#'''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. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 16:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
#'''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. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 16:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
#'''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. [[User:Vesuvius Dogg|Vesuvius Dogg]] ([[User talk:Vesuvius Dogg|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
#'''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. [[User:Vesuvius Dogg|Vesuvius Dogg]] ([[User talk:Vesuvius Dogg|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
#'''Support''', this used to be a cliche, but thought he was already an admin. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 18:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
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]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I 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.
13. 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?
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]
Do you have a cite to an RfA where 40% of edits to mainspace was considered "respectable"? It ain't never been that in my book -- anything under 50% (except for an admin) is atrocious, in my opinion. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 08:06, 1 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]
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]
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)[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]
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]
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]
General comments
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]
