Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2

Blanchardb

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (31/8/3); Scheduled to end 23:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Blanchardb (talk · contribs) – Presenting Blanchardb for your consideration folks. Blanchardb has been editing productively here since September 2007, and in that time has made almost 75,000 edits. Blanchardb is known to me through his work at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation where he has been highly active for the last 2 and a half years, with more contributions to that page than any other editor, all of which are helpful and productive - working there also involves working with the articles needing translation, which he also does a great deal. Just the other day he translated Charron Island from the French Wikipedia. When it comes to other Admin areas, Blanchardb is very active in both vandal fighting, 25% of his edits are with huggle, and deletion, with approximately 12,000 deleted edits, the majority of which are csd tagging and prods. He is also very active at AFD. Blanchardb is no slouch when it comes to article writing either, he helped bring List of bridges to the Island of Montreal to featured list status and has several DYK's, in additon to his work translating articles. He is also civil and willing to help other users, as a look at his talk page will show. One final thing, Blanchardb's previous RFA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb, was over a year ago and the main issue was not actually Blanchardb so much as it was his nominator, looking at the supports vs the opposes I think its likely it would have passed at the time had there been no issue with the nominator. Overall I think that granting Blanchardb the bit would be excellent for the project. Thank you for your time Jac16888^Talk 20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Given the number of people who, lately, have suggested that I try, I accept the nomination. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I believe most of my work as an admin would be in the speedy deletion and expired prods department. Those are the areas I know the best. I am already taking an occasional look at C:SD and untagging articles that are either improperly tagged or ineligible for speedy deletion. Additionally, as a WP:PNT regular, I may act as a consultant when another admin comes across a situation where foreign-language material requires administrator attention. I speak fluent French, I have a basic understanding of Spanish and German, and I know how to use the tools we have at our disposal at PNT to identify obscure languages (WP:LRC, for example) and assess articles to see whether they are worth translating.

Addendum: I would also help at WP:AIV whenever that page has a backlog. Cases listed there need immediate attention, and most of them must be acted on in a matter of minutes, unlike listings at WP:UAA or expired AfD's, many of which can easily remain unanswered for an additional 24 hours without the delay being detrimental to the project.

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

A: My best contribution, of course, would be the featured List of bridges to the Island of Montreal. It is the first list of its kind to get Featured List status on Wikipedia, and I believe it is the model to be followed by similar articles. When I started working on that list, at first I thought all it needed was references for the information that was already present, but I found that some of the information was either wrong or missing. Plus, I had to drive to every one of the individual entries of the list to take pictures. This led to a discussion at WP:FP about accepting that for some subjects we will never be able to get an FP-quality picture when I asked for suggestions about File:Île aux Tourtes Bridge.JPG.

I am currently working on List of crossings of the Saint Lawrence River, which is different in several respects. For one thing, it lists ferry services. For another, I had to find a way to organize entries wherever the river splits into two or more branches. Finally, I will never be able to get this listed at WP:FL before I drive to Massena, New York just for one picture, and to a Salaberry-de-Valleyfield public library to dig for information on the minor bridges there.

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: The only situation that I would say did cause me stress is now ancient history. Écrasez l'infâme (talk · contribs) (whose username I knew was a direct reference to a work by Voltaire) came to the Bible article and added an over-referenced POV-pushing addition in which he insisted that the entire list of scholars supporting his opinion be kept either within the article or as a footnote. His addition was clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:REL He was reverted by several people who had the article on their watchlists, yet I was singled out as his main opponent, presumably on the grounds that I made the first revert. He tried to pass of the other reverters as supporting his position, not too credibly, I might say. In the end, just as I was filing a report against him at WP:3RR, he was filing one of his own against me at WP:WQA. He got a 24-hour block, which he unsuccessfully contested, and the WQA case against me was closed as stale. He never has edited since then. I wrote in the WQA thread, "I rest my case," but I believe I would have saved myself some stress if I had done that before the WQA case was even filed.

As for a WP:3RR block I got in December, while I wasn't too stressed about it, what I learned from it is that there is a way not to deal with people whom I strongly suspect of being sockpuppets. In the future, if I see someone who looks to me like a probable sockpuppet, I'll let them edit unhindered (except in cases of clear vandalism, of course), and I will simply gather enough evidence to file a strong case at WP:SPI.

Additional questions from Mkativerata.

4. Do you think these tags were in error? Why? [1] [2] [3]

A:

The_Tenderloins This was a borderline case. The only claim of notability for that troupe was winning a prize in It's Your Show, which, despite being on NBC, does not have an article on Wikipedia (although it probably should). This is not American Idol, however on second thought I think it should have gone directly to PROD or AfD. So yes, this one was in error.

Carrolls_Winward This is a case where the claim of importance is stated in terms too vague to be credible.

ChildFund_Alliance This is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. As I pointed out to the creator, being sponsored by a notable organization does not automatically confer notability.

5. A number of people in this RFA have put forward the view that if you are able to recognise CSD mistakes that should be fine. I agree with that; I just don't see enough in Q4 to satisfy me that you really understand A7 and recognise that all three tags were based on an erroneous application of A7. So I'll ask a few more examples, with a view to changing my !vote if you can adequately explain why you think your tags were correct or incorrect. These are the tags: [4] [5] [6] [7].

A:

Edmund_Thomas_Clint It is too easy to call someone a "child prodigy" when one has a close connection to the subject, and I've seen such WP:PEACOCK qualifiers too often on newpage patrol. This said, in this particular case the assertion was almost immediately elaborated upon, and I would probably have declined my own speedy, as I have done on several occasions, if it hadn't been for someone else beating me to the punch. I should say that I do follow up on the tags I insert. This was unwarranted, but I wasn't around to revert it when it occurred.

The_Gladstone_Institutes On this one, I am guilty of invoking the wrong CSD criterion, though even that is debatable. Again, notability is not inherited, and this revision shows no assertion of importance that is independent of the University of California, in addition to using promotional language. The creator was eventually blocked on a WP:USERNAME violation, but the assertion of importance eventually came up.

Adel_Awad A long list of diplomas does not by itself constitute an assertion of importance under WP:PROF, and neither is a number of research papers, none of which are asserted to be ground-breaking. The speedy tag on this one was eventually declined, but only on the basis of information that was added later on, possibly as a result of my reply to the creator's hangon rationale on the talk page. Bottom line: the article did mention "a lot of research papers, articls, and books" but did not say what the research was about. University professors are required by contract to produce a number of research papers, and a friend of mine, himself a former professor of Chemistry at the University of Minnesota, once said to me that universities tend to look at quantity over quality (that's one of the issues that made him leave, actually), so I believe a claim of importance should assert that at least one of the research papers produced became somewhat influential.

Hope_Hall_Foundation_School This one was a clear G11 with no assertion of importance. Not an A7 category (that's my only mistake here), but sometimes it is preferable to tag an article as non-notable rather than promotional, lest the creator would just recreate the article with a few tweaks. Given WP:SCHOOL, however, I should probably have done this myself.

6. In the four reverts that constituted the 3RR violation, it appears you used rollback (correct me if I'm wrong). Is this use of rollback justified? --Mkativerata (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A: Huggle uses rollback automatically. That's one of the drawbacks of using automated tools, and a similar "misuse" was discussed on my talk page just this week. This is precisely why I'm not using an automated tool on NP patrol.

Additional question from RadManCF.

7. Could you give links to any discussions about your block? I'm not likely to oppose because of the block, I'd just like to know the particulars of the situation.

A: Here's a link to the 3RR report. There's not much else to see.

Addendum: Someone did protest to the blocking admin here.

Additional question(s) from Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}.

8. During your vandalism patrol you meet a user blanking a specific page over and over. After warning him for doing so the user claims he is the subject of the article, and he is quite incensed that the information in the article is incorrect - according to him that is. After reading the article you see that it is woefully unsourced up to the point where the subject is proclaimed to be dead without any reference supporting this. The article also states that the subject was born in the 60's, so it isn't obvious that he cannot be living anymore due to old age. What actions do you take, and why?

A: An incident of this very nature was recently discussed on my talk page recently (archived here). The problem in this particular situation was that the "vandal" (who in this case was the subject) was blanking the entire article, not just the inaccurate information, thereby giving me no clue as to his intentions. But when his intentions became clear, I did blank the incorrect information, and erased all user warnings on his talk page. This was clearly an exemption to WP:COI. The rest of the page was eventually deleted by uncontested prod.

As the deletion of unsourced BLP's is a new policy, not every editor, even among the regulars, are familiar with it, or familiar enough to instinctively invoke it. This article being older than the policy, however, it had the benefit of a grandfather clause, and could not be deleted under the BLP policy alone. It was prodded over a different concern, and successfully so.

Could you please clarify why you mean by "clearly an exemption to WP:COI"  Chzz  ►  14:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

9. Under what circumstances would you revert an admin action other than your own and what else might you do to resolve the situation?

A:

10. How would you respond if you made an admin action in the firm belief that it was well grounded in policy and this action was later reverted by another administrator?

A:'

Additional optional question from Chzz

11. In hindsight, do you think this CSD tagging was appropriate?

A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Blanchardb
• Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Without hesitation.  7  23:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Support I'm actually quite surprised why this user isn't already an admin. No issues here. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Seems like this candidate has been solid over the past few months, so no worries here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
4. So very overdue. ceranthor 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. per above. Dlohcierekim 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Continued support despite Mkativerata's examples. Blanchardb has over 2,000 deleted contribs, so has generally done a good job with CSD tagging. I believe Mkativerata 's examples are aberrations and not represetative of his knowledge and ability, and that it is still reasonable to support. Dlohcierekim 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Unless the counter is wrong its actually nearly 20,000 deleted contribs (18,716)--Jac16888^Talk 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks Jac. I stopped at over 2,000. If nearly 20,000, his error rate is pretty small. A pity as far as timing goes. Dlohcierekim 00:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I don't think you can assume that all deleted contributions are "correct" unless you look at them (I can't). How many were incorrect and then incorrectly deleted? I don't know what the error rate is. But several howlers over a few weeks, combined with a response that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the most widely used CSD criterion, is certainly concerning enough for me. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   To me, the question is not whether or not the candidate has never made a mistake. It's whether or not he understands the polices. We all make mistakes, and Blanchardb has demonstrated that he does understand the policies, and is willing to admit and learn from his mistakes. Dlohcierekim 03:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Support. Can be trusted, plain and simple. -- œ^™ 23:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Support - No reason to oppose. Blanchardb has a lot of experience and knowledge, is courteous, and has plenty of great contributions to Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC) On review, I do have a reason to oppose, see below. -- Atama頭 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Support No worries here. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
8. Support--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
9. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Support despite the opposes.  fetchcomms☛ 02:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. What I have seen from this user in the field has been impressive. I don't see any reason to not support this user, even if some speedy tags may have been in error. It will happen to the best of us, no matter what. We all make mistakes...even admins do. For that reason, I will definitely support Blanchardb. 7OA chat 03:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
12. Support Sure, no reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
13. Support I've seen lots of excellent janitorial work from Blanchardb, and I think he would do fine with the mop. Yes, among his 75k edits there are some mistakes; I hope this RFA does not get hung up on those as I think any fair analysis would conclude that Blanchardb would clearly be a net positive admin.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
14. One of the very few contributors I've given two barnstars for deletion work. The block is a shame, but anyone can have a momentary lapse and lose count, and I have to weigh the one lapse against the thousands of good calls. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
15. After reviewing the circumstances of the block, I conclude it's no big deal - Huggle mistakes do happen, and in this case I think it was perfectly understandable. Q4 concerns also satisfied on reflection; admission of error on the first tagging helps a lot. Ray^Talk 04:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Support all the way. Strong English, as communication is important in an admin. Lots of experience and did you knows too. He should be a good candidate for administration. Minimac (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
17. Support Actually, we probably need more admins who have been on the receiving end of a block - it brings a sense of perspective. The candidate clearly learnt from that experience. A nod to the opposers regarding speedy deletions but if you take it slow and steady I'm sure you'll be fine. Pedro :  Chat  06:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
18. Support Apart from being blocked five months ago for 3RR, I don't see too many problems. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
19. Supprt No concerns with this user. Competent without question. Supporting without hesitation.  IShadowed  ✰  09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
20. Support -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
21. Weak support. While there are some mistakes, nobody's perfect and there are plenty of admin backlogs. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
22. Support No problems with this user becoming an admin. Does a great job at WP:PNT. Jarkeld (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
23. I support this excellent candidate. Block unfortunate but overlookable in view of the totality of his contributions.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
24. Support While I am still concerned about question 4's response, I trust that the candidate will learn from past mistakes and feel promotion will be a net positive. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
25. Support This user will be a net positive. I have slight misgivings about his answers to Q4, but, will probably learn from any mistakes he/she makes. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
26. Support. Blanchardb has clearly made some mistakes over time, but viewed in the context of the immense number of good contributions he's made and his generally very accurate patrolling work, he is a very clear net positive and would make good use of admin tools. ~ mazca ^talk 12:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
27. Support The question i asked was technically based upon that exact discussion (So i already knew what it was about), but i am satisfied with the answer. If one knows a recent change in the BLP policy such as the BLP prod i have no doubt that they know the rest of the policy as well. I'm a tad worried about the incorrect CSD tags but recent history also shows that Blancharddb removed several incorrect CSD's added by other users and replaced them with PROD tags so i think that evens out quite well. Thus i would say Net Positive, with an additional note to be careful when pressing "Delete", as that is a bit harder to correct then an incorrect tag :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
28. per Pedro. -Atmoz (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
29. Has been active for quite some time, so I'm sure the tools will be found helpful. -- Mentifisto 14:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
30. Support No real problems here. We're electing an admin here, we allow mistakes to be made. No one is perfect. Aiken ♫ 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
31. Support The block was deserved but it was over a minor spat. I'm confident that giving the bit to Blanchardb will be a net positive. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose sorry. I don't find the answers to Q4 satisfactory enough to allay my concerns that the candidate interprets A7 incorreectly and will continue to do so as an admin. The answers clearly conflate "notability" with "significance or importance". These are not isolated examples: this was particularly suprising. Mistakes are fine; everyone makes them. But the consistency with which these poor tags have been applied takes "occasional mistake" to "consistent misapplication of policy to the project's detriment". Bad CSD tags are a concern for a number of reasons: it can result in losing good content; it can create work at DRV; it bites newbies unnecessarily; and it shows misunderstanding of policy generally. I am also concerned by the 3RR block: 3RR is such an easy rule to comply with. But that alone would probably not have been enough to oppose. I recognise this is an experienced candidate with a generally fine editing history; but I don't think adminship is suitable at this time. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Do these three tags represent a larger pattern, or are these isolated incidents? I don't see any problem with his responses, he seems to know what he's doing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose The response to question 4 really concerns me. I feel that A7 is a vital criterion to understand because it is very often overused, and statements like "The only claim of notability for that troupe was winning a prize in It's Your Show" indicate to me that the criterion is not understood. A7 does not ask about whether such a claim is in fact notable per WP:N but rather whether any claim of notability is asserted (which, by the candidate's own admission, is made). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Candidate correctly says A7 was in error and this should go to Prod or AfD. I believe it is Shirk who is interpreting this response incorrectly. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   While I acknowledge that the candidate noted that this was in error, I was still not convinced of the candidate's expression of why this was in error. However, upon coming back to this after a day, I'm striking my oppose for a different reason. Based on other characteristics, I feel WP:NETPOSITIVE applies strongly here and cannot hold Q4 against the candidate sufficiently to hold up my support. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Per the recent block from edit warring and the answer to question 4. Sorry, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose answer to Q5 does not satisfy me at all, I would expect a more thorough self examination to be generated from such a question by a candidate requesting the mop. The answer makes me think meh. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) moved to support, my apologies I saw Q5 and opposed. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I had pre-emptively addressed this concern in my reply to Q3. Q5 was merely asking for a link to a relevant discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose My standards expect a clean block log for the past year. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Are those standards not reasons not to support, rather than reasons to oppose?--Jac16888^Talk 05:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   They are for any non-support; whether I oppose, abstain from commenting, or weigh in as a neutral depends on the circumstances of the RfA; see my RfA voting history for details. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose - While I see some good reasons to support, I can't support a candidate that has had blocks within the last year. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Again, wouldn't this simply be a reason to !vote neutral or not at all rather than opposing, if the block is the only reason for it--Jac16888^Talk 13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Weak Oppose I don't like to see recent blocks in an RFA candidate, but I'm happy to disregard this particular block. However I'm uncomfortable with the candidates CSD tagging. I'm concerned about some of the examples above, and have gone through some of your deleted contributions to see if these are isolated examples or not. Tagging Mooball as a hoax is somewhat understandable, but implies that you didn't google it. But this sort of one minute tagging seems to be quite frequent. If you are going to tag articles for speedy deletion after just one minute you need to be very cautious about good faith articles where only the first sentence has been saved so far. Most of the tags I checked were OK, but I'd like to see a little more caution if you are going to tag articles at the moment of creation. ϢereSpielChequers 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose - The CSD problems (as seen in Q4,5 and WereSpielChequers' oppose above me) and the recent block leave me with an uneasy feeling. Rami R 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose due to the recent block. Pantherskin (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose - The CSD mistaggings are troubling. But not so much the mistakes, as the incorrect response to them in Q4. The bar for A7 is supposed to be low, you're not supposed to look at an article and determine whether or not you think it's notable and speedily delete based on that. A7 isn't even about notability, as Wikipedia defines it, it is about whether or not the article plausibly claims importance. An article that says "Sam is my neighbor and is really smart" doesn't assert importance, "Sam is my neighbor and is an alien from Jupiter" is implausible, "Sam is my neighbor and is a famous local radio personality" plausibly asserts importance. Even if the article explains that the radio station is a pirate station with few listeners, you'd have to bring the article to WP:PROD or WP:AFD to delete it. That's our process. These misunderstandings combined with the recent block push me over to oppose. I still think Blanchardb has a lot of potential, and would probably support in the future if I see improvement, but I can't trust that the tools won't be used for out-of-process deletions. -- Atama頭 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not sure for the moment. While Q3 does help to reassure me, the 3RR block is still too recent for me to comfortably overlook. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   'I'm sitting here until the CSD issues have been resolved. In addition to the examples mentioned in Q4, this was particularly suprising. I'm seeing a lot of questionable (and downright wrong) recent CSD tagging that has had to be undone by admins. I'm worried that will be come questionable deletions that have to be undone at DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to support #Since the article in question has been deleted, I can't see what the 3RR was about - can some admin please post the diffs to the talk page? Also, a little concerned about the answers to Q4. Some recognition of where he erred in his initial assessment would be sufficient to drop that concern for me. In general, I've seen Blanchardb around, have a vague sense of having been impressed, and I want to support, so I hope these concerns clear up. Ray^Talk 03:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I have restored the article in question and moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2/Queer Fist for the duration of the RFA, it seemed to be the easiest way to do it. If someone could remind me to redelete it when this finishes that would be great.--Jac16888^Talk 04:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral for now I'm pondering about the CSDs.
   • I declined the first one, which Blanchardb has admitted was a mistake, so that's not a problem, we all make them, I made one this week (that I can think of off the top of my head, there's probably more!).
   • The second one I'd have deleted if I'd have seen it at CSD, there's nothing in there that's even hints as to why it's a notable animal, other than someone notable bought it and said nice things about it (indeed, I've just !voted at my first AfD in ages).
   • The third one is borderline. I'm still thinking about it now; is an international federation an inherent assertion of notability? Not sure. Have tagged as A7.
   • So whilst I've not got a problem with any of those tags (nor the vast majority of the other taggings of Blanchardb's that I can recall off the top of my head), I am a little concerned about the answer to Q4. The threshold is lower (credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), so NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply. Some clarification would be helpful. GedUK  08:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
3. unfortunate neutral, but... I wont support due to the block. But id like to. But i wont oppose either, I think theres more levels to this block than meets the eye. I think the mere fact that the edit war involved suckpuppets and such (I guess they were confirmed later right?) that they were disrupting and one could argue some justification in reverting and warning providing it could be proven they were socks. At any rate the best way to handle that would have been to file a sock puppet case after 2 reversions as you identified you would next time in your statement. However as from what i understand the blocking admin stands by his actions and this event was only 4 months ago. I hope you decide to come back to rfa in time if this is unsuccesful. Its unfortunate. but i cant support. Sorry. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)