Biblioworm (talk·contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, I would like to commend Biblioworm to you as a candidate for adminship. I first noticed Biblioworm in wikipedia space making various clueful suggestions. But that isn't an excessive part of Biblioworm's activity here, this is an editor with DYK and GA contributions as well as the sort of gnoming and deletion tagging that shows they have a need for the tools and enables you to check whether they would use the tools correctly. In my opinion Biblioworm's deleted edits show accurate and diverse speedy deletion tagging. Biblioworm has a clean block log, is a clear and civil communicator and has been a rollbacker and pending changes reviewer for over 13 months. In short a candidate who has both contributed to the pedia and helped defend it from spammers, vandals and the like. ϢereSpielChequers06:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I am not a perfect candidate by any means, but I believe that as an administrator I would be a net positive to Wikipedia. I hope the !voters here think the same. --Biblioworm16:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 would probably begin by working in the area of deletion; namely, deleting articles nominated for speedy deletion, deleting expired WP:PRODs, and closing AfDs. (I would begin with uncontroversial AfDs.) As I gained more experience as an admin, I would generally help out at the different areas listed at Category:Administrative backlog, as needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: There's not any one area that is my special favorite, but I will list some things I have done. First of all, I'm proud of my content. I don't claim to be a prolific specialist content creator, but I've created three GAs; I think my latest one, William G. Farrow, is the best example. It passed its GA review quickly with very few issues. I'm currently working to bring Battle of Brunanburh (a very important but, surprisingly, relatively unknown battle of Anglo-Saxon England) to GA status. I also have nine DYKs, with one currently pending at review (at the time of writing). I also have additional articles on my list to create and improve. I've done a considerable amount of copy editing (once, I was even a GOCE co-ordinator), and I also have some experience at the WP:DRN. Finally, I'm interested in helping to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and keeping out content that might degrade it, so for this reason I've done quite a bit of new page patrolling and have nominated a good deal of articles that violate the WP:CSD policy for speedy deletion.
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 far as I can recall, I really have never been in a serious dispute (not counting vandals) about article content, since I tend to edit history articles that usually aren't subject to continual controversy. I have, however, had disagreements with other editors in the project spaces. A recent example I can think of was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System; that was quite a controversial AfD in which I !voted and initially argued for the article's deletion. I got involved in a disagreement about sources, which never became too heated anyway, but eventually I changed my position to "keep" when good sources were added, so that was resolved. I think that showed my ability to change in the event that new evidence is presented, which I think is a good quality. Otherwise, you'll continue to blindly arguing for a position that has no supporting evidence. A second example might be the recent RfA reform efforts. I have become involved in that area recently, and consequently I've have become involved in some rather prolonged threads. I really don't think of those discussions as "arguments" though; rather, I view them as open, healthy discussion, which is necessary for change. I always built my arguments on data, policy and logic; I believe that I was quite civil in the discussions, and to their credit the persons on the other "side" (I don't really like that term, but I couldn't think of anything better) were also civil as well. As I have mentioned, though, some tones are difficult to convey via simple text, and therefore some comments (I can't think of any in particular at the moment) might be misinterpreted. If any !voter has concerns about a specific comment I once made, however, I would ask them to post a question about it rather than opposing straight away, and I will do my best to explain it. I really don't let such disputes stress me out too much; it's important to remember that it is ultimately only a website, and voluntary at that. I never hold any grudges against people I've had disagreements with, and I would hope that they don't, either. In the past, I have even tried to resolve disputes at the DRN, as I mentioned in Q2.
A: I do believe, to a certain extent, that process is important. Without it, Wikipedia would be anarchy, and the encyclopedia's quality would suffer. Imagine what would happen if everyone had their own idea of how articles should be written, without our core content policies. However, I do believe in WP:IAR, and I think that policy actually clears up the matter sufficiently. Process should be ignored when doing so would improve Wikipedia. An example of abusing IAR would be if a person ignored a core content or conduct policy, such as WP:NPOV or WP:NPA, which is very unlikely to improve the encyclopedia.
A: My understanding is that the CSD policy should be applied quite literally, per this sentence in the relevant policy: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Expanding the CSD criteria to include something not specified would open up the possibility of administrators deleting article unilaterally while citing some vague interpretation of the CSD policy. If the page does not clearly meet the CSD criteria, there is always AfD.
6. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?
A: Note that the claim of significance must be credible. This is a very important part of the policy. As pointed out by the helpful WP:CCS essay, "credible claim of significance" requires a two-step test. (1: Credible; 2: Significant) Here is an example of an article that would satisfy these criteria: "<name> is an author who has written the best-selling book <place book name here>." This claim is credible, since it is certainly plausible that the person might in fact have written a best-selling book. It is significant, because if it is true it might very well establish the notability of the subject. For instance, WP:AUTHOR says that authors may be considered worthy of their own article if their work "has won significant critical attention." A best-seller is likely to attract at least some critical attention. Therefore, such an article would not qualify for deletion under CSD A7. Now, here is an example of an article that would not meet the requirement of a credible claim of significance: "<name> is the first kid ever to become the president of the united states." (Note that I purposely used incorrect capitalization.) If true, it would certainly establish the notability of the subject, but is not credible, most importantly because the person in question legally could not be president per the United States Constitution, due to their age.
7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions, particularly deletion?
A: I talked about IAR a bit just above. The policy itself says, in essence, that rules should be ignored if doing so would improve the encyclopedia. Especially with admin actions, IAR is open to abuse if misapplied. Therefore, I would be quite conservative as an admin. As I mentioned above, I think the CSD criteria should be applied quite strictly. I cannot think of any instances where it would be good to "ignore" the criteria; when in doubt, AfD should always be used. There is really no need to ignore rules there. The criteria for deleting an article per PROD are also quite clear-cut. In the absence of objections (or, in the case of BLP PROD, the addition of sources) after a week, the article may simply be deleted. The administrator does not have to delete it by any means, and can simply send it to AfD if they think there should be more discussion about the article. At AfD, admins should close the discussion per the guidelines at WP:CLOSEAFD, which are quite reasonable. (Leave it open for at least seven days barring WP:SNOW cases, weigh arguments per policy, and be uninvolved in the issue.) Perhaps, in clear-cut SNOW cases, a person who participated in the discussion could close the AfD. But ultimately, I think the processes in place for deletion are very well set up to prevent abuse, and I have difficulty seeing a case where it would benefit the encyclopedia to ignore them. Note that it can also be difficult to think of instances where rules should be ignored in a theoretical question like this; it would probably take actual experience to encounter instances where IAR would be appropriate.
8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A: I expect that I would certainly get questions from users (especially new ones) if I were to take an administrative actions pertaining to them. (Deleting an article, for instance.) Whatever the case, it is the job of the administrator to explain to the user why they took the action, cite the relevant policies, and help them contribute constructively. For example, if an admin deletes an article with a BLP PROD tag and is questioned by the author, he should explain that he deleted the article because no sources were added within a week of the tagging (while referencing WP:BLPPROD) and tell the user how to recreate the article properly. Perhaps he could also offer to restore the page and move it to userspace for further improvements. Another example: if there is a content dispute and, consequently, edit warring, the admin should point the editor to the proper venues for dispute resolution, which would be, in order, the talk page, third opinion (if only two editors are involved), WP:DRN, and WP:MEDCOM. As an administrator, I would of course do these things I just described.
9. As an admin, you are patrolling Category:CSD. You encounter a page tagged for deletion as "no-context" (CSD A1). The full content of the page is: "In 1979-80 <organization> , a feminist art center in <US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <event>." There is no other content. What actions do you take?
A: According to WP:A1: "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, there is enough context that A1 is not appropriate." Since, given the placemarkers you put, there would presumably be proper names, this article would not qualify for deletion under CSD A1, since an editor could possibly use the names to do more research on the topic. Therefore, I would decline the A1 tag. If the apparent subject of the article is the art center (or the event), however, the page could be deleted per A7, since there is no credible claim of significance.
10. I was surprised to see your account was this new, and I noticed you were editing templates within 40 minutes of registering ([1]). It also strikes me as unusual to see an account this new trying to reform RfA. So, is this your first Wikipedia account? If so, what do you say to people who view new accounts that get started very quickly with suspicion? I've seen others suggest socking in similar situations. Do you think that's fair? Why or why not?
A: I'll answer this question quickly because I think it is important to clear up this issue. I have only edited under one account here, and the only other edits I made before that were a few typo corrections using long-forgotten IP addresses. Yes, it is true that I was already performing relatively advanced functions for my first few edits. However, there is a perfectly legitimate reason for this, which is that I had previous editing experience on other wikis not associated with the WMF. Therefore, I was familiar with the wiki model, the concept of templates, and other things that ordinarily take much more time for complete newbies to learn. In regard to RfA reform, I was also familiar with the concept of adminship because of my aforementioned previous editing experience elsewhere. To be quite honest, I don't remember how I first came upon WT:RFA (my long-term memory isn't that good), but when I did I saw all the complaints about how RfA was broken. Coincidentally, RfA was in a very dry phase at the time and there were several proposals for reform. I found this interesting, began digging through archives, read through past RfAs, etc., and I became convinced that the process indeed was broken. Since then, I've followed RfA with much interest. In regard to your last sentences, I do not think it is right to automatically assume bad faith about new users who get started quickly. It is perfectly possible that they were in my situation (previous experience elsewhere), or perhaps they actually read all the advice pages on their welcome template before beginning to edit. We should not assume that they're a sock unless they begin to engage in other additional activities that suggest it.
A: I think the policy, overall, is good and reasonable. In summary, its contents are explaining the job of administrators and how they should conduct themselves as admins. There are also other sections that describe their abilities, history, and how the user right is gained and lost.
12. There appears to be an editing disagreement at Effie Maud Aldrich Morrison. What in your opinion should be done to diffuse this situation?
A: Well, the situation there already seems to be diffusing somewhat. But let's just assume that it was still going on with no signs of stopping. First, the admin should check if any users have violated WP:3RR and act accordingly (e.g., blocks if appropriate). If no one has yet passed 3RR, he should first warn the users involved that they may be blocked if they pass three reverts. It would also be good to suggest that the involved users make use if the available dispute resolution venues, such as WP:3O (two users only), WP:DRN, and, for disputes that have not been resolved after these stages, WP:MEDCOM. (In the most extreme and prolonged cases, WP:ARBCOM may be appropriate.) Per WP:EDITWAR, there is also the option of fully protecting the page (assuming the edit war is amongst experienced users).
A: I'd be inclined to close the first one as keep, since the reason given for deletion is not valid per WP:DEL#REASON (and there were, in fact, a few references in the article). The subject does seem to meet WP:GNG. I would relist the second one, because there was only one keep !vote and it was quite weak at that. Finally, I think there was a very narrow consensus to delete in the third one. There was a rather strong case that very similar, almost interchangeable articles already existed and therefore there was no need for a separate one.
14. You are working on CSDs, there is a backlog of some 30-40 articles. You find that every time you decide to delete the article has already gone, conversely when you decide keep it has either had the tag removed or been deleted. You think the deleted articles you would have kept would have struggled at AfD, but were marginal CSDs at best. What do you do?
A: That would be a difficult situation. It might be an option to restore the articles and send them to AfD, but personally I wouldn't do that without first discussing the matter with the deleting admin. If they disagree, I would respect their judgement. However, for questionable CSD deletions, there is the option of WP:DRV.
A: The tag would presumably be WP:G5. First, I would confirm that the user was actually blocked as a suspected sock. Since the article is a GA, there is a good chance that there would be edits by others (although not necessarily). In this case, the article could not be deleted, per this condition in the relevant policy: "...and which have no substantial edits by others." The situation becomes more tricky if the user brought the article up to GA status single-handedly. It may be a controversial decision, but I actually think this would be a good example where WP:IAR is justified. The letter of the rule says the article should be deleted, but would deleting it somehow benefit Wikipedia, especially if it were a high-quality GA? I don't think it would. So, either way, I think I would keep the article.
16. You are patrolling Special:NewPages and you come across this. If the article about Thibodaux was a real article in the mainspace and not a userspace or Afc draft, would you tag it as CSD A1, move it to the draft namespace for improvement or do something else with it? English Wikipedia Patrol (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: The article does not qualify for deletion under WP:A1, since there is clear context there. I would leave the article in the mainspace, but I would tag it as needing sources (and as a stub), or perhaps find a source for it myself.
17. Is there any happiness to be found in being a Wikipedia admin?
A: I suppose it depends on how you view the job and what type of work you do. If a person views administrative tasks as contributing to the quality maintenance of a free educational resource and/or does work they enjoy, I suppose there could be some happiness to the job.
19. Suppose the oppose section of your RfA becomes a huge back-and-forth argument with attacks and nastiness coming from both sides. Do you think, as the candidate, it's your responsibility to rein in the more enthusiastic of your supporters?
A: I would probably leave a note in the general comments section (perhaps pinging the "more enthusiastic of [my] supporters") and ask that everyone drop the issue and continue with the RfA. That might not be enough, but if supporters won't even listen to the person they're supporting, then intervention by bureaucrats or other administrators might be required to calm down the argument.
20. What do you do when someone is impersonating you?
A: If a user is maliciously impersonating someone else, with an obvious intent to deceive people into believing that they're actually the person, there really is no choice but to block. I could technically do it myself, but just to avoid any appearance of being WP:INVOLVED (after all, the case would be all about me), I would probably just report them to UAA for another admin to take care of.
21. I've seen you around at AFD and know you've made closures before, but have you closed any controversial AFD's in the past? If so, what were your rationales for such closures??
A: I do remember that I once closed a rather controversial AfD, but I can't remember exactly which one it was. In any case, it was definitely over a year ago and I'm not sure it would be too relevant to this discussion, in light of its age. At the time, I had been around for only a few months and was just learning the basics. If you want more details, however, I could try to look through the archives to find it.
A: Yes, I do. It is, in fact, very strong, and has been since the day I registered. It is randomly generated and has well over 10 characters, with a mix of capitalization, letters, numbers, and symbols. It is not used anywhere else. Even better, I have it completely memorized.
Absolutely. Knows the system inside and out. And I trust his judgment. Also, AfD looks fine, and his CSD and PROD work looks pretty insanely great. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have always found Biblioworm to be very reasonable and level-headed. Their name has poped up many a times and always in a positive light. Good AfD record, better CSD log and have overall shown great understanding of policies. They have been here for a while and I don't see any reason to believe that they wouldn't make an excellent admin. Yash!18:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Biblioworm definitely puts in a large amount of effort toward improving the encyclopedia, both front-end and back-end, and they have a clear innate understanding of policy and common practice. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 19:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems odd, to me anyway, when the opposes pushes one to support. I just find it strange that the Wikipedia community doesn't believe it's a community. Or that some individuals can't build an encyclopedia and also have fun doing it! Good luck Biblioworm, from someone who can do more than one thing at a time!!! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!"19:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wholeheartedly: not only makes good article contributions, but is also clueful in meta areas. Arguments relating to edit count namespace proportions will unfairly exclude candidates who do good work in various areas, but where one activity is particularly edit-count intensive. BethNaught (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I appreciate Biblioworm's desire to improve the RFA process but I too think it was done in a way that only contributed to the marathon of RFC proposals which ultimately spread the community's attention in too many directions to impossibly affect any real change. That being said, this editor will be a clear net positive and I agree with much of how this editor reviews situations. Also, roughly 40% main space editing proportion used to be considered a respectable percentage. I'm not sure when or why it arbitrarily changed to make a candidate untrustworthy of the tools. Mkdwtalk19:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I often wonder if I would pass RFA again considering how standards have inflated. Not to say that RFA wasn't tough in 2013 but it has changed. I recall someone in my RFA noted an "excessive degree of questioning" topping out at 16 questions. That considering our last successful candidate had 33 questions. Mkdwtalk18:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. BMK in the oppose section brings up various data that seem to indicate the candidate has done lots of admin-related work (anyone who thinks that many edits to the CSD log indicate the user should not be an admin should do some research before commenting here). Also, the candidate has been here for more active months and has more edits than I had when I became an admin, so I see no reason to oppose based on editcount or tenure. —Kusma (t·c) 20:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should turn in the bit, then, since you seem to have little idea of what the purpose of being an admin is. I'll give you a hint: it ain't to fool around with CSD. BMK (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, one of the most common admin tasks is processing speedy deletions. That is done by deleting the page or removing the deletion tag. Fooling around with CSD is, as you say, not part of the job. Nobody has posted evidence yet that Biblioworm is fooling around with CSD -- do you have any? —Kusma (t·c) 22:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misconstrue my meaning in using "fooling around". I am not charging him with any impropriety, I am saying that having a large number of edits to CSD logs, while also having a low number of content edits, does not describe a person I want as an admin. If you've got a problem with that, too bad. BMK (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your complaint is that he is engaged (and doing well) in administrative tasks instead of amassing mainspace edits. I think that speaks for itself. —Kusma (t·c) 10:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate does a little too much politicking and pontificating for my liking (140kb of RfA talk is quite a lot over the course of one year), but I can already tell that the oppose section is going to serve yet again as the judge's booth for the Perfect Editor Award, so I'll offer my support to help nip that trend in the bud. The candidate has written a multitude of well-sourced articles from scratch, successfully nominated many pages for speedy deletion, and not missed a mainspace edit summary since his first month on the job. What more could you people possibly want? – Juliancolton | Talk21:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support BW seems to me to have the necessary temperament for adminship. Yet more spurious arguments (this time about mainspace/talkspace stats and tenure) do nothing to predict the contribution I'm sure BW will make with the mop. BW is a net positive for the Wiki and has no indications of poor handling of conflict. Just let them get on with it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Support Possible, Biblio has proved himself to be mature, civil, helpful, and someone who cares about the wiki. He bravely started the current RfA RfC, which proves Biblio's courage to be bold and get things done himself. --AmaryllisGardenertalk22:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trying to help reform this RfA mess alone earns my vote. Pushing for reform while undergoing this process simultaneously? Kudos. You've got the time to use the mop, at least.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in general he is a very positive contributor to the project, and we can except many good things to come form him. A little rough around the edges on a couple of things, but nothing big enough to prevent access to the extra mop. For example his CSD record isn't perfect for someone looking to work in that realm. No real conflict, so we don't know how he'll handle it (the Q3 example didn't seem too contentious)... but again, I think he can grow into the role responsibly and without reservations. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being here for at least 6 months and having 5000 edits is more than enough. The vast majority of people who passed with lower numbers than Biblioworm have been exceptional admins. The ones who weren't always had other issues such as being combative or never fully grasping or following Wikipedia's fundamental policies. There is no evidence that any of this applies to Biblioworm, who has made impressive contributions to mainspace and project namespace. Gizza(t)(c)00:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen BW around here and there, working on content, contributing to admin areas (CSD and AFD look reasonable), and doing policy and RFA reform work. Very good candidate; I was going to offer to nominate him, but never got around to it. Opposition isn't remotely convincing (that seems to be a common trend these days). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thought (s)he was already an administrator, based on what I had seen in the past. Always seems to be doing good work, based on the times we've crossed paths. Been around over a year, has plenty of experience in the mainspace and Wikipedia space (half the edits were automated, but from a perusal it seems those were mostly quite some time ago). Wants to work in CSD and seems to have plenty of experience there. Cordial, knowledgeable. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship is about judgement, not arbitrary statistics, box ticking, or distribution of edits by mainspace, etc. You can have a perfectly shaped pie chart and just the right balance of edit count and tenure and be a lousy admin, or you can have none of those things and still be a great admin. What this boils down to is "do you trust Biblioworm's judgement". I do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, if you know the candidate well enough to make that sort of judgment about them, but with the number of editors I come into contact with, that's really not possible most of the time, so I -- and I suspect many other RfA voters -- need some kind of way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Sometimes it's sufficient to take the word of other editors that I trust (you, for instance, would be one of them), other times I'm swayed for or against the candidate by the arguments of other editors in the vote itself, and sometimes I'm thrown back on analyzing their contributions by the methods that you seem so disdainful of. I'd be the first to admit that it tells me little or nothing about who the candidate is, but it certainly tells me quite a bit about what the candidate has been doing on Wikipedia, and I think that's not an insignificant factor in determining their appropriateness for the job. BMK (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. The AFD and CSD logs also look good, considering the user wants to work in deletion areas. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Clear net positive. Fourteen months of activity is a bit on the short side but the candidate has clearly learned the ropes quite fast. The relatively light focus on content creation is also somewhat of a sore point for me, but there's enough present to show they're clearly capable. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even though Biblioworm is a relatively new editor (registered in April 2014, just 1.5 years ago), he seems competent enough. I don't see any reason not to give him admin tools. epic genius (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid contributor, evidence of clue, level-headed good insight and frankly, 18 months is fine; if the candidate doesn't run for RfA soon, it will be too late; inevitably all editors eventually piss off someone, and that's fatal in RfA-land. The answer to Q3 does not trouble me in the least, the candidate speaks clearly, states a view, remains calm and above the fray and even when admitting to being a bit frazzled still hit the nail on the head and exhibited significant insight and rationality. This candidate has a spine, which is much needed to wield the mop. Montanabw(talk)04:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good content contributions and a reasonable balance of boldness and humility. I wondered about the initial start as WritingEnthusiast14 so have investigated that in detail and am satisfied. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd normally be apprehensive about the lower account age, but Biblioworm has established themselves as a sensible editor with adequate experience in the right areas for adminship. No qualms in supporting this request. Sam Walton (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tactical support to help balance some utterly ridiculous opposition. Three good articles and "I also don't see any indication of significant content creation"? 347 CSD-related edits and "I don't see any need for the tools"? A dozen GA reviews and "I have to question what the editor considers to be their purpose here"? Extraordinary. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)12:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree edit count seems low but in March 2004 it would have seemed absurdly high. As usual I urge the candidate to take notice of those comments that indicate areas for improvement, we can all benefit from listening to our critics. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 13:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Biblioworm should make a fine administrator. Concerns about edit count and time served in the oppose section are unjustified, in my opinion, and the candidate's GAs, DYKs, and GoCE work show that they are more than capable of applying our content policies and creating quality content. In my interactions with the candidate I have also always found them to be civil and considerate, and can't see why there would be any problem with giving them a few extra permissions. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪13:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Note: I actually penned this before I knew when this RfA was going to go live). Consider this a 'scrape through'. I'm a bit concerned about all the effort he has been putting in to adminship issues so early in his Wiki career, 163 contribs to WT:RfA - by far his largest single area of participation. Of his 8,000 edits, around 3,500 of which are (semi)automated, were made in late 2014 with his monthly average having dropped significantly since. Being nominated by WSC relieves me of the need to examine his deletions. His 20 created articles, many of which are stubs, are short, clean, and well written - again looking (to me at least) like a requirement fulfilment for adminship, but which would probably get him the autopatrolled flag under the new low criterion. His first article was deleted. Q3: The answer is vague - disputes can easily arise from issues not connected with content. All said and done however, AFAICS, Biblioworm has done nothing egregious at all, and is always friendly and polite, has learned a lot about policy already and I trust him not to run amok with the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not as worried about the number of edits as what's in them, and whether the candidate has clue. Opposes are interesting, but now and then back in the day we let people skip a grade. It usually worked out. This seems to be that case; no point in turning him back into the wilderness for more seasoning.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear evidence of involvement in and understanding of the project at a level appropriate for an admin. Articulate, intelligent, and a fast and willing learner. SilkTork✔Tea time14:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Has enough article work that the edit distribution opposes hold no water, same with the semi-atomated edit opposes. One or two minor cases of incivility also certainly aren't enough of a reason to oppose. "Only 15 months [of editing]" is a little ridiculous too. If this is the worst that this candidate has done, he'd make a fine administrator. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No bans and no controversial, unpleasant, or rancorous dialogues. In short, no red flags for me. We need more industrious, engaged admins. I'm a bit irritated BW is being criticized for participating too heavily in the recent RfA discussion. So let my "support" vote cancel out 1/3 of an "oppose" based on such specious concerns. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator support. But also per Andrew Davidson - it isn't often that we get a deletion tagger who even Andrew would trust with the deletion button. As to the opposes, there has been a general drift at RFA from looking at a candidate's edits to looking at stats about those edits, how long they have been here, how many edits they have and in what namespaces; That drift has been accompanied by steady inflation of expectations in the more easily measured things, and we are now getting some opposes even for candidates with over 12 months tenure. My belief is that we are more likely to separate good candidates from bad by looking at their actual edits - and very few of the opposes so far contain a single diff of an edit. ϢereSpielChequers18:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the candidate's deletion work myself. Other people said his speedy nominations were ok but I don't have a personal opinion. What I did was browse his content creations such as the GAs and DYKs, which looked fine at first glance. I then spent most time checking out his early history as I was suspicious of him having come well-experienced from another wiki. This might have been a cover story for socking but it checked out fine and the other wiki wasn't an especially weird or polemical one. There's a limit to how much time I spend sampling, especially today when there was the 5 million target to chase. My thinking is to check out some aspects that others haven't covered and so help provide a rounded picture. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and it's clear that this user is very knowledgeable about policy and is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk18:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hate to think what my mainspace vs talk page ratio is... There is a need for content creators on Wikipedia. There is also a need for people who improve the encyclopaedia by removing rubbish. I've never had any problems with BW or heard of any. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Opposes not convincing. If you were to take out my contribs from patrolling recent changes, I probably would have had < 5K nonautomated edits when I requested adminship, and I had also only been active for a year. What I'm getting it is those are just numbers. Those aside, I'm impressed with the candidate's answers to the questions, good content work, and I recall only positive interactions with them. Clueful, civil, and level-headed. No reason to oppose — MusikAnimaltalk19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good experience with admin areas (particularly CSD), some content contributions and his involvement with RFA reform I actually think is a plus, as it shows he put a lot of thought into the responsibilities. I actually thought he was an administrator already. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The opposes are entirely unconvincing and fail to take into account the value of Biblioworm's contributions. A high volume of CSD tagging is a good thing if done responsibly. If there were any evidence of careless new page patrolling, then I may be swayed into thinking otherwise, but so far nobody has presented anything of the sort. Namespace distribution is among the most shallow measures of an editor's worth for a myriad different reasons: the person could be a tremendous asset in the areas that they are interested in, they could be in the habit of creating content within user subpages, etc. Biblioworm is doing a great job, and we'll all be better off with him as an administrator. Kurtis(talk)22:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate. I perceive no issues, and I find the opposers' concerns unpersuasive. In particular, the repeated "too soon" comments suggesting that an RfA should require 18 months or two years or more of editing are unsupported, inconsistent with historical standards, and if widely adopted would be actively harmful to the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A solid contributor with a clean block log. AfD and CSD logs show a good understanding of policy; comments at AfD are detailed, showing research and thought. Articles created are of excellent quality. I trust Biblioworm and feel they will be a valuable addition to the admin corps. The oppose arguments are not convincing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to say I was a bit concerned about all the banging on the RfA-reform drum, but I see the oppose section has decided to go ahead and prove Biblioworm right that the process encourages absurdities. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a certain percentage of Wikipedians who just plain don't like "oppose" votes, and would be happier with a system that did away with them altogether. They especially don't like anyone opposing based on standards that aren't their own - but if I'm going to vote, it's going to be on the basis (whatever it is) of what I, and not on the basis of what some other editor might think. It just sorta works better that way. BMK (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No – what a lot of us don't like are "opposes" based on patently silly or spurious grounds, esp. those that have nothing to do with policy. Personally, I hope the Crats take a look at the opposes based on this candidate's work on RfA reform, and drop them in the "round file" where they belong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've thought about this candidacy a good bit the last couple of days, reviewed the links provided by the "oppose" !voters, as well as some of the candidate's content creations and additions. What I have found is a candidate who is articulate, thoughtful, helpful and civil, and who is also a pretty damn good writer, editor and researcher. Sure, I would like to see more candidates with longer tenures, but I also see absolutely no reason why we should not accept this strong candidate just because other candidates would not be ready with only 15 months experience, and I see absolutely no evidence Biblioworm is going to break the wiki or suddenly change his thoughtful, cautious style as an administrator. If he keeps doing what he's been doing, he will be a sound administrator and a strong net positive for the project. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I think any editor in good standing, who has shown the ability to edit the encyclopedia without malice for over a year should receive the "mop and bucket" should they ask for it. The only caveat to this should be if the editor has shown a tendency to "fly off the handle", and this editor has not shown such tendencies, so BW has my support. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage)05:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In view of some debate, I thought I should examine and weigh Biblioworm's content contributions carefully. Biblioworm started and wrote most of the content of the three GA articles and the nine articles that produced the DYKs for which he is credited. But wait, three of the DYKs came from the GA articles. So that is only nine articles of high status. And the now famous User:Casliber actually contributed some content to one of them. On the other hand, Biblioworm has contributed content and improvements in the current effort to bring Battle of Brunanburh to GA status. He has created 11 other articles but one is a disambiguation page, six are informative, but nonetheless stub, articles about galaxies and one of the other four is about a particularly ugly Japanese parrotfish. His latest on Brecon Castle is a good start class article. On balance, I would have to say that, even taking into account his edit count/mainspace percentage, he not only knows how to create content and promote articles to GA status but has actually done so. It is enough to show he understands the process as well. That's one hurdle. He is also an excellent writer and clear communicator. As MelanieN writes, he has a clean block log; AfD and CSD logs show a good understanding of policy; comments at AfD are detailed, showing research and thought. So he has experience in administrative areas. While his RfA reform effort may not produce much change, I must credit him for his initiative and I do not see any incivility in his comments or debates. No one has been forced to spend any more time on it than they wished. User:MusikAnimal, User:Kurtis and several others express points that I would make. As is usually the case, User:Dirtlawyer1 is persuasive and makes points with which I can agree. I can not be quite as tentative as User:Kudpung, but he makes some good points which I wish to second, and the bottom line is that he supports the candidate's RfA. So do I. Donner60 (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the candidate shows initiative in simply accepting the challenge of subjecting himself/herself to the intense scrutiny of an RfA. I support many of the changes in overhauling the RfA process to reduce irrelevant standards which an administrator should possess. There will be a learning curve, perfection is not required. In good faith I believe this candidate will do just fine. Best Regards,
Support - Okay, Biblioworm did get carried away a bit with the RfA reform, but I suspect he really wants change and is prepared to stand up for it, so that's fair enough. He responds well to criticism and can work together with other editors easily (eg: Template:Did you know nominations/Brecon Castle) and has a good track record of content and understanding policies, from my experience. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This editor has been here a long time and doing well. I see nothing put forward to suggest they would not make a good admin. I became an admin in less than a year of activity here and it turned out well, I see no reason for years and years of experience. Being an admin is after all not a big deal. HighInBC15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (edit conflict) - Ah, it's my old friend Biblioworm. I expected this RfA but didn't thought it will come so soon. A clueful, sesnible editor with whom I've worked and found them to be extremely kind and polite even in disagreements. JimCarter15:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I remember when I first ran across Biblioworm I thought he already was an admin, one that had recently changed his name. Then I was surprised he was a new editor. Some people come into the project with CLUE, some develop it, and some will never acquire it. I judge Biblioworm to be in the first category. A sensible person who will benefit the project as an admin. He may make a few mistakes, but I don't think they will be of they type that sends the project into a dramatizzy. Good nom, good answers, and good (if comparatively brief) editing history. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
!Oppose because I thought you were already an admin. (This is, of course, a support !vote). No concerns here, I'm sure you will continue to be a model Wikipedian if granted access to the tools. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, candidate has experience of DYKs and GAs so well aware about policies related to content creation. Also has good percentage of edits in non-article space. I liked answer of question 15. Clean block log, no issues related behaviour, enough experience, Good to go.--Human3015TALK00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I respect some of the points opposers are making, but I'm satisfied with meeting the threshold of content work and preliminary pre-admin exploration. I think User:Dirtlawyer1 has expressed my point of view pretty well. Here's a civil editor with very little dramah background, one who's had the audacity to attempt to examine the RFA process, an effort some editors seem to find unpalatable and presumptuous. I respect good faith attempt at improvement, even if unsuccessful, even if undesirable (and I'm not negatively characterizing the specifics here, just admiring the boldness). No reason to suspect this editor will delete the main page; the rest is experience not yet acquired. BusterD (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I've reviewed the candidate's answers to the questions, as well as all of the reasons for oppose votes, and nothing therein convinces me that the editor will misuse the tools or fail to learn from any mistakes that are made as an admin. I explicitly reject the argument that the ratio of edits (% mainspace, % user space, etc.) has any bearing on the candidate's fitness for the bit. Etamni | ✉ | ✓05:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good contributions, especially at AfD. As an aside, I surprised to see that some editors regard % mainspace edits as relevant. I agree that content creation is an important quality for prospective admins, but it seems to me that the absolute number should be more important than the %. In any case, the presence of Good Articles is enough for me to accept a significant quantity of content creation. Axl¤[Talk]13:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support BW's useful contribution to the running of the GOCE predisposes me to support, and I've not seen any compelling reason not to during this RfA. Opposes based on tenure seem to me to be demanding far too much tenure; imho he has enough. I agree with those who say that the stuff on RfA reform is too much, and I'd advise BW to chose his wording carefully when refuting arguments, even when they are flawed. Occasionally you come across as I-know-better-than-you, and I-already-dealt-with-that. Often you do, and you did, but it can appear to be talking down to people. It only needs a bit more care with choice of words. This is not sufficient reason to oppose, however, and I think BW is quite likely to become a very good admin. --Stfg (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was actually busy in the later part of my term and didn't have time for the tasks which the job required, and when I was elected I had every intent of helping out through my term. I certainly didn't become coordinator for the sake of collecting hats. ;) The only reason I haven't been copy editing articles is because many that I'm interested in on the requests page are too long or have already been taken by the time I see them. I've also started started creating and/or improving articles, so therefore a considerable percentage of my time in mainspace is spent there. --Biblioworm16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has my confidence and seems to have a good temperament and acceptably few bad habits. I'm probably akin to Juliancolton's view on this nom. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sufficient experience, my own check didn't reveal any problems and issues pointed out in oppose section don't seem very serious.--Staberinde (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A better editor would have more content contributions and more than 39% mainspace edits. But I don't expect everyone to be a perfect editor. Or a perfect admin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Intelligent, discusses issues well, is sufficiently familiar with how things work around here – and what Opabinia regalis said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per several of the opposers. A year and a half of solid editing is quite sufficient for the admin tools, even if you don't have a specific need for them. Talk about ridiculous standards! If you're setting such standards and opposing for those reasons only, you've obviously not found any actual problems, any actual reasons to oppose, and policy says that administrative rights are no big deal, so admin rights should be given to someone whom we can trust not to abuse them. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Candidate's answers to questions are good. The contribution history shows a good spread of experience. I'm very delighted to see an editor with <10,000 edits to have both adequate understanding to tackle RfA, and the guts to run for adminship. Deryck C.00:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I want to pile on with my endorsement for this candidate. I've seen his good work lately and believe he will be a net-positive. Biblioworm, please take the concerns about your relatively short time editing very seriously and please take your time getting used to the new tools. I agree with other editors here that it looks like you may eventually get into the more controversial parts of admin work and I truly hope you take lots of time getting to know things better (including your prospective new tools) before jumping in too deep. I have confidance that you'll take care. - tucoxn\talk22:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Low edit count and activity on Wikipedia. I'd like to see further discussion prior to changing my !vote. Note: Edit count is by no means a means to an end. However, the user's quality contributions to Wikipedia doesn't appear to justify their need for administrative tools adequately.--JustBerry (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Only a little over a year here; insufficient article edits (only 40%), too much in User talk (30%), and 347 (!) edits to their CSD log. I have to question what the editor considers to be their purpose here, improving the encyclopedia or... what? BMK (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. Is it really the distribution of edits you object to, and not the absolute number? All else being equal, you'd prefer a candidate with 3,000 article edits and 1,000 other edits (75% mainspace) over one with 3,000 article edits and 7,000 other edits (30% mainspace)? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)09:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Active work on CSD supports his involvement with a mop versus a pen. Although looking over the CSD log, there is some minor concern that he might be too hasty with the CSD tool as in several cases other action could, should or was taken -- such as redirect or where a PROD would have brought about the necessary changes without the need for something speedy. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Did I just write that? A few days ago I was thinking Biblioworm should run; there were some GAs and some other covered hurdles, and then I noticed this page. Yesterday, I thought I'd be supporting. Last night, I read the Qs before it opened, and was a bit disappointed. Liz got BW to fix some Q3 issues.[2] Q1 is OK (c/e). It mentions CSD and AfD, there's a CSD log, and the performance looks good. Sampled AfD args go to policy; I'm not sure about some RS ID, but that's not a big issue. Q2 troubles me with focus; it recaps efforts rather than identify the best: "There's not any one area that is my special favorite, but I will list some things I have done." The first sentence avoids the question. "I also have additional articles on my list to create and improve." The early Q3 was a miss; v2.0 does a little better, but I'm not happy with it. First, I expect candidates to have been in several disputes; that's a side-effect of providing content. Even if material is not controversial, there are plenty of difficult editors out there. Second, my take is that when BW is in an argument, BW does not let go: "consequently I've have become involved in some rather prolonged threads". That's a bad sign for me. State a position and get out. There's also a touch of dismissiveness: "I have always found it very amazing indeed that this is so difficult to see for some." The low edit count is a surprise. BW has 8800 edits. That's a good count, but the mainspace count is only 3200. That's just above the 3K number I want to see. However, BW has 3500 Huggle and Twinkle edits, so the mainspace count would be light. Another metric I look at is the mainspace talk > 50%; it's 44%. I'm leery. I want more experience in content, conflict, and perspective. Glrx (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I want editors who've been here more than 2 years and who are actively editing ( (You've only been here a year & You barely made 200 edits last month), I'm not entirely happy with the amount of edits made to talk pages either (Atleast to me you've edited talkpages more than articles...), All in all IMHO I don't believe the editor's ready for the mop just yet. –Davey2010Talk19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Davey2010, JustBerry, and Beyond My Ken. For one, I don't see any need for the tools, but I'm also a bit apprehensive about giving them to such a new account. I think less than 18 months is too quick to run for RfA, as it hasn't given the community enough time to build the needed trust. I also don't see any indication of significant content creation, which would have helped to remediate my concern about this being too soon. I also agree with a concern raised by Glrx, who pointed out that BW is prone to condescension and snark, which I was exposed to at the "remake RfA" page BW started ([3]). RO(talk)20:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the candidate's answer to Q1 was "... I would probably begin by working in the area of deletion; namely, deleting articles nominated for speedy deletion, deleting expired WP:PRODs, ...". This shows the wrong mindset. This is not the approach that an Admin working in those areas should take; rather the Admin's role is to assess the article against the criteria and take appropriate action. I work extensively at CAT:CSD and a significant number of nominations are not deleted. Just Chilling (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Biblioworm's response to question 5 does not imply to you that they would not delete articles which do not strictly meet the CSD criteria? BethNaught (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested to know that by March 2012 the number of pages (and bytes) in Mainspace was significantly less than 39%. I wouldn't be surprised if many regular editors have similar profiles. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Which is an indication of one of the things that's wrong with Wikipedia, the tail wagging the dog. That's a problem we really can't do that much about, but there's no reason to exacerbate it by rewarding ancillary activity with admin bits. One can learn the purely technical stuff required of being an admin, but it's a lot harder to learn what it means to be a content editor, and what their needs and concerns are, without having been one. That's one reason I look for content experience, and that I'm not so concerned as others here about admin candidates pretending to be admins before they have the bit. BMK (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile on ArbCom; the average mainspace % for the 12 active members of ArbCom is....(drumroll please)...35.3%. I move we remove all members of ArbCom with mainspace % below 40% (or some other arbitrary % level which demonstrates abject incompetence). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's a strawman. I've noted on several occasions that the ratios for admin will obvoiusly not fulfill this requirement, due to the nature of the work they do, This goes even more so for Arbs. BMK (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's even more of a strawman to find fault with a potential admin based on their percentage of mainspace edits. And that, thank you, was my point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, no. The proposition here is that Biblio has what it takes to be an admin. The argument against it is a fallacy; that some arbitrary level of mainspace percentage contributions creates the perfect match for what it takes to be an admin. Classic strawman. It's an absurd argument. Nobody has any evidence from any source to indicate that mainspace % is tied to the ability of a person to be an administrator. If 39% isn't enough, pray tell do you have any evidence to show what the magic % is? If you don't, the argument is bunk. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Davey2010, JustBerry, and Beyond My Ken and Rationalobserver - For one, I don't see any need for the tools, but I'm also a bit apprehensive about giving them to such a new account. I think less than 18 months is too quick to run for RfA, as it hasn't given the community enough time to build the needed trust. I also don't see any indication of significant content creation, which would have helped to remediate my concern about this being too soon. I would also suggest that he start working on the backlog and also help create articles that would benefit Wikipedia so that they can gain the trust from the Wikipedia community. Unfortunately I have apprehension in supporting the user too soon. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits) 08:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC) - Note: Verbatim copied from Rationalobserver's vote; please attribute per CC BY-SA 3.0 or (preferably) don't copy at all. Esquivaliencet18:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really think this is just a bit too soon, sorry. Combine that with the fact that I share the concerns of Glrx, and I'm afraid I have to oppose for now. Begoontalk12:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I should probably add that, in a twist that gave me a wry smile, several of the concerns Kudpung outlined so well in his "Support" vote, which came after my vote, are actually factors in my oppose. Different sides of the same thin line, I guess. If, as seems likely, this succeeds, I actually do think the candidate will take all this on board, but given RFA as it is, I'd rather see it happen first. Begoontalk14:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inexperience and unwillingness to let pointless arguments go, such as at this very recent RFC. This somewhat echoes Glrx's Oppose above. Asking for other people's comments then repeatedly insisting other people's comments are wrong leads me to conclude the candidate is unreasonable and therefore untrustworthy. Sometimes it's good to agree to disagree; I suspect candidate as a policeman will continue to use the Wall of Text method to win arguments, which does not lend to a collegial atmosphere or editor retention. Townlake (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made up my mind on this RfA yet, but having just reviewed the entire RfC discussion linked above, as well as all of the contributions the candidate made to it, I am more inclined to support than I was before I read it. The candidate's comments strike me as articulate, clueful, incisive and civil. This candidate clearly has the ability to express himself well. I see nothing improper about the candidate's comments and discussion interaction whatsoever, and I see no reason why any candidate should not be permitted to state their opinions robustly and respectfully, which Biblioworm did. Being an administrator does not require a milquetoast personality, but someone who has a command of policy and the guidelines and can be expected to administer them neutrally and carefully, with a dose of humility. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Creating a massive time sink in his RFA reform activities over the last few weeks is obviously unconnected with this candidacy. I mean, it has not unduly drawn attention to this candidate or increased his visability! Nevertheless, I'll stick in the oppose list on the basis that he has spent way, way,WAY too much time pontificating and no where near enough aquiring experience in proper Admin. areas. Leaky Caldron17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of content creation and improvement coupled with a focus on talk fail to tick my boxes for a prospective member of the admin corps. Looking at the edit count stats, after deducting non-article and minor edits leaves a total of 1,641 edits to main article space, which is far too few IMHO. Philg88 ♦talk22:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps it arises from spending so much time, as you have, in being an advocate for reform before actually having much experience (as others in support and oppose have found concerning), but your understanding about finding and building consensus is not yet there, and consensus is the central process on Wikipedia. Here, you object to a central way a WP:Requests for Comment (RfC) finds actual consensus - the RfC question formulated must be neutral, but you personally do not care for that (your comment there also suggests you do not understand the differences between various Wikipedia processes, RfC is different, it must be neutral). Here, you suggest that a closer's individual views of strength of argument matter [4], when it is, rather, that the closer must only care about the community's views of strength of argument (both in the discussion and as embodied in applicable policy and guideline), because the closer is to enact the community view, not their own - in some areas of Wikipedia we call your error, an administrator's "supervote", and in other areas, closers "forcing a consensus"'. In addition, here you analogize Wikipedia process to votes in the United States and other United States governmental processes - not only tin eared, for an international project like Wikipedia, but you actually do have to navigate between what users do agree upon (the fundamental meaning of consensus -- including what they have already agreed upon in policy), and what they do not, in the discussion before you - and what they, the participants think makes sense (United State's votes do not do that, and are hardly a model of agreement). In short, basic trust in basic process is not yet there. So, if you do or do not get through this time, spend more time watching than advocating, and, please do not, in the future, force a consensus, as that generally causes all kinds of disruption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the neutrality of the RfCs, I wrote the opening statements as a factual representation of the beliefs of people who hold that view (in other words, what are we voting on?). I wrote it this way for all sections I started, even those I disagreed with. How else could I have done it? For instance, I wrote the statements for G and H in the same way that I wrote all the others, and yet they clearly did not gain consensus, which refutes the notion that the opening statement in itself causes the proposal to gain more votes. Concerning the closing of discussions, this is what I actually said the comment which Alan linked to: "...arguments are judged on their strength." Please read this section. It says that: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given [emphasis mine] on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The section also links to WP:CLD, which clearly states that the job of the closer is to determine the consensus, per this quote: "The closing editor/administrator will determine [emphasis mine] if consensus exists, and if so, what it is [emphasis mine]." I was simply saying what these pages clearly reflect, which is that the closer does judge what the consensus is based upon the quality of the arguments presented. Yet, I'm somehow accused of having a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus. In regard to my comparisons with legislative bodies, my point was that since, currently, RfA very much relies on raw percentages, our typical bar for passing is far above that of almost all other bodies. But, with all due respect, I also noted that it was somewhat inconsistent for him to accuse me of opposing the consensus policy while at the same time stoutly defending the current percentage bar and refusing to support any changes to it. By definition, percentage is not consensus. I do not want to badger, so I will just comment once and let this speak for itself. --Biblioworm18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, practice listening because closers must listen closely to what the Wikipedians before them are saying with respect to the issues, and identify where they agree, and what policy has to say with respect to what the participants are saying. It is not imposing the closer's view of what they think good, and it's not having a skewed RfC by failing to have the neutral question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose While the issues raised by other editors above are perhaps valid, they do not cause me particular concern for this candidature; my concern is that the timing of the Request is rather poor, considering the profile the candidate has raised for himself recently in RfA reform. I think that it possibly indicates rather poorer judgement than i believe is necessary ~ central ~ to an admin's function; cheers, LindsayHello14:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I've had an uneasy feeling about this candidate since I first encountered them about a year ago at this thread on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, a rather strange forum to first encounter an editor. Their dogged focus on adminship discussions since then and the opposes above haven't done anything to allay my concerns. Graham8714:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The candidate certainly has a number of qualities suitable for adminship. However, insufficient longevity on the project and a low emphasis on content creation place me in the oppose camp. Rcsprinter123(spill beans)14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - After looking at the material, Leaky and others have made me uneasy. In short, it looks bad... The high-profile Rfa Reform actions should not be followed by a run for Rfa. I thank the candidate for their service but the lack of judgement in this instance alone sinks this Rfa for me. Jusdafax05:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would taking a high profile in trying to build a consensus and fix a major problem be seen as a negative? Of course if there were flaws in Biblioworm's civility or clue that indicated unsuitability or unreadiness for adminship then that would have exposed them. But since it didn't I would say it counts as a positive, it certainly did for me even though there are several specific proposals where Biblioworm and I don't agree. ϢereSpielChequers14:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking strictly for myself, I find it gives the appearance of being manipulative. Key word: appearance. In my view, a Wikipedia admin should strive to avoid even an appearance of impropriety. I urge the candidate to consider that going forward into adminship. The one-two effect here gives me pause, and If I err, it's on the side of caution. Jusdafax22:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It has been obvious for quite some time that this would be coming, but I had hoped that the candidate would have waited a few more months before going through with this. Widr (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Nice person from my experience, but I think experience is still lacking and enthusiasm can sometimes trip him up. I won't be shocked to see him as admin in a year, but I think this is premature. I could oppose, and think I have valid concerns to, but at the same time, I think the mistakes he would make would be with the best of intentions rather than malice, so I would rather just comment down here. Dennis Brown - 2¢18:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Not seeing the tenure that makes me comfortable with this tool request. The leap straight into template editing also gives me pause. I'll sit here for now. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just don't feel comfortable with their answer to the recall question. This is somebody who's very involved in RfA reform and keeps track of schemes to deal with admin accountability. Their RfC shows a well thought out meticulous attention to detail. Given their interests and past participation they seem like the kind of person who'd end up adminning in controversial areas eventually. And as I mentioned in my support they seem like the sort of person who knows what they're doing. Given all of this they really should have prepared an answer to one of the most common RfA questions beforehand. The usage of the word probably in their current answer seems very noncommittal and leaves enough wiggleroom to get out of setting criteria. I know WP:AGF and all, but given this user's short tenure I can't help but fear the possibility that they've been holding it all in this past year and will let their true colours show when they get the mop. The chances of this being the case seems lowish to me and in their current everday demeanor they seem like an absolutely lovely person, but i still don't feel comfortable supporting.Brustopher (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Kraxler. I with the candidate would drop his RfA hobby-horse already; I hope he's not running now to prove a point. I like his answers for the most part but he is a little light on experience and I'd prefer admins with more discretion; arguing endlessly leaves the realm of passion and becomes perversion. He's probably a NETPOSITIVE but that's not enough in my book. Chris Troutman (talk)18:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to comment on the diff RO linked to as evidence that I am "prone to condescension and snark." I actually forgot about that comment, and I would have linked to and explained it in Q3. The simple answer is that the comment in question certainly does not show me at my best and was one of those incidents that I regret, which all editors have on occasion. In complete honesty, at the time I was beginning to become frustrated by the repetition of arguments which I believed that I had thoroughly discussed and shown to be incorrect, and I think that day had also been quite hectic in real life. This combined frustration probably resulted in the "snarky" tone of the comments in question. In the particular diff she linked to, the only thing that really could be construed as rude was the rhetorical question I asked in regard to why previously failed candidates were unsuitable. It was not intended to be rude, but rather to make a point, which was that there should be a good reason for why they were unsuitable outside personal preference. It could certainly have been written better, I will fully admit. I would note, however, as shown later in that discussion, that I soon decided that the discussion would probably not be productive and I decided to just drop it. In summary, the comment was a very isolated incident that is not representative of my typical disposition. --Biblioworm21:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the page, I don't see any other comments of mine that were similar to that one. There was another discussion further up that I had with Alanscottwalker, but I think overall that discussion stayed quite civil. I did point out flaws in some arguments, yes, but that does not automatically make the comment uncivil. There should be open discussion about these issues; otherwise, change will never happen. Finally, anyone is more than welcome to examine my previous record here, and they will find that I am a civil, policy-abiding editor. I very much support the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. I think I've said enough here. The other participants can judge my record for themselves. --Biblioworm21:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In no maintenance contributor's RfA has the perceived issue of "less than/more than X percent in X namespace" not come up. Wikipedia editing is not budgeting. It is possible to create a optimized budget, but it would be wholly ridiculous to presume that editors with "75% mainspace 10% talk 15% miscellaneous" comprise the most important editors, or in the case of RfA, the most suitable editors. It is true that Wikipedia's main focus is content, and the same applies for encyclopedias with editors who only want to maintain content, but would anyone want to read an encyclopedia that is filled with typos, style errors, articles on run-of-the-mill topics, falsehoods, and graffiti; and where 99.9% the community doesn't want to maintain existing content? Esquivaliencet01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What annoys me most about opposes based on percentages is that mainspace edit percentage has nothing to do with a focus on content creation. An editor who does exactly the same as Biblioworm but also uses AWB to fix common typos will have a higher mainspace percentage without any extra content creation. How "Oppose, hasn't gone the extra mile to make namespace percentages match up with my expectations" ever became so popular (or why even one person would make such an argument) is beyond my comprehension. —Kusma (t·c) 11:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is true that automated or semi-automated edits can warp the analytical value of the percentages, which is why I noted in a comment above that almost 40% of the candidate's votes are semi-automated. As for your comprehension, I'm afraid I can't be responsible for it. The argument is certainly comprehensible to me, and to others commenting here, and to other editors who have used it on other RfAs. Given that, perhaps it might be worthwhile on your part to put a little effort into understanding it, instead of hand-waving it away. BMK (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been shown several times that the measures are meaningless and easily gamed (and you know "if a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a useful measure"). Understanding why other people persist in an erroneous belief is an interesting psychological question, but beyond my expertise, so I rather put effort into telling them why they are wrong. If they refuse to listen, I can't force them to. —Kusma (t·c) 11:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If mainspace editing means anything at all for RfA, it is not the percentage edits in mainspace, or even the total number of mainspace edits, but rather, the totality of mainspace encyclopaedic material created. That is, material that actually adds something new to the body of knowledge stored here. SpinningSpark18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
