know that there were some incorrect csd tags that he made, with the most recent one being actually this month, but as MisterGugaruz mentioned that he is a quick learner, I believe that he will learn from those mistakes and not get caught deleting the wrong page. Minima© (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

     I wont consider him a quick learner for CSDs. He might be excellent learner in other areas, but not at CSDs, because Mabdul mentioned that he made silly tags in Nov 11' and Scotty mentioned the trouble that he still faces with CSD in the months of April and March 12'. I think that 3 months are enough to learn from mistakes. Dennis also did, but little. He still has misfires in dealing with CSDs which is not a good sign for an admin. I m not opposing your stand nor asking you to change vote, but just said what I felt. Thanks! Yasht101 07:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

     CSD isn't the only thing an admin needs to look at. I find his sense of judgement quite good. But then each person has the right to his or her opinion. Peace. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

     I agree with you, but Dennis when asked that what admin works will he do, the first thing that he said was CSD. There are no doubts in his superb judgement abilities, but when it comes to CSDs, he is not ready to deal with it. Yasht101 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

     Stop badgering the supports, just as much as supporters shouldn't badger opposes. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

     Badgering? Isn't that just a normal discussion? Badgering is what Leaky caldron is doing a couple of votes down. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

     I repudiated what I considered to be a poor !vote. Something you frequently do yourself. Now let's just leave it at that, please. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

     No, you didn't. You attempted to paint the voter in a rather less than flattering light in an attempt to undermine his position. That's badgering. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

129. Support. No candidates are perfect, and I don't see any significant behavioral problems here. I can trust this user with tools. BusterD (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
130. Support. The CSD issues aside, this is a strong candidate. I have no doubt that he will manage his involvement in that area and I do not share Yasht101's concerns. Bearing in mind that Yasht was an unequivocal, "strong" supporter who had "no doubts" about the candidate a few days ago, their sudden change of heart because of CSD issues should not be taken too seriously (although I appreciate the concerns of those editors who have actually carried out some diligent research rather than jumping on a bandwagon). Leaky Caldron 14:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
131. Support Yes, there are some legitimate concerns about past CSD tags. I don't think he will destroy Wikipedia, turn into a sabre-toothed vandal or become disruptive. Honestly, RfA is not The Apprentice. Pol430 talk to me 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
132. Support. Thoughtful and committed candidate, with good experience; sensible responses to the rather large number of questions in this RfA. Candidate has indicated they will take on board the concerns about their CSD tagging, and based on my evaluation of the rest of their candidacy, there is no reason not to take them at their word. The attempts to canvass against this RfA, based purely on a single carefully-considered comment that the candidate made at ANI, are particularly loathesome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
133. Support- Despite CSD concerns, fully qualified. Expect you'll take more care there. Dru of Id (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
134. Support Good answers to most of the questions above. Has the support of many well respected users and administrators. CSD tagging and some issues at administrator's noticeboard seems to be the main concern of the opposition. But the very fact is overlooked that Dennis Brown is a trusted user who has been here for a long time (since Semptember 2006), has a clean block log, multiple edits in various areas which makes them a sensible and suitable user for the Adminship. I agree to many CSD links provided here were not correct tagging, but the user has always assumed good faith and tries to improve Wikipedia like all of us and mistakes do happen which every user has done at one point of time or the other as we all are human beings. For a few negative points it's not right to ignore so many positive points of this user. But nonetheless this user will make a good admin as they promise to learn from their mistakes, take advice from other experienced users and strive to improve our home Wikipedia as best as they can which we all came here for. New potential Admins are always needed on the fast growing Wikipedia. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Recently declined CSD tagging doesn't inspire me with confidence, particularly when CSD is #1 on the list of things on which the candidate plans on working. Some 2012 examples:
   • A7 declined for being a product as opposed to a company or organization
   • A7 for an energy drink linked to "50 cent"
   • A7 for an actor who is currently on an ABC show and is "set to star in a short film"
   • A7 for an artist, article says "In 2011 over fifty of her drawings were acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum in London."
   • G11 for a piece of software, literally only one spammy sentence in the article that is otherwise fine
   • G12 but the copyvio site was a wikipedia mirror
   • A7 for a company that is clearly described as being a giant multinational which holds tons of capital
   • G11 for an article whose content just points to an article on the german wikipedia. How is this advertising?
   • A7 on an owner of an NHL team

   ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 22:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   Would you be willing to support if he stayed away from CSD? MrLittleIrish^(talk) 10:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   I would gladly support if he took as little as 3 months to show us that he understands A7 and G11. Promises to not use a certain tool are non-binding, and adminship is forever, as we all know. This is the one time where we have the opportunity to say "yes, the candidate knows what he needs to know" or "no, he doesn't". And while I don't think he's far off, I also don't think he's quite there yet. Should this RfA be unsuccessful, the comments in the oppose column should serve as a handy guide for what to improve on before coming back in a few months. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 13:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Please see answer 8. You stated you would consider support if he met criteria. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 13:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

   We all make mistakes in CSD tagging, a similar discussion took place at my RfA 12 months ago, one that would be well worth reading for those opposing on this basis (look in neutral votes). Dennis' performance at CSD is not one that I regard as particularly problematic, particularly in the light of the assurances he has made. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   The A7 product not company one I declined, and I'm surprised I didn't leave him a note. As it happens, the product was so lacking in the necessary to survive as an article that I turned it into a redirect. It's a very common mistake generally - albums get tagged db-band when the band is in there and bluelinked and so on. I would imagine Dennis is boning up on CSD at the moment and will be fine come the day. Peridon (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Respectfully oppose per Scottywong. 50.22.206.179 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I am not seeing examples where this users benefit to the program will be increased by additional user rights. - Youreallycan 22:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   I spent last Thursday thru to Monday being (it felt like) the only admin in the place. I'm sure I wasn't (there was some other guy I kept hearing in the corridors) but for example every single notice board backed up. You're right, a mop won't improve Dennis's abilities at negotiating, but it would help keep the project running more generally. That's my perspective anyway. Your view may vary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   Yes - occasionally there is a lack of admins available to protect articles and suchlike - I just don't feel that is a good reason to promote limited candidates- Often I need to block vandals and protect articles but I can't - but the wheels don't drop off. Youreallycan 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   There are thousands of admins, which is one of my main reasons I rejected nomination myself, and hundreds of projects who needs admins much more than english wikipedia. I doubt there is a single minute when admin is "the only one available" it always takes to me few minutes to find any admin who can do what I need. But it's quite possible there is a number of them lazy to work :-) Petrb (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, I actually looked on the number of admins we have, it's much less than I thought :-) but still it doesn't seem to be hard to find some, that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't get more of course, there is never enough Petrb (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   It might look like there's a lot, but most are not active these days, and we have times when there is a real shortage. For example, the Request for page protection list can get very long, with edit-warring and vandalism continuing while there's nobody to work on it. And we can go days without anyone available for things like sock-puppet investigations or copyright investigations (both of which need admins to delete/block/protect as appropriate). And even if a new admin isn't ready to get straight into tricky areas, every small admin task they do means less work for the more experienced admins and frees them up for more complicated stuff. We really do have a shortage of active admins, and it's only getting worse - so Petrb, if you think you could pass RfA, we could use your help! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   I'd gladly offer to become an admin however, I'd just get snowed out.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 21:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Considering adminship is no big deal and Jimbo once threatened to randomly make people sysops then I think your argument for opposing is really poor and needs to be struck. 140.247.141.140 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

   Moved to support. Oppose - Far too erratic of an edit history. Even ignoring the break from '09-'11: 468 in 7/07, then 64 in 9/07, then 1096 in 1/08, then 22 in 5/08, then 1744 in 10/08, 14 in 2/11, 655 in 4/11, then 16 in 7/11, and back to 1289 in 2/12. Will move to support if I see a legitimate reason for these massive hills and valleys in editing. A non-consistent editing history does not inspire me to believe admin contributions will be consistent. A412 (Talk • C) 22:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   Why would admin (or any other) actions need to be numerically consistent month-by-month? (I'm not trying to badger you, I'm just genuinely curious as to why you might have what seems to me to be a rather bizarre requirement) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   Bizarre is a kind way of putting it. Why a candidate has more time to spend volunteering some months than others is nobody's business but his own. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   And where were you, A412 (if that is who you really are), from October of 2010 through December of 2011? Hm? Off being erratic somewhere, I bet! And then a jump from 0 edits in December 2011 to a colossal 1992 in January 2012? Followed by a 63% drop to a mere 739 edits the very next month? How suspicious! I don't see how you were even trusted with mere rollback tools with such a suspect editing pattern. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Per Scottywong. →Στc. 23:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose Snottywong's list is really problematic, for me. I can't recall the last time I've seen an otherwise credible (so far) candidate at Rfa with such a trigger happy and frankly clueless approach to speedy tagging. These are recent edits, too. I'm sure there have been some solid speedy tags, but SW's list makes it difficult for me to trust this editor at closing deletions, which is a pretty important part of the job, I'd say. And in response to Dennis' comment below, I'm sorry but I don't see adminship as the place to learn the basics of speedy deletion criteria. sorry, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Moved to support. Oppose I will gladly support if CSDs weren't one of the things he plans on doing.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 10:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Editor has already suggested that he will stay away from CSD if requested. See his reply at the bottom of Neutral. MrLittleIrish^(talk) 10:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose per the CSD tagging, which also suggest judgement issues. Rather than promise to stay away from CSD for ever, I'd rather he improved his tagging and then retake an RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose per Snottywong. Candidate makes huge errors. Will probably support if candidate commits to spending 6 months without using the tools in CSD and continues to tag to get experience and reviews WP:CSD again to get a clearer understanding of CSD A7.--v/r - TP 13:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC) As an addendum: a good essay on this topic is for the candidate's review is WP:WIHSD.--v/r - TP 14:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   • User intends to avoid using the mop in CSD for awhile and has put enough attention to reviewing the criteria and essays for me to feel comfortable that they take this seriously and I can trust them to be careful. I don't like to see RfAs on perfectly capable candidates tank over issues that can or are fixed at RFA so I am moving to support.--v/r - TP 22:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Take a look at the bottom of Neutral, candidate has said he will stay away from CSD, he may also perform in the guidelines you have suggested. MrLittleIrish^(talk) 13:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   If this Rfa succeeds -- as it might -- on that basis, fine. That'd be a change in tone for Rfa, imo. And maybe a good thing! Likely we do need to start giving candidates more benefit of the doubt, here, as Dennis seems to be getting. Fine. But we've set a fairly high bar here for other candidates, and again: comprehension of simply-worded definitions for something as elementary as speedy tagging should not be a challenge for any admin. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   @ Mr little irish: Thanks, I saw that. Notice where I said "commits". The candidate said they would if requested, I said I would if they commit. @ Shawn in Montreal: Yes, we do set the bar high and I'm definitely willing to give a decent candidate the benefit of the doubt if they commit themselves to improving in an area of weakness.--v/r - TP 13:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   @ TP, just making sure mainly. I have asked the question (#8 on the list) to see if he is willing to commit. Sorry if I sounded patronising. MrLittleIrish^(talk) 14:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   No problem. I saw your comment to Cyberpower is what made me look below. I saw your question and it seems Dennis is online now and answering questions so we'll see how it goes.--v/r - TP 14:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose Another example of over-reaching: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dehaene-Changeux Model. Warden (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   That is an AFD from last October, one that even had to be re-listed to generate consensus to keep. I'm not sure what you mean by "over-reaching" in that context. Pedro :  Chat  19:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   AFD requires a consensus to delete to have a point but it was obvious from the outset that this was a respectable topic. The candidate persisted in trying to attack the topic past the point of reasonableness even though it was quite technical and he had no expertise in that topic. This doesn't make him a wicked person but he seems too quick to rush to judgement and too inclined to dig in rather than withdrawing gracefully when out of his depth. Warden (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

   "inclined to dig in rather than withdrawing gracefully" .... talk about the pot and the kettle... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

   "It takes one to know one". Giving in gracefully is a rare virtue on Wikipedia and so I like to award a barnstar when I see it done. Warden (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

   Warden, you are right that I botched the nomination, and I admitted as much in my first response. Even when verbally assualted by GrandPhilliesFan, I only brought up the primary sources, which were a concern expressed by others. I remained civil and didn't bludgeon or dig in. Once others bought up different concerns, it would have been improper for me to close early. We all make mistakes and I have a clear history of admitting mine. By your own admission, "giving in gracefully is a rare virtue on Wikipedia", but I challenge you to look at other AFDs when I have closed early (there are several over the last 5.5 years) before rushing to judgement. We all make mistakes, but surely you can see that I won't try to cover mine up. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 14:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I want to support, but.... I had previously noticed some of the candidate's postings and found them good. The answers to questions show he understands what is going on (BTW, Q10 BLP is an explicit exception at WP:NOT3RR). He is a solid candidate. I looked at the challenged CSD tags above, and his tagging is a cause for concern. His answer to question 4 was reassuring on that matter and showed self reflection and a willingness to change. The offer to abstain from CSD for a time shows both sophistication and judgment -- characteristics admins should have. His responses are strong enough to waive the CSD issue. I'm all set to support, but I took another look at his contributions and found today's keep vote at AfD/WireDoo. This AfD vote was made after the CSD discussion here. "I agree that it is weak, in alpha stage, not open to the public, and may never come to fruition, but when CNN and the LA Times cover it and do so in a significant way, it seems to be notable." I have trouble with the premise that something that is still under wraps is notable. It can happen, but it would be unusual. Furthermore, I don't see CNN's spare 5 paragraphs being significant coverage.[7] The LA Times blog is an interview that mostly quotes WireDoo's MC Hammer.[8] Consequently, the source is not independent; it is essentially a live press release. Where the LA times strays from quoting MC Hammer, it is skeptical of WireDoo's chances -- suggesting that WireDoo will crash and burn rather than be significant. The articles exist because MC Hammer is famous. Products and services don't acquire notability by association. That one AfD vote spins me around. I'm now reluctant to waive the CSD tagging issue and am left wondering about his WP:N judgment. The metric is not abusing the tools, and that requires good judgment. I think the proper action is to wait. Glrx (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
   • Thank you for the kind words and for referring to me as a strong candidate, even though you have reservations about me handling the mop. As to this one AFD, we can discuss it at the AFD itself, so I won't address it here. If you feel this strongly that my "keep" !vote in one ongoing AFD should prevent me from carrying the mop, then that is certainly your right and I won't labor the issue. To be honest, a part of me was thinking I should avoid AFDs, ANI and anything that could be controversial during the RfA process. That would have been the easy way out, but it would have felt a little slimy. I don't know how deeply you looked into my history because you didn't say, but to be honest, I would hate to think that someone opposed me at RfA because they disagreed with one !vote at one AFD. If you haven't already, I would only ask you do look before coming to a conclusion about my judgement and committing to an oppose. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose. Moved to neutral support. Part of this oppose is for the various CSD, AfD and such judgment issues, and in normal circumstances I'd suggest to wait, improve in those areas, and try again later. However, a large part of my oppose is also based on my concern as to whether the candidate is perhaps putting too much energy into this RfA. Comments like "a part of me was thinking I should avoid AFDs, ANI and anything that could be controversial during the RfA process." and the fact that his talk page is literally flooded with planning for this RfA have led to this concern, and I'd suggest stepping back and realizing that adminship isn't an honor or an achievement, but a tool and nothing more.--Slon02 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Could you please rethink your oppose? Not that it's not a valid concern, but RFA is tough as it is and this just seems like another roadblock that shouldn't exist.--v/r - TP 00:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

   The reason why the candidate planned this RfA is because it is well known how much of a stressfull time it can be. Avoid drama where possible. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 08:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

   I wouldn't say that his talk page is flooded with RfA planning. On the 16th, he asked for input about is suitability as a candidate, which immediately came with overwhelming support. On the 18th he accepted the nomination. While you are free to take whatever position you choose on his suitability, I believe the statement you are backing it up with to be incorrect. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Sloppy CSD-tagging. Another example is this, where Dennis Brown obviously didn't even read the article before slapping several inapplicable tags on it, including an db-person tag. (Clue: it is not about a person, which is obvious when you read beyond the first five or six words.) --Hegvald (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Scottywong points out many problems with CSD tagging. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Per Scottywong. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose - Because I can and because I don't think he's good enough with articular development. --Spanky The Warrior (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC) User blocked as a sock of User:Papa Smooch. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Too many problems with CSD tagging for now. I am very impressed with Dennis's civility, reflectiveness, and wilingness to learn, but I think that adminship at this stage would be premature. I look forward to supporting a further nomination when he has demonstrated improved judgement at CSD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

    This is an absurd reason to !vote against a very qualified individual. 140.247.141.140 (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC) (Blocked troll -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

12. Q2 -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Speedy deletion tagging of Tanya Ling two minutes after the article was created strikes me as an example of very poor judgment. It also came across as biting a newcomer - (the creator had only edited one article before creating this article). I know we all make mistakes - so please let us give Dennis Brown time to learn from his mistakes, instead of giving him tools to make bigger mistakes.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose Candidate shoots first, figures out situations later. Not what we need. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

    More strongly - having now reviewed the very recent uptick in "meetoo" ANI comments, I am seriously concerned that this user seeks tools fro the wrong reasons. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

15. Oppose We don't need another junior-high school vice-principal reciting cliches and apologizing for administrators violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF, as in BrownEyedGirl's thread at ANI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
16. Weak oppose - Partly per Kiefer.Wolfowitz and partly per Scottywong. If the candidate had not planned on getting involved in CSD, I would probably be supporting. However, he had thought that he was good enough at CSD to start deleting pages as an admin (see A1), which raises doubts as to his judgment. His intent to be an ANI admin is not really a positive, but given that Pedro is nominating him, I doubt he will be too much of a drama-maker. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose. It's ridiculous to promote someone on the basis of an unenforceable promise to stay away from one area or another for some vague period of time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

    Malleus was WP:CANVASSed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

    You allege that I was canvassed, not at all the same thing Sarek. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

    Can you explain the diff provided then? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 13:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    I have already done so elsewhere, several times. And as KW has been blocked for that posting I see nothing to be gained by doing so here again. Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    I think it should be explained here, or links should be provided. Could you do this please? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 13:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    If you want KW to explain his posting on my talk page then I suggest you ask him yourself. If you're suggesting that I was swayed in my vote by KW's posting then you better be prepared to offer some evidence for that. Malleus Fatuorum 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    Actually I think Malleus - of all people - is sufficiently confident in his own opinion not to come here just because KeiferWolfowitz told him to. He has already said that he was going to oppose for the reason given. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks Elen. Even Pedro has admitted that he had been expecting me to oppose earlier and was wondering why I hadn't. Obviously I can't speak for KW's motivations in posting on my talk page, but I can say categorically that it made no difference to my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    My thoughts exactly. Technically it was canvassing but it was pointless canvassing. Canvassing you to an RFA is like canvassing Homer Simpson to a doughnut shop that just opened across the street from his house. You would have !voted, (or not !voted) on your own. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

18. Oppose Per Shawn in Montreal and Brown Haired Girl.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose Recent activity at AN/I concerns me. Many of his comments - which have voluminously increased during this RFA - consist of generic platitudes and seem to be aimed at scoring wikipolitical points. Skinwalker (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose. The examples presented by Scottywong and Hegvald of CSD being misapplied are extremely concerning to me. Not just because they demonstrate poor knowledge of the criteria, which anyone working in that area really should be certain of, but they also present evidence of a cavalier attitude to deletion. Hegvald's diff in particular makes it clear that Dennis didn't even read the article beyond its first few words. the wub "?!" 20:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Hipocrite. Sasha (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Malleus. We turn away candidates who could put some of the tools to excellent use, on the basis that they are not knowledgeable in all the necessary areas. This process is in place to ensure that candidates meet the competency level required to use the bundled tools, is it not? Mato (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
23. Examples of delete-happiness are too worrying. Not now. - filelakeshoe 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Scotty, additional I found some more tagged in Nov '11:
    • Twister Mania: G11 (Nov '11) the creator added the hard facts: game console, developer, features, competitors (similar to "see also"), and many external links...
    • Mick McAteer: A7 (Nov '11) with two really reliable references
    • Merchant Prince II: G11 (Nov '11): again only an infobox with a one-sentence-lede: It's a strategy game!
    • George Stonbely: A7 (Nov '11):including a NYTimes article which has two pages!
    • TXT-TV: G11 (Nov '11): Infobox with two formal information (owned by, what the channel broadcasts)

    mabdul 22:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

25. Oppose - does not seem ready. pablo 11:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Scotty and Mabdul. These diffs are too recent and too egregious for me to support at this time. I was also a little turned off by the volume and nature of recent contributions to AN/I. Shame as otherwise seemed a great candidate. --John (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    I consider November 2011 to be far enough in the past. As for the ANI contributions, I think that Dennis does feel the need to visit ANI in order to prove something, which he doesn't. I'm reminded of students who totally screw up their writing when they're writing English papers because they think "OMG I'M WRITING AN ENGLISH PAPER". I try to tell them that their normal style of writing is probably fine and that nothing is gained by getting all verklemmt. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    November 2011 is far enough in the past, if he has shown that he has learned since then. See the diffs in my oppose above, some of which are from a few weeks ago. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

27. Oppose I would like to support this, but I can't ignore the poor speedy deletion tagging identified by Scottywong and others. It's clear the examples are not isolated cases or occasional mistakes. Though a 90% record sounds good it could translate into a lot of mistakes for an admin who does a lot of CSD work (if such a person were to review 500 articles that's 50 erroneous deletions). If this doesn't pass I suggest that the candidate spends a few months improving their CSD work and reapply in a few months. Hut 8.5 15:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
28. Oppose – Many of those supporting believe that the candidate has taken the CSD concerns on board, but Pedro rightly pointed out in November 2011 concerns both about incorrect tagging and biting newbies. He said he would work on it, but he continued to place incorrect speedy tags and hasty tags (within minutes of article creation) well into 2012. Then he presented himself in RfA as eager to work in CSD. (This brings up concerns about self-awareness about one's limitations which I think is important for an admin.) He responded in this RfA saying that he was a "quick study" and would accept mentoring. Okay, but I'm not sure why his speedy tagging did not change earlier, such as when he continued to have multiple tags declined in 2012. (...again, self-awareness about one's limitations.) I'm also concerned in that comment he said that previously when he tagged articles for deletion there were "virtually no consequences for being wrong" which seems to completely ignore the bitey effect upon new editors. The increased participation at ANI this week in and of itself does not bother me much, but it fits with my impression of him not being particularly aware of how his behaviour may come across to other editors. Too many concerns; sorry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    I would only point out that "virtually no consequences" was referring to the person who improperly tagged, not the to new editor. Admins seldom bother to scold/correct/inform the tagging party. Some are great about it, most are not, and I've not seen sanctions against someone for bad CSD tagging. Compare this to an AFD, where if you flub the nomination, several people may call you out and embarrass you, which are personal consequences. Apologies if I didn't make that point clear the first time. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

29. Oppose I tend to see CSD tagging as a reasonable indicator of how admins will act 'when on their own' and what impact they may have. His posts in the lime light ANI might tell me something different yet, but i can't really figure it out. So while I echo WormTT's feeling in general, I nevertheless come to a different conclusion and see this request as a case of "Rather not".--Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
30. Oppose I can't support this candidate in good faith due to the CSD tagging concerns. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
31. Oppose - I was previously supporting, but per Toddy1 and Hipocrite. Yasht101 04:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose - As per John and Yasht101 92.51.240.129 (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

    IP vote indented. As has already been mentioned, IPs cannot vote in RFAs (due to sockpuppetry issues), but they can participate in the discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

Moved to support While I have no doubt that Dennis Brown is a well meaning and productive editor, I'm concerned about CSD A7 nominations they made in the last 3 months that were declined, particularly in light of the intent to work with CSD indicated by the answer to question 1. (diffs available if requested) Monty₈₄₅ 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Diffs requested; nevertheless I will say that I'm highly inclined to support regardless.  Frank  |  talk  21:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Article versions as tagged: [9][10][11][12][13] Monty₈₄₅ 21:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about this. I learned through experience that, if CSD tagging is an issue at your RfA, you go very cautiously with CSDs. I said in my support that this user responds well to criticism; I have little doubt that they will be aware of this issue, be willing to start cautiously and listen to any feedback on their CSDs they get. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I would delete three of those five under CSD as they exist today, and would have deleted all five as they were tagged without a second thought. I may even nominate some at AFD now.  Frank  |  talk  21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to mostly agree with you Frank. I'm pretty cautious with speedies in general (and the respected User:DGG even more so!) but anything like this I'd have deleted without batting much of an eyelid. Having said that, I appreciate Monty845's concern and thank him for his diligence in research; and it's noted Monty is neutral not opposing. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Patrolling the back end of the New Articles queue is a better idea than jumping on new articles and tagging them like this within minutes of their creation as he was doing in these cases. The articles were skimpy on refs at the time he tagged them, but some had only been up for 20 minutes. I would feel better about the tags if the article had been in the New Pages queue for a week or two and were still this skimpy on refs. Some did have a claim (however unsupported) of notability. He seems to be sensible and responsive to criticism, so I will be in the "Support" column.Edison (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The one Pedro linked is very borderline, in that while it does explain the significance, writing the book, just writing any book is a pretty weak claim of importance. Of the other 4, 1 wasn't a topic eligible for A7, and the other 3 clearly did indicate why the subject was important, even if the subjects are questionably notable. Particularly [14] makes it very clear why the subject is important, and the assertions when properly referenced certainly would establish notability. Monty₈₄₅ 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I felt like I should reply here because Monty (and others) have expressed a valid concern. My desire to serve on CSD isn't because I feel I excel in this area, it is because there appears to be a need. Additionally, it is an area where I can actually learn something, a challenge if you will. I won't bore you with my life story, but in short, I'm motivated by personal challenges. In the past, I had someone with a mop to make sure I was right, and virtually no consequences for being wrong. If I'm handed the mop, you will find me much more conservative, and asking for other admin's opinions before acting, perhaps annoyingly so. I've been here a long time and have had a lot of opportunity to screw up my CSD ratio before even considering serving as an admin, and I'm still at 91% since 2008, as pointed out above. That isn't good enough to work CSD, obviously, but imagine if I was being mindful. I would stay out of CSD if asked, but I am a quick study and I'm more concerned about making mistakes than you are. This concern will guide me in learning how to properly apply policy, if given the opportunity. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 00:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - seems a good editor, but per ScottyWong. Moved to Oppose. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Neutral as per the Observer effect. I do see a lot of good work from this candidate, and I place a great deal of faith in the wisdom of the co-nominators. But I also see that the user's involvement at ANI has spiked since early March. Now, ANI is quite busy, and it's likely that an editor working his way toward adminship would get involved in areas that involve admins - like ANI. ANI is also the candidate's most edited Wikipedia-space page, with routine edits dating back to early 2011. So involvement there isn't a recent thing, but it feels like all of a sudden I'm seeing a lot of comments from this editor at ANI - and, indeed, 170 of the candidate's last 250 Wikipedia-space edits are to ANI, all in the last 15 days. That's not good, that's not bad - but it gives me pause. I want to support, but I also want to take the time to look into the candidate a bit more. I cite the observer effect because of the impression that the candidate's behavior changed when his RFA was imminent and ongoing - in other words, when the world was watching. And that bothers me for reasons that I can't quite articulate. Dennis, don't take this as criticism - RFA does change everything. But, I dunno, I gotta call it as I see it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Neutral, but leaning oppose much more than support; Ultra above me and Paul Erik both make very good points. I had seen his pre-RfA review requests on a couple of the pages I stalk, and was indeed favorably impressed with him, his friends (don't let anyone say that doesn't matter) and Pedro's confidence in him. That said, Dennis reminds me a lot of another RfA candidate whose behavior was similar, but more extreme. Lots of stuff at ANI, lots of admin-y edits in a variety of areas despite often missing some basic knowledge about them (<-- the other user, not DB). S/he would never pass, and I feel like I'm looking at the same person in DB, just later in their wiki-life. I don't feel like I can outright oppose, since I don't think that DB would be a negative as an admin. However, comments like this really don't help him (why aren't you "mindful" now?) really don't help. DB is a great editor, but I'm not sure that he's honestly admin material. That's not a dig at him - some people just don't have the mindset - but I do think it's shown this last week. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:34, 24 April 2012 (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.