Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67 2

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

Dodger67

Final (133/9/3); Closed as successful by — xaosflux ^Talk at 05:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Dodger67 (talk · contribs) – Roger (Dodger67) has been one of the longest-standing contributors to the Articles for creation project, regularly helping to clear the backlog of drafts and discuss the future of page curation and how we deal with new articles. He's no slouch with content creation either with a couple of GAs under his belt, including Imperial Gift, and being a key player in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability, particularly the social aspects of how a disability affects people.

This is Roger's second RfA; since the first in 2014 he has kept an active CSD log, and is now particularly good at spotting copyright violations (WP:CSD#G12) and blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). Most importantly, he got a positive response from a candidate poll last year, where there was a strong consensus that it's time to give Roger the bit. Since then, he has continually shown good judgment in CSDs and AfDs and with people now actively wanting to support an RfA, it's high time we did that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm very happy to be co-nominating Roger for adminship. With almost 10 years of experience on the encyclopedia, and a great balance of content creation, background work, and helping other users, I think Roger would make a fine administrator. It's hard to find good things to say about Roger that haven't already been said at his previous RfA, ORCP poll, or talk page, but I'll try to summarise the highlights.

Roger has a great history of content creation, having started over 50 articles and edited numerous more, especially in the area of disability, where he does fantastic and important content work. He also spends time reviewing AfC submissions and helping new users; I encourage you to read through his talk page responses where he is always patient and helpful. In his last RfA issues were raised regarding Roger's voting and nominations at AfD, issues that I am confident to say he has taken on board and addressed in the two years since; he now has a good track record at AfD, leaving me confident that he has a good understanding of the relevant policies. Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination with thanks to all who have supported and advised me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'd begin with relatively simple tasks such as moving over redirects that fairly frequently are a blockage to accepting new drafts at AFC. The ability to deal with the large amount of obvious junk in the NPP and AFC streams would be useful too. Undeletion for WP:REFUNDs and history merges would enhance my ability to help new contributors create their first articles. The ability to see deleted content will also help to deal with G4 speedy nominations. I'd also help out with uncontroversial mopping up such as clear vandalism and the various administrative backlogs that are a perennial problem. When it comes to the more technically complex or controversial administrative tasks I will at first observe how they are done and ask experienced admins for advice before following suit.

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

A: Without a doubt WP:WikiProject Disability, which I and a few other editors started in June 2010. It has brought an entire field of knowledge to en.WP that it had barely covered before. Prior to the establishment of the WikiProject the vast majority of content about disability and related topics were from an almost exclusively medical aspect. The Project has resulted in more balanced coverage by introducing the Social model of disability and other voices to articles about disability. The Project has also helped increase the number and variety of articles concerning disability - particularly those areas "invisible" when viewed from an exclusively medical POV such as the political, economic, and social aspects of disability.

Other "Content" WikiProjects I am active in are WP:WikiProject South Africa, WP:WikiProject Military History and WP:WikiProject Aviation, as these are topic areas I am interested in and have some knowledge, as well as a fairly decent bookshelf of sources for when Google fails to deliver.

As far as new content creation is concerned my contributions are more modest, I tend to prefer contributing to improving existing articles more than create new ones. I know I am not a composer of scintillating prose, so most of the articles I have created (about 50 so far, see my user page - the X-Tools count list is inaccurate) are fairly basic. One of my strengths is in doing research and finding good sources. I have however taken two of the articles I created to GA - Imperial Gift and South Africa at the 2012 Summer Paralympics (assisted by User:Basement12). I have a further "to do" list of several articles I've created that I will put through GAN. (I also constantly have a handful of drafts at various stages of development in my sandbox.) My content creation has slowed down somewhat in recent years as I have been busy studying toward a degree in Communication Science which took up a lot of my spare time.

My participation at AFC, though sporadic, is also a net gain for the English Wikipedia as I have been able to guide many newbies through our rules and processes. My contributions at various help desks has, I believe, also been useful to newbies and thus advanced the cause of editor retention too. I also contribute to various discussions at the Village pumps and other "behind the scenes" venues.

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: As I have been an active Wikipedian for more than nine years (with about 70,000 edits on my log) it is practically inevitable that I have been involved in a few conflicts. When the situation gets stressful I tend to withdraw, some time out helps to cool down. None of the conflicts I have been involved in (so far) have resulted in blocks or other action against me. I believe my "step away and cool off" strategy is effective and it will remain how I deal with future situations that may become heated. Calling on other Wikipedians (and in future fellow Admins if successful here) to help out, per the dispute resolution policy, can also be an effective way of defusing tension by introducing fresh opinions. I have tended to avoid the "drama boards" but if I do get the mop I will most probably get more involved there as it (inevitably) comes with the job.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from BU Rob13

4. Could you provide one or two specific examples of conflict you've been a part of to illustrate your "step away and cool off" strategy?

A: I'm afraid this is a very difficult question to answer. How do I show where I chose not to get involved, or find a case somewhere in my contributions log where I stopped my involvement in an issue? It's a bit like trying to answer the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. I'm really trying not to duck this question. Perhaps I could point to the fact that I am only mentioned as an involved party at ANI a handful of times, but what does that actually prove? Or how about looking at the timestamps when someone posted an agressive message on my talk page and I took some time to reply, like this one where instead of acting on the impulse to tell the editor to "f... off!", I chose to let it lie for a few hours to do something else, and eventually replied just before going to bed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Any examples would be good, including content disputes that resolved normally without a terrible amount of conflict, a time you posed an RfC to address a disagreement you had with other editors, etc. I'm asking mostly because RfA voters like to see how you face a situation where someone else disagrees with you (especially if they do so in a hostile manner). This happens to administrators even when we try to avoid it. I do appreciate the one example you gave. You're welcome to provide others or not at your discretion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks BU Rob13, I'll try to find some but my editing has been remarkably devoid of conflict recently so it may take some time for me to dig up examples. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Here's a good example, after my post appealing for the stick to be dropped I removed myself from further discussion. (Thanks to Mkativerata for finding it) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment His withdrawal at the last RfA was extremely courteous, shows his maturity in dealing with conflicting views, and displays his ability to step away from a process and allow time for re-evaluation (2½ years, in this case) — Iadmc♫^talk  11:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - I've remembered this ANI case from September 2014. It is a rather "large" case as many different pages are linked, I was involved in several of the content disputes related to this case. The matter had a positive outcome as the "offending" user became a productive Wikipedian, under a different username. (Sorry it's taking so long to find examples, it's just that I'm far more often thanked than yelled at. I have spent about three hours reading my entire talk page archive trying to find more examples for this topic.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Dane

5. You mention that you would like to work in the administrative backlogs. Which specific backlogs would you focus the most attention on? Are there any you would abstain from working on due to being unfamiliar with a process?

A: Some admin backlogs I'd be comfortable working on:Category:Requested edits, Category:Expired proposed deletions, Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Holding pen, certain types of Speedy deletions (the ones that are pretty obvious).

Admin backlogs I'd not touch until I learn more about them:WP:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser (I've never used AWB), History merges (from what I've seen these appear to be anything but simple), I'd be careful of AFDs that are not really very clear, the DYK queue is another I would first have to learn about.

I'm sure there are many other such tasks that I would first need to evaluate to see whether I'm comfortable doing them or not. Thanks for the interesting question. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

6. I didn't attend your first RfA and so have just been looking to see what went wrong there. There was some fuss about "shitholes" so I investigated that. That issue arose at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manarcad Church. The swearing seemed to be a minor matter but people seemed to have difficulty finding good sources for this topic and it still rests upon a few citations to The Hindu, which seem quite weak. I just had a look for sources myself and was soon able to find references such as Cultural Heritage of Kerala: An Introduction which says "The wooden altar panel of the St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian church, Manarcad, has been carved on either side with tiny..." and Stark World Kerala which says "Just nine kilometres from Kottayam town is the Manarcad Marthamariam Church, an ancient church believed to have been built over a thousand ...". These and other sources look quite promising. How is it that you missed them? Please explain your current understanding of WP:BEFORE and how you put this into practice. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A: Andrew Davidson I'm afraid the first part of your question "How is it that you missed them?" is really hard to answer. This event occurred back in August 2013, perhaps the sources you found were not available then? (You have not actually provided a link to them, so I have no idea where you found them.) My understanding of WP:BEFORE is that a proper effort needs to be made to find sources before PRODing or AFDing an article for lack of Notability. I put it into practice by doing exactly that, searching for sources using Google, Google News, Google Scholar and JSTOR when relevant. I can't think of an occasion where I have made a BEFORE mistake after my first RFA. Following BEFORE has even proved useful for my work at AFC; I have occasionally found sources and provided the links to submitting editors, instead of simply declining drafts for lack of notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You'll find Cultural Heritage of Kerala: An Introduction here and here; and Stark World Kerala here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The two Google Books links do not show a preview, so I am unable to determine what content is in there, while the PDF source only shows the first 15 pages, which does not get as far as mentioning churches. Therefore I cannot verify that anything in that article is factually correct. While we should go easy on newbies for adding unsourced content (what is the "foogle play store?"), without actual access to the sources we've got no idea if any content in the article should actually be there or not. Perhaps it's my google-fu having a bad morning but when I try a book search I am rather crestfallen; however I know there is a real problem in finding sources that on Indian topics that the community thinks are acceptable, when compared to similar topics in the West. All said and done, why are we arguing over something that happened three and a half years ago? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Ritchie333, I've only just come back to this, so I am a bit late assisting you. The Google Book links are not previews, they are Snippet View only. There is a search box on each page which you input with an appropriate search term, such as Manarcad, which will give you the info that Andrew D. found and typed out in his question. Not everyone has the skills and experience to do appropriate research, and that is fine. My concern here is that when provided with evidence that Dodger67 is unlikely to have done an adequate or appropriate BEFORE, he becomes defensive, and also still fails to do the appropriate research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first of those sources may be readily found by googling the title. The first hit is Google Books, which is where I found it and the other sources. I usually go to Google Books first because it tends to provide the best sources. And note that WP:BEFORE states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects". Now, that first source was published in 1978 and so I suppose it was there to be found in 2013. I reckon the most likely source of difficulty in finding it would have been the keywords used for searching. For example, the name of the place seems to be written in various ways and it only became a cathedral in 2004. But common sense might have indicated that there were sources to be found as the article when nominated for deletion said, "The stone inscriptions found at the church reveal that the church was built more than a 1000 years ago. Archeologists have found out that these stone inscriptions were memorial stones set up at the tombs in 910 CE and 920 CE". But if we move on from the issue of sourcing, please could the candidate address another issue which arises in WP:BEFORE – consideration of alternatives to deletion. In this case of the cathedral, the topic might have been merged into a page such as Syrian churches of Kerala, say. Can the candidate say something about this aspect please. To what extent does he do this now? Andrew D. (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from Iadmc

7. Question 1: You seem to be heavily involved in such initiatives as the Helpdesk, the Village pump, the Reference desk, Page Curation and the Teahouse. You also mention NPP, AFC and AFD. How important are each of these to the project? Question 2: What is your precise involvement in these? — Iadmc♫^talk  13:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Question refactored by questioner to be in line with "2 questions only". — Iadmc♫^talk  15:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A: The Help desk and Teahouse exist to help users improve and expand en.WP, thus they are of vital importance. Whether the split between the HD and TH are really necessary is not really clear to me, the Teahouse has been described as "Help desk with extra helpings of CIVIL", but CIVIL should apply consistently across the whole WP. I am quite frequently involved in the Teahouse and Help desk as I answer questions (and occasionally ask one too).

The Village pump is a major venue for discussing ideas and plans to improve the way en.WP works, both in terms of technicalities of the software as well as policy and process improvements. Matters discussed at the Village pump consequently affect the usability of the site, both for editors and readers, thus it is also of vital importance. My Village Pump involvement is sporadic, when a topic comes up there that I'm interested in.

The Reference desks are an "optional extra" that is not primarily aligned with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, thus it is of lesser importance. The Reference desks I tend to visit out of curiosity, both to answer and ask questions.

As the main gatekeeping mechanisms of the English Wikipedia NPP, AFC and AFD are the primary quality control system, necessary for removing and preventing undesirable content, thus they are also of vital importance. I am very involved in AFC, it's been my "primary" gnome-work activity for quite a long time. I'm not sure where the impression that I'm very involved in NPP comes from, I have actually done very little NPP reviewing as I prefer AFC's more direct engagement with article authors, the "tag bombing" nature of NPP doesn't appeal to me. However this NPP/AFC reform initiative, initiated by DGG, is IMHO a very promising project, which I am also involved in. My AFD involvement is also sporadic and (it seems from the questions and comments here) perhaps a bit less frequent than is ideally expected of admins. However as an admin I expect my involvement would probably increase over time as my competence and confidence develops, even though AFD-related admin work is definitely not on my list of "things I really want to do as an admin". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a comprehensive and honest answer. Good luck — Iadmc♫^talk  16:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

8. In response to Andrew D. (Q 6) you say "I can't think of an occasion where I have made a BEFORE mistake after my first RFA." Would you like to review the five nominations you have made since that RfA, here, and explain why two of those were withdrawn because you did not do an appropriate BEFORE, and why you didn't mention or notice them when you reviewed your nominations before answering the question? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A: Of my five post "RFA1" AFD nominations, the two that I withdrew are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zi Corporation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia McConnell. Neither withdrawal was due to not doing an "appropriate BEFORE". In both cases the articles were improved during the AFD to the point where the nomination was no longer sustainable, and that is reason for the withdrawals.

As I clearly stated in the "Zi Corporation" case: "sourcing has improved substantially since nomination. My BEFORE search (a Google "news" search) did not deliver many of the sources now used in the article." In fact if I repeat the search now, I still get an overwhelming mass of PR sources about the company (and it's eventual takeover) - once one scrolls past the WP mirrors and the "routine listings and profiles". There is some indication that the litigation about patents involving the company may be notable, one of the "Keep" votes also mentioned it. As it stands now, the article depends heavily on the sources about the lawsuit, which puts it in WP:ONEEVENT territory. The rest of the company history is almost entirely based on PR sources.

In the Patricia McConnell AFD I nominated it because it was an "Unsourced hagiographic BLP created by a COI editor acting under the instruction of the subject, per this Help desk post." The article was in [this condition] when I nominated it]]. Until the cleanup was done the consensus was solidly in favour of deletion; thereafter the "keep" voters all cited the cleanup as the reason for keeping, and I agreed in my withdrawal statement "Even though "AFD is not cleanup", cleanup has nevertheless been done resulting in a marginally acceptable stub." At that point the article [looked like this]. Since then further cleanup has occurred.

In closing may I draw your attention to my entire "post RFA1" AFD record, which has been described by others as "good" and "acceptable". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from SoWhy

9. Since your nominator mentioned your speedy deletion taggings, do you believe in a stricter or a more liberal approach when applying WP:CSD? Can you, in your own words, explain what the requirements are for a page to be deleted under criteria G11 and A7?

A: I don't think "stricter" and "liberal" are useful concepts to apply to the CSD criteria, they seem to be merely synonyms for "deletionist" and "inclusonist". WP:CSD sets out the criteria that must be applied. Whether a particular page ends up getting a stricter or liberal treatment depends on the merits of the specific case.

The G11 criterion is for the deletion of WP:SPAM. If a page exists only to draw attention to the subject it is a promotional page. There is a fairly close relationship between non-notability and promotion. When the subject is notable advertorial content of the page is usually fixable - unless WP:TNT applies. When the subject is clearly non-notable the existence per se of the page is often a form of promotion, particularly when the author has a COI, see WP:BROCHURE and the second paragraph of WP:SPAMMER. Sometime in the last week or two I read a comment (which I have not been able to find again) to the effect that "WP articles should not actually discuss or describe subjects directly, they discuss what independent commentators have already said about the subject". I think it explains the tertiary source nature of WP rather well. That being said, neutral descriptive articles (and drafts) of non-notable topics can also exist, though they are quite rare as there is very little motivation for creating such pages.

The A7 speedy deletion criteria are of the most difficult to apply correctly. A7 criteria are particularly specific and narrowly defined. A7 is about a claim of importance, notability is not relevant. A7 criteria apply only to articles about specific topics. The claim must be believable, not necessarily true, just not absurd or objectively impossible, e.g. "Joe Soap is the first person to land on Mars". If an article about for example a musician has an indication that the subject; was in a notable band or played with a notable musician, had a hit in a national chart (in any country), was contracted to a notable publisher (label), or their music has been broadcast by a non-local radio station - then it is not eligible for A7 deletion, even if the claim is unsourced, or turns out after investigation to be untrue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

10. Can editors expect to get help from ADMINs when they feel their content work is being attacked by other editors? Is it proper for editors to post such a request for help on an ADMINs talk page, as I have recently done?

A: Even though it is not stated as one of the expectations of adminship, helping and advising editors who encounter difficulties (of whatever kind) is a proper role for admins even though it doesn't normally entail using the mop. Such assistance may be as simple as pointing the editor to the Help desk or any other appropriate venue. Admins are (rightly or wrongly) regarded as "senior editors", particularly by newbies, thus admins should expect to be called upon to help. The days of "old grouch" editors getting the mop are over. A generally helpful demeanour and the ability help with technicalities, explain policies and guidelines, and assist with conflict resolution are characteristics expected of admins, even when admin tools are not needed to perform such tasks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

11. Is it important for ADMINs to serve as role models? Do editors emulate the way ADMINs act? Should those ADMINs who are not good role models be reported?

A: Yes, per WP:ADMINCOND (first two sub-questions). The "senior editor" status that is ascribed to admins is here to stay. When WP gets press coverage admins are often described as "senior editors" - even though we know that such a "rank" does not really exist. (see my Answer #10 above) The mop is a "badge of trust" - because of the RFA vetting process that admins go through - with that trust comes responsibility. Admins should indeed be held to the behaviour standards and policies, per WP:ADMINACCT (third sub-question). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from Yash!

12. Can you explain your rationale behind tagging User:Ron7905/sandbox/Ron Franklin - Drifter with G11? - how was it "unambiguously" promotional according to you?

A: If I may borrow a phrase from one of my nominators, Ritchie333 (see the discussion of Neutral opinion #2), it is basically an "autobiographical hagiography". The page is essentially a combination of; a resumé of a non-notable aspirant motor-racing driver; and an advert/catalogue for the products of the subject's sponsors. Drafts like this are quite common in the AFC review stream.

The draft is entirely sourced from the subject's social media and the website of a company owned by the subject - it is also listed as one of the sponsors (driftbuild.com). The "Car Set Up" section is essentially a "catalog" of the subject's company's products. This is the main factor that makes it eligible for G11. Had the draft made it into mainspace, the A7 speedy deletion criterion would also apply as there is nothing that resembles an indication of importance. However, as it is a userspace draft G11 is the only qualifying criterion, though a (weaker IMHO) argument could be made for U5 too. Such a combination of criteria is so common that Twinkle actually offers a combination of G11 and U5 as one of its CSD tagging options. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

13. Presented with a situation like that again, how would you deal with it now?

A: If I were to review this same draft now I would tag it for G11 deletion, if the deletion were to be declined (as a few contributors here have indicated in their opinions it should have been), the next step would be MFD.

If a "situation like that" came up again, I would evaluate the draft in accordance with the AFC reviewing instructions and come to a suitable decision, which may or may not be to tag it for speedy deletion. I believe my CSD track record speaks for itself.

Ultimately, Speedy deletion works because it relies on there being two people (the "tagger" and the "deleter") who agree to the deletion - of which one is necessarily an admin. If both are mistaken the remedy of requesting undeletion is available. In the event that someone believes that a deletion discussion came to an incorrect decision, there is yet another layer of recourse in the form of deletion review. I trust the process, in much the same way that I trust the scientific method. It is essentially our Process that distinguishes Wikipedia from an arbitrary blog or fansite. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Dodger67
• Requests for adminship/Dodger67 2

• Links for Dodger67: Dodger67 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dodger67 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support – I'll start this off with a "yes", based on what I remember about this candidate at WP:ORCP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Support - I thought he was ready last time - and now he has even more experience. It's great to work with an editor who follows consensus and takes time to help other editors.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Considering what I've seen in the review of Roger's contributions, he's fine enough. Lourdes 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Strong Support – Thought he was one already. Excellent editor; has over 78,000 edits including nearly 13,000 deleted edits. He has a over 83% afd percentage and a 100% edit summary usage. He has edited since 2007 and I don't see a reason for me to oppose. His last rfa was over 2 years ago and the issues raised in that rfa are over and done with. He is an outstanding participant in articles for creation reviewing heaps of drafts there. Will be a huge net positive to the Wikipedia community. J947 06:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Support. Clear net positive to the project as an admin, with no red flags. Good luck! Tazerdadog (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Per noms. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
8. Support as co-nom. Sam Walton (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Support - Dodger87 is well qualified to be an administrator, and we need more new page patrollers with the added toolset. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Support needs the tools, has more than sufficient experience and no concerns about possible misuse of tools. Valenciano (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
11. (edit conflict) Support – candidate is in pillar 1 of my RfA criteria. My iPad is currently set to Finnish and keeps making false autocorrects so here's something that won't confuse it: Onnea ylläpitäjänä! Linguist^talk|contribs 09:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
12. I supported the first RfA on the basis that I felt opposers were being too harsh on Roger's AfC work. I've gone back over the last six weeks of AfC work and found only one bad call: Frantone Electronics, which shouldn't have been accepted in that state. But AfC is the first line of defence: it is a necessary part of the project and we cannot be too critical of the editors who make difficult judgement calls about exactly where the "just too crap for wikipedia" line lies. Nearly all the recent judgements Roger has made are within an acceptable ballpark. Most of his AfC reviews result in articles being declined, which of course is the default correct outcome. I have one other comment: what is it with candidates needing to say that they do what they can to avoid conflict? I want admins willing to get their hands dirty. One day I'd like to see a candidate go to town on Question 3, but I suppose it's unlikely. Anyway, T=this edit summary, which accompanied a very polite post, suggests that Roger has a bit of sass, which is good, and which I hope to see more of. Good luck. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
13. Support We need more admins, see no reason to believe they'd abuse the mop. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
14. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
15. Support: No issues overall after reviewing his previous RFA. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
16. Support Just the kind of conscientious admin we need. Cloudbound (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
17. Support Indispensible at the Teahouse and other newbie-welcoming venues, as well as at AfC and NPP. I think we need more admins active in those areas. – Joe (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
18. Support - Hard working, trustworthy, fair. The odd tagging mistake doesn't bother me that much. Everybody will make mistakes. The question is if Roger would abuse the tools or otherwise harm the encyclopedia if he got the bit. The answer to that question is almost certainly "no, on the contrary" so give the man a mop. Yintan  14:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
19. Support - I reluctantly opposed last time, but more than happy to support this time. GiantSnowman 15:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
20. Support - Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 15:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
21. Support: Looks good to me! -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
22. Support I supported last time, and can't see any reason not to now. As to the 'rudeness' issue raised by SilkTork, I consider Dodger's reply quite acceptable, and wouldn't think of someone who first edited in 2011 as a total newbie even though they failed to give the name of the article they were ranting about and also failed to sign their post. Peridon (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
23. Support After reading through this all, and the previous RfA, I think I will simply repeat one sentence of my previous support. "This editor does tireless, accurate, thoughtful work and always manages to keep a level head. They will make an excellent admin." --joe decker^talk 17:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
24. Support. No concerns. I'm especially impressed by his answer to question #1. It demonstrates his belief that AfC is here to help editors create their first articles, a view which should be more common than it is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
25. Support - I have always found him to be helpful and very knowledgeable about WP policies, many of which I had never heard of. He is also a passionate proponent of WP Gbawden (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
26. Support (edit conflict) I'm impressed with the answers to the questions above, the only hesitation I would have had was the previous civility issue listed at the last RFA, I did some digging and wasn't able to find any examples since that last RFA. I genuinely believe the editor learned from their mistakes. The editor's AFD track record is impressive and I believe they are a NETPOSITIVE to the project and can be trusted with the tool set. I think the candidate has a reasonable understanding of policies in the area's they've mentioned they'd like to participate. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
27. Support Vastly productive editor with a broad scope, diversified experience and a very helpful approach. I've seen only good things so far and can't say I'm worried by what I see in the opposes.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
28. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
29. Support He has very interesting points, detailed, and talks like an administrator. *Xyaena~* (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
30. Support Very good content creation, puts in hard work at AFC, NPP Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
31. Support per noms. Net positive. Joshualouie711^talk 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
32. Support more admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
33. Support - No issues here. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
34. Support I don't see why not. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
35. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

    Brad: This is not tit-for-tat, I'm just curious, since you've used this description before: what, to you, is a "fully qualified candidate"? Feel free to answer here, or on my talk, or wherever is convenient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

36. Support while I understand the concerns cited below, they do not persuade me to oppose. Lepricavark (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
37. Support Net positive for the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
38. Support. None too soon, Roger Dodger! Highly qualified candidate and, by the answers above, thoughtful also. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
39. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposes (and neutrals) are unconvincing ad tend to reveal what I (at least) perceive as a new trend in RfA to try too hard to find fault for whatever flimsy reason possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
40. Support - I'm not convinced that [1] is a violation of civility policies. Banedon (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
41. Support Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) 01:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
42. Support. I went back and looked at the first RfA, and I supported there in the face of some opposition that I felt went too far. My feelings are rather similar this time around. I'll make the caveat, first, that I think that the answers to questions contain far too much hesitation over providing specific examples of responding to conflict. Anyone here this long should have no trouble finding examples of other users being obnoxious to them, no need to focus on how to present evidence of disengagement. That was odd. But on the other hand, this is someone I've been seeing around for a long time, who I thought was qualified in the last RfA, who has demonstrably made an effort to learn more since then, and who is demonstrably a net positive in helping new users. And the reasons given so far for opposing or being neutral downright puzzle me. I'm not seeing the supposed bitey-ness. So I end up agreeing with how Kudpung described the concerns raised below. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
43. Support Sounds good to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
44. Support - Judging from the evidence, looks like a conscientious, competent and helpful future admin. ABF99 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
45. Support - I was initially concerned about lack of AfD participation but everything else looks good - NETPOSITIVE for sure. -- Dane ^talk 04:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
46. Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
47. Support No issues of concern and he will make a good administrator. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
48. Support. Gladly. Welcome aboard. -- œ^™ 05:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
49. Support. Qualified candidate. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
50. Support. I also supported Dodger's first RfA and I believe that Dodger's further experience improves the netpositive conclusion with nothing serious or persistent to detract from it. I will simply add to that: per Mkativerata, Peridon, Cameron₁₁₅₉₈, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง and Tryptofish. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
51. Support – Would be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
52. Support. Experienced, thoughtful, and clueful. No concerns whatsoever. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
53. Support No red flags that concern me and no issues of concern. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
54. Support I feel that there might not be a need at this point, but I support this application wholeheartedly.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
55. Support Shows a clue at AfD (everyone gets one wrong now and again), and the two GAs indicate a clue about how we build this encyclopaedia. Works in areas that help new editors. What's not to like? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
56. Strong support I don't usually participate in adminship discussions, but I've worked with Dodge on one or two occasions in the past and he's always been quite forthcoming and helpful. He's also an experienced contributor whom I consider quite valuable to topics covered under WikiProject South Africa, especially those pertaining to military history. --Katangais (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
57. Support, I did so last time and nothing since then has convinced me to change my position. Graham87 09:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
58. Support. AFC and NPP are, in my view, two of the toughest areas we have, and both need experienced admins who understand them properly. Dodger67's record at both looks very good to me, and I'd be happy to trust him with the admin toolset. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
59. Support per above. Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
60. Support Has done good work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
61. Support No problems. SethWhales ^talk 11:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
62. Support, no concerns. The opposition is baseless in my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
63. Support The oppose !vote has some merit, but while it may be a bit abrasive it's not uncivil at all. The user's contributions show that they can be trusted to hold the mop and not cause too much of a hullabaloo with it. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
64. Support I've seen Roger dealing with new users at the Teahouse and Helpdesk on a regular basis, and haven't yet seen any responses that gave me cause for concern. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
65. Support - no issues, best of luck. Oppose !vote not convincing and just a little bit silly. Patient Zero^talk 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
66. Support - on reputation. All interactions have been positive, and user seems well qualified. Go Phightins! 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
67. Support I don't see an issue with how this editor has behaved to others here. No concerns on my part. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
68. Support. Needs to move-draft-over-redirect and see deleted pages (in case a new draft is suspicious redo of deleted page). Any future rudeness can be discouraged at user-talks. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
69. Support His answer to my questions (#7) and my background checks on his contributions since the last RfC convince me he knows plenty enough to carry out his duties as an admin — Iadmc♫^talk  16:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
70. Support I did not support on his previous run because of concerns about deletion, but the recent record has been much better. (I have looked atthe articles cited in this RfA and do not consider any of the recent ones major errors). I see no other problems. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
71. Strong Support After looking at Roger's contributes, I have decided he is very well capable of leading our site in an admin role. He has great skills in problem solving, and compromising to a reasonable approach to issues presented before him. −−ExpertListener95 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
72. Support Per the "rude" comment linked in the first oppose. That's exactly what an admin should say to such a remark. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
73. Support We have far too high standards for potential admins if the comment higlighted in the oppose section is considered too rude. Other work and contributions seem fine. Should make fine admin. AIRcorn (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
74. Support Per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
75. Support - I'd like to pile on my endorsement of this candidate. I admire the candidate's willingness to take plenty of time between RfAs, undergo a candidate poll, and take the advice of other editors to improve editing. I'm happy to see their work on article creation, CSD log, and maintain a generally cool head. I hope this candidate will take into account the criticism not to get riled up and to stay civil with other editors -- it looks like the candidate is doing a decent enough job on this so far. This is a fully qualified candidate. - tucoxn\^talk 21:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
76. Support demonstrated history of clue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
77. Strong Support No issues with handing him the tools. (The "block" for less than a minute in 2011 was troubling though, Hehehe.) Solid candidate.   Aloha27  talk  21:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
78. Support. Agree with Beeblebox. Comment was exactly what an admin should say. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
79. Support as an excellent AfC participant and great overall work. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
80. Support - Helpful to the project in a number of ways. Every reason to think he'll make good use of the tools and I've not seen any substantial cause for concern. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
81. Support Sadads (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
82. Support because I see no reason not to. The one controversial comment cited in the oppose section doesn't seem the least bit uncivil to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
83. Support This editor is a very helpful host at the Teahouse, where I am also active. As for the response to a rude and confrontational contributor, I find their wording firm but not uncivil under the circumstances. In my view, this candidate is a very productive contributor to this encyclopedia who can be trusted with the administrator's tools. I trust that the nominee will take the useful parts of the criticisms of a few editors here into account, but those criticisms are far from enough to convince me to oppose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
84. Support - with confident gladness. It is easy to see that Wikipedia's interests are best served when this RFA succeeds. We are fortunate that Dodger67 serves in our midst; further serving, soon, as an admin of high efficiency and high esteem.--John Cline (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
85. Support Well-rounded candidate, will be an asset to the project. Spencer^T♦C 09:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
86. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 09:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
87. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
88. Support I'm satisfied with the answers provided by the candidate, and believe he has the skills and experience necessary for the position. ComplexParadigm (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
89. Support. Infrequent AfD !voting, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
90. Support. This editor has grown better at AfD and answered the questions well. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
91. Support I didn't know that Dodger67 is not an admin! --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 15:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
92. Support, per above...TJH2018talk 16:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
93. Support as per Ritchie333 and Samwalton9.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
94. Support No concerns. Mkdw ^talk 18:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
95. Support Good editor.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
96. Support -- No causes for concern. -- Shudde ^talk 19:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
97. Support. No concerns, so I'm definitely here. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
98. Support No red flags + solid record = net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
99. Support Looks good to me. TTK (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
100. Support an excellent candidate with plenty of experience. Bradv 02:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
101. Support - Well experienced and trusted user. TheGeneralUser (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
102. Support after opposing the previous RfA. Clearly the candidate has taken notice of the concerns raised last time and has taken time to address these issues properly before running again. Pleasing to see another positive use of WP:ORCP, too. Good luck! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklism (talk • contribs) 10:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
103. Support Great answers to the questions, mature and polite behavior, no problems that I can see. LK (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
104. Support for a good candidate; I supported last time, and see no reason not to do so again. Opposes not a concern; this is a request for adminship, not canonization. Miniapolis 14:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
105. Support - Their work as a knowledgeable and patient host at THQ is more than qualifying in my book, and well shows that the user has appropriate temperament and experience. Everything else is just icing on the cake. TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
106. Support - Looks good. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
107. Support - I found your answers above well thought through; you seem experienced in the things that need doing around here; you seem trustworthy. I found the few opposes to be "I wouldn't've said it *quite* like that myself", which is a weird reason to oppose IMHO. I'm happy with this candidate being given a mop. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
108. Support - Midi-chlorian count is a bit low, but we'll let that pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
109. Support: Dodger67 is willing to do more work and I'm willing to let him. His experience and answers to the questions indicate that he can handle the administrator role.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
110. Support: Giving to the candidate the credit of trust, why not? NETPOSITIVE. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
111. Support per above. My headcanon is that Dodger is a girl who drinks tea and talks about her cats. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

     That is a strange and not really appropriate comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

     @Newyorkbrad: translation: If someone mentions the nickname Dodger then I would think about her, not Dodger67. I am sure that User:Plato is a lovely person, but if someone mentions the name Plato then I would think about Plato, not User:Plato. There are also several sports teams who use the name Dodger. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

112. Support I am another editor who does not participate in adminship nominations, however I have worked with Dodger67 in the past and found him to be courteous, helpful, and happy to provide advice. I had assumed that Dodger was already an Administrator. Some of the events raised in Opposition below are not my assessment of what is claimed to have happened, and I encourage editors to form their own opinions. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
113. Support: I have had minor interactions with Dodger67 over the years, and I'm satisfied that he will be a good influence on the project and will use the admin tools wisely. People have been nitpicking a few mildly brusque comments, but taken as a whole, his attitude to newbies and other editors has been positive, and will help to promote a healthy wiki-community. --Slashme (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
114. Support - while I am concerned that this editor might be too deletionist for my tastes, his experience and hard work count for much. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
115. Support. Good editor whom I'd trust with the administrative toolkit. /wiae 🎄 22:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
116. Support exemplary. Dlohcierekim 02:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
117. Support - Any user brave enough to give RfA a go already has my conditional support, however looks like this user has cemented adminship qualities, good luck, looks like your a shoe in. ZooPro 11:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
118. Support – I do have some small concerns about the user's interpretation of G11 in particular, but that is just a small blip amongst their otherwise good work. I would suggest that initially at least, @Dodger67: take particular care over any G11 deletions. However, as I say, that aside the user's work looks very good, and I have no qualms about supporting this request. Harrias ^talk 11:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
119. Support – I supported last time so it would be stupid not to support again. Deb (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
120. Support - I am not convinced by the opposes. Don't see any red flags. Jim Carter 14:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
121. Support - I have seen this editor at work at WP:AFC and his actions there have indicated he is a suitable person to have admin tools. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
122. Support—opposes are highly unconvincing. —MartinZ02 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
123. Support per all above and below. ----# #####B1 l T l C (C)2016 Brynda1231 Do Not Steal. 22:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
124. Strong Support - I expect the Mop-and-Bucket will be wielded with wisdom and courage. The rationales offered for opposition strike me as ranging from petty to trivial to demands for perfection. --!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
125. Support --- Fine candidate. Some of the oppose rationals, while valid, seem very minor and insufficient to deny support. We need admins and candidate is a plus for Wikipedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
126. Support Why not?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
127. Support Good choice. cart-Talk 14:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
128. Support – His answers to the questions above show his strong knowledge of many of Wikipedia's guidelines, which I think is one of the most important criterion for choosing admins. His content contributions and work with new users at the Teahouse are also heartening. I have thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered the Oppose arguments and, while they give me some pause, for me, they don't come close to outweighing the candidate's large body of good works for this community. Bobnorwal (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
129. Support: A net positive. Some of the oppose issues, while valid, are insufficient to deny support. (See below) We need good admins! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
130. Support If they want to hold a mop, Wikipedia will always need cleaning :) L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
131. Support A good editor and they seem to have learned a lot and taken on board the comments and concerns at the last RFA.--5 albert square (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
132. Support I usually stay out of these things as I suspect most of my !votes would be opposed but I can't stand by mute here. A level headed individual deserves my unequivocal support. May it be that we had more admins like him.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
133. Congrats and welcome to the crew. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I supported last time, though during the RfA it came to light that Dodger67 has an abrasive and dismissive manner. Now, at the start of this RfA we have evidence that only recently he continues with unhelpful and aggressive behaviour: [2]. I like it when people learn from their mistakes. I am concerned when they continue to make the same mistakes. While we may tolerate such behaviour in our users. We don't tolerate it in admins. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   I am also dismayed by this comment "You have not actually provided a link to them, so I have no idea where you found them" as answer to Andrew D.'s question where he names his sources. It's not just the failure to find the sources, nor the failure to read the short paragraph closely enough to read the names of the sources, but that he blames Andrew D. for his own inabilities in the language used: "You have not actually provided a link", and the emotive, impatient "I have no idea". This supports what people felt in the last RfA, and which has already been brought up in this RfA, that Dodger67 has a tendency to be impatient and dismissive of others, particularly when criticised. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   @SilkTork: In response to what you first wrote, I looked at that diff, and, in my opinion, the new user wasn't assuming good faith and was quite rude. It reminded me of not long ago when a new user created an article that was promotional in tone (and about someone they knew personally, they later said), which I tagged for speedy deletion. They instantly assumed bad faith, before recreating the article, removing a speedy tag from it multiple times are being warned not to, and then getting blocked. They continued going off on their talk page in an unblock request, after which I left them a final message, which I think was good for me, considering that I can be quite impatient with that sort of thing. To get to the point, I think Dodger responded well on his talk page, perhaps better than I usually would (for the record, you can see the discussion I had with the blocked user on my talk page (I believe it was 11 January) and on theirs). Linguist^talk|contribs 13:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   There will often be differences of opinion regarding civility. Some may find Dodger67's curt manner acceptable in dealing with a new user who was frustrated and uncertain of due process, though we do have guidelines which say we shouldn't be abrasive and rude, particularly to new users, and I support those guidelines. If this was a one off incident, fair enough, but to be doing it just before a new RfA, after he failed his previous one for something similar is not something I wish to see from an admin candidate. As I say, I supported him last time, so I see his positive qualities, it's just that having been made aware of some of his negative qualities, and seeing that he hasn't learned from his previous RfA, puts me in the oppose camp. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   I don't actually see any lack of civility in the comment you linked to. On the contrary, he responded to the extremely uncivil posting on his talkpage quite reasonably and he pointed to policy which is certainly not an "unhelpful" thing to do — Iadmc♫^talk  17:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   I thought he responded in a reasonable manner as well. Telling someone to be civil is not itself an example of incivility. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   I agree with BU Rob and Iadmc, I don't see any incivility there. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   On a rare occasion that I disagree with SilkTork, the candidate's response to the particularly rude user was perfectly measured and appropriate. We as volunteers are perfectly at liberty not to mince our words when dealing with people like that - I don't tolerate that kind of newbie behaviour and nor should any one else; we are not the staff in the basement of an Edwardian household. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   I agree with the other comments here, that the exchange did not demonstrate any lack of civility on the part of the candidate. On the contrary, it seemed like a relatively measured and polite response to a fairly rude remark. Peterravn (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   The exchange cited by SilkTork arose after the candidate had declined a submission at AfC. Editors are naturally inclined to be tetchy in such circumstances. The key failing of the candidate in this exchange was to say "I'm afraid I do not appreciate the adverserial and rude tone of this message, thus I am rather disinclined to find out what it is about." This is contrary to the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. ... Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. ... Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Note that this was the day after Christmas and we're not seeing any effort at seasonal bonhomie or goodwill – just an unhelpful brush-off. In such exchanges, admins should be setting a good example, not responding in kind. Andrew D. (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   • I am not setting out to argue anyone into my position. We each have different standards of civility - it is one of the areas in which the Wikipedia community finds difficulty in reaching a common ground. We also have different standards for what is acceptable in an admin. A few oppositions are quite common in an RfA, and should not in themselves be a cause for concern. It's only when there are a number of oppositions on the same concerns that a RfA starts to fail. I fully intended to support Dodger67, as I had done so previously, because he struck me as a reasonable and intelligent and reflective person. However, with the concern raised over recent temperament, and then going back to the previous RfA and seeing similar concerns there, I felt I couldn't support. If this had been his first RfA, and there had been no prior concerns regarding temperament, I would have overlooked that incident as a shade of grey, but that Dodger67 had been called out previously, and was being called out again, gave me pause. It's not really the incident in itself, but that he wasn't taking enough care to moderate his tone of voice. We have guidelines in which we encourage everyone to be polite and civil, and in particular we want those in elevated positions (be it greater experience, being the person who accepts or rejects an article creation request, reviewing a GA, or various admin activities) to be particularly tolerant and civil, because those in the "inferior" position may already be frustrated and may as such set about some disruptive activity. Calming down a user you have frustrated is a priority. Stoking the flames is not to be encouraged. My concern here is that Dodger67 was not displaying the sort of restraint that calms down a situation, and he was doing this after he had failed a previous RfA for partly similar reasons. My concern was then compounded by his response to Andrew D., which again is brittle, and in a sense throwing it back at Andrew D., rather than dealing with it himself. And then to discover that he was misleading folks in his statement about how he had taken on board the concerns on the previous RfA. He has done barely any nominations (5), and nearly half of those (2) were withdrawn because of an inadequate BEFORE. After that I became even more uncomfortable because from the little evidence that I am looking at it seemed that Dodger67 can be quite brittle when challenged, reacts before doing proper research, and can be a little misleadingly inaccurate or imprecise in his answers when they matter. It's quite likely that he totally forgot about the two nominations that had to be withdrawn because of an inappropriate BEFORE - but that is also concerning to me: that he forgets when he has acted inappropriately, yet feels confident enough to claim that he hasn't. None of this is major stuff, but it doesn't meet with my personal standards of an admin, which is why I am opposing. Other folks can look beyond these minor (and borderline) incidents, and concentrate on the good stuff in Dodger67, and I like that. As a community we accept differences of opinion, and we go with the consensus view. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

   He has done barely any nominations (5) ... however he has participated in over 60 AfDs, most of which he has agreed with consensus, and furthermore not starting many AfDs might indicate that somebody is willing to try and improve an article or give it the benefit of the doubt rather than rushing for the delete hammer, which is good ... It's quite likely that he totally forgot about the two nominations that had to be withdrawn because of an inappropriate BEFORE ... this would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia McConnell in February 2015 which had comments from other editors such as "Delete. Highly promotional, no acceptable references", "Delete per WP:TNT. Also, her h-index is not enough for WP:PROF" and "Delete. Pure promo and books appear to be self-published. Agree that WP:TNT applies" before an editor gutted it to a stub, squeaking through WP:PROF on a citation to the University of Wisconsin–Madison. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zi Corporation in December 2015, where Roger said "My BEFORE search (a Google "news" search) did not deliver many of the sources now used in the article", and indeed a news search seems to produce trivial passing mentions. I think in-depth criticism of something a candidate did over a year ago is unfair. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose per answers to Qs 9, 12 and 13 and my previous comments.
   
   When I first reviewed the candidate, my neutral !vote was based on the fact that I believed that he just made some honest mistakes with those speedy taggings I mentioned. Confronted with one of those taggings (Q12), he not only defended his wrong tagging, he also tried to justify it as correct since a part of the page was clear advertising in his eyes, despite the fact that WP:G11 clearly says that it only applies to pages that "are exclusively promotional. He even admits that part of the page is not advertising, yet still thinks G11 applied. His answers are even more confusing considering that he claims that he trusts the process, yet is clearly unwilling to use the process when it comes to such pages. I don't expect perfect candidates but his answer to Q13 exposes an unwillingness to admit to making a mistake which I don't think is a trait admins should have.
   
   Contrary to the candidate's beliefs, speedy deletion only works in the projects's favor if both taggers and admins apply the policy correctly. Incorrectly tagging an article, even if the request is later declined, can still be very BITEy and scare away newcomers. There still is an inherent bias of NPP against articles created by new users and we have a lot of less-experienced NPP who tag pages that do not meet the criteria. By the time an admin comes to review them, the new user is often already scared away for good. And if the reviewing admin is ignorant of the policy as well, the page will most likely be gone for good. The problem with process, as in WP:DRV and WP:REFUND, is that it needs someone to care about the page for it to work. Unfortunately, the person who cared about it, will most likely be gone by that time.
   
   WP:CSD says "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." (emphasis added). A strict approach to speedy deletion is not something that comes down to WikiPhilosophy (I am a strict inclusionist myself, yet I have deleted thousands of pages). It's not about whether a page should be deleted or not, it's about how it should be deleted if deletion is the only option to handle the problems with the page. Trying to boil it down to deletionist = more liberal, inclusionist = stricter fails to understand that. Contrary to his answer, there is of course plenty of reasons to create neutrally written articles about non-notable subjects and I have deleted many of them if they also met the much stricter definition of A7. The nominator mentioned such an example (see Q12).
   
   His answer to my A7-related question was good but since he made three A7 mistakes in 13 taggings, I'm not certain whether he believes what he has written. BTW, I'm flattered that you apparently consulted my essay before answering but I can't help to wonder whether you just copied what I think in order to appease me.
   
   TL;DR: I might be in the minority here (and that's okay, as SilkTork eloquently said above) but I do not trust any user with the ability to delete pages who has such an approach to speedy deletion. Seeing as this request will probably pass, Robert, I hope you will consider a more careful approach if you get the mop.
   
   Regards SoWhy 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   ... since he made three A7 mistakes in 13 taggings ... I have checked User:Dodger67/CSD log for the past four months. In that time, he has nominated 184 pages for speedy deletion, of which the only ones declined (as opposed to being deleted and recreated independently) are User:RyanMcCarvill/sandbox/iWave Information Systems, User:Journxiteh/sandbox and User:AceOfSpades14/sandbox. By my calculation, that's a 98.3% rate of success, which seems to tally with User:Kudpung/RfA criteria (<5% declined CSD at New Page Patrolling). (PS: this isn't really a rebuke, rather a more detailed justification for why I wrote "he has a good track record in CSD" in the nomination) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   I was talking about A7 nominations. You will only find those 13 I mention on the page you linked to. I can have a lot of "successful" deletions if I just nominate G6, G8 etc. Ritchie, I understand that you want to defend your nominee against criticism, trust me, I do. But I'm not sure if citing some other user's criteria, who I do not share, is necessarily the best way to go, since again you link to examples that show that Robert has not apparently understood when G11 should be used. Regards SoWhy 15:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   I apologise if I appear to badger you for your oppose, to which you're fully entitled, but to me it seems you might have fired arrows into a wall and then drawn a target around them to prove that the candidate missed. Taking the full record into account, these minor misfires, if they're even that, seem like a very tiny reason to deny adminship. But that's just my opinion: yours differs and that's fine too! :-) ◦ Trey Maturin 20:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   This is a discussion after all, not a vote, so don't worry. I understand your concern. I initially thought the same, which is why I !voted neutral. Making mistakes is human and it is in itself not a reason to oppose any candidate. Which is why my opposing !vote is not based (solely) on the mistakes the candidate made but rather on his reaction when confronted with them and his apparent misunderstanding of one of the policies that can be abused most easily (since unilaterally (speedy) deleting pages against policy usually does not lead to any kind of review). Regards SoWhy 21:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

   Might just be worth pointing out that one of the declined speedies I linked here contained nothing but the text "hi, i am a pig" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I share the above concerns by SilkTork and SoWhy (your competency). I have the impression that you approach less experienced editors with unnecessary haughtiness: Is it really that hard to add a heading to a new topic? you sigh over clumsy attempts of unexperienced editors trying to contact you on your talk page. I know it may be trivial but I don't like it. People whom I admire usually leave similar things without noticing/complaints and focus on resolving problems. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose – I don't have any problems with Roger per se. However, being "one of the longest-standing contributors to the Articles for creation project" is a deal-breaker at this point in time. AFC has played a major role in our current state of retrogression as it concerns reflecting much of anything aside from today's headlines and trending topics, particularly through pushing peculiar views about notability and collaboration and its attempts to claim WP:OWN over draftspace. When consensus was going against AFC's agenda in the recent discussion regarding abolishing AFC and/or draftspace and/or G13, they were busy G13'ing everything they possibly could, notable topic or not. I believe the last one which came across my watchlist was a draft about someone who was a state legislator for 24 years. This tells me that they're one more group of editors who feel entitled to exercise veto power over "inherently notable", which is unacceptable. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

   This is an example of how the singular they can really cause difficulties. Does they were busy G13'ing everything they possibly could refer to the candidate in particular, or to a "group of editors" as in the final sentence? If the statement refers to the candidate, some examples would be good; and if it doesn't, then it's not relevant to this candidacy: Noyster (talk), 14:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

   Noyster, it is the plural "they". RadioKAOS is a one-trick pony with an agenda against AFC. They made pretty much the exact oppose at my RFA. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose. As an admin who began editing as an adventurous but ignorant newbie, I put myself in the shoes of the newbies whose submissions were harshly reviewed by Roger and that made me end up in the opposition. I agree that Roger's application of policy is generally correct. However, in the controversial examples discussed here, he has often responded to things with a templated "no" and then shown limited willingness to help newcomers get over the hurdles of Wikipedia procedures. I would like to see more attempts to follow up after he declines a request. Deryck C. 11:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose Previous opposes here are based on substantial research from editor's with impeccable credentials. They cannot be simply waived away, as some have suggested. Even though the RfA will succeed it is imperative that the candidate takes note of the various concerns highlighted above. Leaky Caldron 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose Q6 was not answered satisfactorily. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose I have pondered this RFA for a few days. While this RFA will pass I cannot in good faith support it. Roger has some fine credentials but the concerns brought up by Vejvančický and Deryck Chan also concern me. I am especially concerned about the treatment newbies may well receive from him. Newbies are all too often treated very shabbily. There are several reasons wiki's editorship and retention have nosedived and this is one of them. Admins should not be treating people with double standards. Admins should not be part of wiki's problems. HalfGig talk 12:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

   I too have pondered this RFA for a few days. I am little concerned about the treatment newbies but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

9. Oppose per the abrasive and rather funny tone with newbies - We were all newbies once and not all newbies here are gonna know how to do things properly, Although this candidate has done some impressive work here I also expect admins to treat newbies a little better than this candidate has. –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

Pending I like the look of the candidate's own work such as stadium (geometry) but his first RfA seemed to fail because he wasn't following WP:BEFORE with sufficient diligence. I have asked Q6 to try to establish how the candidate has improved in this respect. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting that his post-first-RfA AfD percentages are exemplary. I haven't looked in depth, but assuming he wasn't just doing obvious ones that were SNOWy, he's seriously improved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The quality of analysis and debate at AfD is often weak. Consistency with others there might just mean consistently weak too. So, you have to look in depth to judge the quality of the work. I may do some digging myself but, if I were to find a fresh example of poor work, people will tend to badger on the grounds that it's just one example. Let's try a different tack and see what the candidate has to say about this. Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Neutral, leaning weak oppose moved to oppose The overall contributions and answers to questions look good so far but since the nomination mentioned CSD work, I had to check it of course and found some questionable taggings that while (incorrectly deleted) show that there is some reason to worry:

• G11 tagging which could have cleaned up (which another experienced editor has already considered for G11 and taken to AfD instead since cleanup was possible)
• A7 tagging with claims of significance / importance (and a couple of RS GNews hits)
• A7 tagging for a product
• A7 for a school (which are explicitly exempt from A7).

Considering that his CSD knowledge re G11 and G12 has been highlighted, it's also strange that his last 2.5 years of deleted edits only contain 6 G11 and 4 G12 taggings. His 13 deleted A7 taggings in the same timeframe contain at least 3 mistakes (see above). His last 4,000 live edits (i. e. all edits from January 2016 to now) contain one(!) speedy tagging in those categories, a G11 mistake. Going back further I only found one A7 tagging for an article that listed two reliable sources covering the subject and a user space G11 tagging while the page was clearly still being worked on. N.B.: I only checked for G11, G12 and A7 taggings in the main space.

However since the candidate has not expressed a wish to work in this area and his other work seems good, I will stay neutral for now. Regards SoWhy 11:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been asked to verify the claim that it's also strange that his last 2.5 years of deleted edits only contain 6 G11 taggings. A scan through Roger's deleted contributions over January alone reveals the following that were tagged for G11 and deleted : User:Nathanielrichards15/sandbox/Nathaniel Richards, User:Ron7905/sandbox/Ron Franklin - Drifter, User:Microbits123/sandbox, Draft:Social Media Jamaica, User:Aleeq mian/sandbox and User:Joshlegacy7/sandbox/The Noir Group. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to clarify that I checked for main space edits, seeing as those are the ones normal readers actually see. Regards SoWhy 13:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PS: You actually helped strengthen my other point though. This for example (restored diff) is not a G11 since it was not unambiguous advertising but merely a fairly neutrally written piece about a probably non-notable subject. So basically you mention six taggings and one of them was a mistake. One must wonder whether a Russian roulette approach to judging candidates is really the best way. Regards SoWhy 14:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't agree with that, I'm afraid. In my view, the article is a haigography (and probably an autobiography given the username) that cites the front page of some website and Facebook as sources. Certainly, the deleting administrator RHaworth agreed it met the G11 criteria and deleted it. Would it be helpful if I restored that draft so the rest of the community can help reach a decision? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to RHaworth, I would never agree that a speedy deletion was justified just because he thought so. In my nine years as an admin, I have seen a lot of deletions that ignored the rather narrow boundaries WP:CSD sets for admins and if the candidate believes he should follow in this particular admin's footsteps when it comes to speedy deletion, I will happily switch my !vote to a strong oppose in a heartbeat. Your disagreement is noted but wrong. That it's an autobiography might qualify it for A7 if it were in Main Space but for G11 to apply the page's text needs to be completely ("unambiguously") advertising in tone. I restored the page to its original location for others to be able to understand my comments. Regards SoWhy 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Neutral. The candidate seems to have an impressive history, but the first example they give in response to question 4 does not impress me. A few weeks ago a newbie wrote a comprehensive article about a possibly-notable writer (probably a relative) which lacked references, and after his submission was rejected he wrote a mildly critical message to the candidate, who in turn called him adversarial and rude. I would expect a potential admin (or indeed any experienced contributor) to thank the author for his effort but point out again policy about references and encourage them to improve the article. It concerns me that the option of telling anybody here to f-off would even cross his mind. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   Do you have any diffs? —MartinZ02 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   Here is the article, and the response. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   I don't see anything wrong with that. THIS is an actual diff of an actual administrator telling an ordinary user to actually fuck off; furthermore when the matter was brought to my talk page, consensus was that, though ill-advised, it was not directly a personal attack and no action was taken. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   That example sets neither a standard or a threshold for Admin. behaviour. More relevant, it is not comparable to the treatment of a new editor by the candidate. Leaky Caldron 14:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) So your point is "Existing admins misbehave as well, so we can't judge candidates by that"? Regards SoWhy 14:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   I would say more like "Existing admins misbehave far worse, why don't we don't something about them?" but this is the wrong place to have that conversation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

   Well, I wrote a comment earlier but scrapped it in favour of leaving people to their own opinions. To summarize my comment; Dodger's actual response was far more cordial than the article creator's own instigating comment. While I understand the distress at having your work rejected that doesn't excuse the accusatory and generally sarcastic instigating comment that was made. Not biting the newcomers does not mean that you must tolerate insults, accusations or abuse - accusations of wrondgoing in this case. By comparison, per WP:BITE, Dodger was cordial if direct (point 5) and postponed responding due to being upset at the tone of the response he received (point 6). I don't expect new editors to be wiki competent in any way, but, I do expect them to behave in an appropriate manner - i.e. not being a jerk. I doubt very much that JCMR would have had the guts to speak like that to Dodger's face. Nor for that matter is JCMR a newcomer as such, first edit back in 2011, though there is a five year hiatus after only a few edits. They returned temporarily in August, then November, and then stuck around for a few days in December. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Neutral: I concur with most of SoWhy's concerns. This candidacy seems to be advanced on the basis of great CSD work, yet a close examination shows little such work, and much of it in error or at least questionable. I also concur with SilkTork's WP:BITE concerns; we expect confused new editors to be hostile and unfamiliar with our ways, and expect admins to hold their hands pretty gently even if they're bawling. That said, I see a lot of good work and good qualities, and I do believe the editor has mellowed from the previous failure and the civility concerns it raised.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Neutral - this was a difficult decision, but, I find myself unable to support the candidacy. Whether intentionally or not, some of Dodgers responses give the impression of an unwillingness to do so and leave me with the feeling that they did so out of obligation than anything else. This is most obvious to me in Dodgers response to Q4 and Q6. That said, the opposes for "newbie treatment" are wholly unconvincing. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• You have to really be detailed and serious for being an administrator. This person really answers them in nice detail. A lot of support with a long, detailed conversation of the opposition... *Xyaena~* (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The ideal candidate would have experience in all the admin areas, including deletion and blocking. Unfortunately, that would mean that they had already been an admin, and many would oppose for whatever they had done ten years ago when they lost their mop... Peridon (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

---

• Hi all, sorry I've been absent for so long since my last post here. I've become quite busy irl, I will return as soon as I can to answer further questions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  Roger (Dodger67): Do you have a feel for how long it's likely to be before you are able to resume answering the questions? We're all volunteers and it's important that you be able to deal with real life issues, which I appreciate can arise unexpectedly. This RfA has nearly 5 days left to run, so I don't think a delay in answering questions of say up to 48 hrs will have much effect on the outcome (although I may be wrong), but I can see concern building if it appears that questions will not be answered until the very last minute (or not at all). It is totally up to you, but if it will assist you, I would be willing to consider suspending the RfA for a few days, and running the rest of the time when your other commitments have diminished. WJBscribe (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WJBscribe, it won't be that long at all, I should be back in around 6 to 7 hours from now. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for clarifying. I'm sure everyone can wait that long without needing to put the discussion "on ice". WJBscribe (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• I shall try my best to answer questions 8 and 9 within 12 hours from now. It's bedtime, I've had a long day. Goodnight and thank you all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2017 (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.