Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2

Bwilkins

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (41/4/0); Scheduled to end 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Bwilkins (talk · contribs) – I first noticed Bwilkins during the recent troubles with User:Wiki Greek Basketball at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball. Bwilkins took the initiative to help out an editor who most of the community had already (perhaps prematurely) deemed hopeless; in particular, I found this intervention of his to be a real embodiment of WP:AGF. Bwilkins acted as a mediator and problem-solver for much of the several iterations of the dispute, and even when things turned out poorly for Wiki Greek Basketball at the ending I was still very impressed with his civility, cool-headedness, and helpful nature. After perusing Bwilkins' contributions I saw no red flags, and I think an admin who is helpful and has good communication skills would be an absolute benefit to the project. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

changed end -> ending, because SoxBot was getting confused updating the Rfa status. Contacting bot owner. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Conomination: I've been aware of Bwilkins' editing for the last year and a half, and I have no hesitation recommending him for adminship. He has done yeoman service at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and continues to be a voice of reason at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have been impressed with his level-headed approach to issues, and his willingness to intervene as a problem solver. Having paid attention to his editing since the middle of 2008, I'm certain Bwilkins won't misuse the tools. Beyond that, I feel confident that he will use them wisely, in a way that brings real benefit to the project. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another co-nomination The other noms covered it pretty well actually. This is an easy one, a user with B's incredible patience and willingness to try and resolve difficult disputes would obviously be an asset as an admin, and he has demonstrated that he has the judgement needed to handle the extra buttons. I have long been impressed by his abilities in dispute resolution and communicating with new or problematic users. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and sincerely thank current admins User:Rjanag, User:Guettarda, and User:Beeblebrox for the nominations and faith in me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would like to think that I have been exposed to a fairly wide range of administrator activities through my regular participation in WP:ANI. That said, I intend to start in the following areas:

• I will continue to monitor ANI, and assist/deal with the range of issues that are raised there, no matter what the topic
• WP:UAA - I'm no prude, but copycats, promoters, and overly offensive usernames need to be dealt with through blocks or WP:CHU if they do plan on actually contributing
• the full deletion process: everything from WP:AfD closures; looking into articles that have been tagged under WP:CSD; WP:DRV discussions; WP:REFUND requests (keeping WP:SOFIXIT in mind throughout)
• As I learned the importance of bio's of living persons, I will keep an eye out on WP:BLPN when I can, and respond to requests for page protetction as they arise.
• We can all fight vandalism without tools, and I currently do. However, WP:AIV exists for a reason, and I will of course fight damage to the project wherever I can.
• As I'm thick-skinned when needed, I'm not afraid of WP:AN3, even though I usually try to solve conflict before edit-warring begins. However, nobody can be watching every article at the same time, so it happens, and I'll be there.

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

A: My favourite "best contribution" is the article Buffalo 461. I had heard about this topic, started the article, enlisted the military history project and an editor who I knew was an awesome copyeditor. Within a few hours of starting it, we all had an article that made DYK, and expanded Wikipedia's coverage - a true testament to the community effort that is involved in Wikipedia.

I am also proud of a number of stubs/short articles that I created to expand both Music of Newfoundland and Labrador and Trinidad and Tobago knowledge. I would like to suggest that my past work in WP:WQA was beneficial in preventing escalation of issues, and my encouragement/guidance of new editors helped to create the kind of editors we're looking for overall.

I also made the {{WQA-notice}} template, and have been in the process of creating userbox versions of barnstars for those who love UBX's.

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: It has been a long, long time now since I can honestly say that any conflict caused "stress" for me. My way of handling situations is to try and help, and if they really don't get it, then it's time to properly end it and/or escalate it and disengage. Indeed, the recent WGB issue was a perfect example: I tried to help, and came up with a positive solution for all. When it was broken, I tried to help again, was attacked, so I escalated to someone else and disengaged. I cannot say I became "stressed" - a short moment of frustration perhaps, but there's often only so much that any single person can do.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. What are your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?

A: As you will know from this essay, I believe in transparency - not only as an editor, but I would say even moreso as an admin. My actions must be explainable at any time. There are some tremendously beneficial ideas in WP:AOR, but I am not fully certain that it covers all of the issues. It may be as close to a community-based de-sysop process, but I am concerned that it might rely on the emotions surrounding whatever issue it is that triggered the call for recall. To be honest, I have never considered that I could ever find myself in a situation where I would be called to be impeached. As such, I'm not trying to be wishy-washy, but if you do not mind, I would like to further consider the concept.

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: The short version: a block is a technical restriction, designed to prevent disruption, whereas a ban is a community-determined restriction on editing, often in specific areas. A block may be used to enforce a ban. As an example, User:Wiki Greek Basketball was banned by community discussion. After violating the ban, he was unfortunately subsequently blocked.

6. What contributions are you least proud of, and in what way may they (in your opinion) have affected your judgment?

A: I made a comment last March (already noted elsewhere) that although stated on many TV talkshows, and heard in many newsrooms such as where I work, it was a WP:BLP violation. I am not at all proud of it. After a number of discussions (including with User:Risker - who rightly called me to the carpet on it - the entire issue improved my judgement regarding BLP, and its importance on Wikipedia. It was a harsh and sharp learning experience.

Question from Ray

7 What are the conditions under which you would block an editor for civility issues or failing to adhere to consensus?

A: This is clearly two different responses, and I'll address the second half first: we do not typically block for a mere failure to adhere to consensus. Instead, the results of such failure to adhere are often edit-warring and tendentious editing, and plain old disruption - it is these that may lead to blocks. In terms of civility, I would have to state that blocks would be based on some combination of severity and consistency. For example, a flat out racist comment (or indeed, incivility/personal attacks that meet any of the "hate crime" definitions) are typically immediate blocks. On the other hand, we have a series of escalating civility/NPA warnings. Someone who is consistently uncivil and cannot be convinced to act otherwise may unfortunately need that kind of disruption temporarily prevented. Incivility drives away editors, and honestly can make Wikipedia look bad. Editors who are uncivil need to be guided to act differently.

Question from Robofish

8. How do you feel you have changed since your last RFA?

A: If nothing else, my knowledge and understanding of WP:BLP and how closely I have monitored potential BLP violations by other editors over the last 6 months has been a huge change - what's said in a newsroom is not always worth repeating outside of that same newsroom. I am also far more willing to disengage when the situation calls for it: we have scores of admins, and thousands of good editors: if I cannot "fix" something, it may just be my style - it's never bad to back away and let someone else try.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9 Is mass linking of non spam External Links allowed and what is the policy on them ?

A: Ok, I have to admit: I love the phrase "Wikipedia is not a link farm" (from WP:SPAM). You see, I grew up in a rural setting, and I love the idea of fish farms too. Anyway, even if an external link is not specifically spam, it does not mean that it actually belongs in an article. Relevance to the article(s) in question is key: does the link really add to it? WP:NOTLINK also reminds us that Wikipedia is not simply a collection of external links: yes, reliable sourcing and WP:CITE are vital, but not to the point of mass external (and often unrelated) links. Now, let's not start on the topic as to whether someone was abusing WP:AWB in order to add those links...

Additional optional questions from Materialscientist

10. (A story based on real events) You're closing an AFD on some mathematical theory. The content looks ample, neat and well referenced to old peer-reviewed journals, all behind the paywall, and even abstracts are barely accessible. The article title doesn't show up much on Google (and in titles of the provided refs). There are 3 votes delete because of lacking notability, but the voters admit they don't understand the subject, vote because of Google hits, and can't tell whether the problem is in the wrong title or wrong content (the author is not a native speaker and might have mistranslated the terms). A message was posted at the corresponding WP project, but no help arrived. How would you close that?

A: I think that I would go with a two-pronged approach on this one: due-diligence and proceed with caution. I am not, nor can I ever be an expert at everything (there's a reason I'm in journalism and not math!). If it's 5AM on the last "day" of the AfD discussion, I might leave this one for someone who better understands the topic (heck, I might even relist it based on the amount of discussion). If by later in the day, it's still unclosed, I'm going to poke around more. What language does the original editor speak? Are there ways of looking up the original texts in that language, run it through Babelfish, then use my trusty thesaurus to try and find more appropriate English search terms to see if I can actually find more information? The short version just might be that I may not close the AfD myself - but if I have found enough additional info, I may actually vote and include my findings. (Note: I noticed that you did not specify how many Keep votes were in the AfD...if all you have specified are Delete votes, and no keepers arguments...again, possibly a reason to relist, or maybe userfy it and work with the original editor?)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Bwilkins
• Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2

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

---

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

Discussion

Edit stats posted in Talk Page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• For the benefit of the confused, I believe 'the WGB issue' refers to User:Wiki Greek Basketball, who recently caused a fair amount of controversy with his contributions to RFA and was eventually blocked indefinitely. It's mostly covered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Trustworthy, has his head screwed on the right way; an excellent candidate. Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3. One of the strongest candidates I have ever seen. ceranthor 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible support Absolutely, he would make a great administrator. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Strong support, an excellent candidate, does excellent work at WQA and ANI. All the best, --Taelus (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Thoughtful, independent thinker. All is well here. Antandrus (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Strong support as co-nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Support - I know this is a cliche at RfA, but in all honesty I thought Bwilkins was an admin already. I could have sworn he was. Anyway, with no doubts I support him, he's one of the most clueful and level-headed people I see on the project (and I second Taelus's comment about WQA and ANI). -- Atama頭 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - it's way past time! Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Strong support - was considering nominating him myself, and in fact found this RfA when starting to look through his contribs earlier today. Bwilkins puts a great deal of effort into drama reduction and problem resolution at ANI, which is where I first saw him. If existing admins did as well as he does, we'd be much better off. -- Pakaran 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support No issues here.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. Trustworthy with much experience. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Support, per my conom. Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - have seen them around a lot and they're typically clueful... Hate to use the tired old cliche but "thought they already were one". –xeno^talk 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Support I was very impressed with how the candidate dealt with the WGB issue. In other areas, I haven't seen anything that cause me to be concerned. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Support - I opposed last time, but have since come to regret it, and Bwilkins' answers here confirm that he has the attitude and policy knowledge required to be an admin. His answer to Q8 is exactly what I wanted to see, and matches the impression I've gained of him. Robofish (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Very impressed with this user's approach to conflict resolution. ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Impressed with the answer to my question. Spot-checking his contribs shows no issues that concern me. Ray^Talk 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Strong support Good Track and Thank you for your answer to Q9 and the user has clearly overcame all issues raised during previous RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Support I don't think this has ever happened to me before, but I've genuinely paused for a second and gone "huh? Is this a reconfirmation RfA or what?" Balanced, sane, sound and clueful. No reservations. MLauba (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Per all of the above. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
22. Support A definite improvement since your last RfA (which I believe I opposed). You are a net positive to the ANI discussions you participate in and I trust your grasp of consensus in closing AfD's. Also, spot-on answer to the EL question! ThemFromSpace 01:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Support Trustworthy from what i've seen of him. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Support - thought you were..... smithers - talk 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
25. Support Impressive record, happy to support. MurfleMan (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Support. Surprised to see that BWilkins isn't an admin, but happy to support. Also, good answers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Absolutely trust Bwilkins. All the recent edits have been respectable, well-thought out, and helpful around this place. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Support Honestly, I already thought that you had the tools already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Support with nothing else to add. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Support I consider him trustworthy and sensible. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Sure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
33. I knew Bwilkins wasn't already an administrator, but I always thought he'd do very good were he ever promoted. On a more trivial note, I have a feeling this RfA is going to have a very large number of supporters; this particular editor is one of the project's most prolific and uncontroversial non-admins. It's just a neat thing to point out. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
34. Support No issues. GlassCobra 05:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
35. Support The diff brought up in the nom pretty much demonstrates everything I appreciate in an admin. Liquidluck✽talk 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
36. Strong Support. Bwilkins isn't an admin already? Coulda fooled me. Astoundingly levelheaded. Şłџğģő 06:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
37. Support I already thought he was an admin! Genuinely surprised he isn't. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Support good chance he'll be fine with the tools and a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
39. 'Support Always visible in places of responsibility, interacting with excellence and grace. Open to innovation while honoring community standards. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 09:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
40. Support No problems Polargeo (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
41. Support As past nominator I have supported this for quite some time. I only wish I had known early enough to nominate again. One of the few I turn to for actual answers. Padillah (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose WP:WQA is a bad joke, anyone involved in that nonsense shouldn't be an admin. Garibaldi Baconfat 23:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   You've been reported to WQA for that comment. (Okay, I admit, that was a bad joke.) -- Atama頭 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Garibaldi - you're right, WQA is challenged, which is probably one of the reasons I spent months not watchlisting it. I was recently asked to step in to help with a few issues, and cleared a few things up and have stepped out again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Garibaldi Baconfat (User:RMHED) has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2. I am a bit unsettled at the candidate's past comments in BLP-related issues. See here for an example. I realise this diff was actually brought up at his last RfA and was made quite a while ago, and while I imagine the candidate would certainly do some good work with the extra buttons, I am a bit leery of the candidate's slanderous comments. Such comments, while not inserted into an article (thankfully), reflect extremely poorly on both the candidate and the project as a whole. Apologies, but I am strongly opposed to this request at this time ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Ocee, you will note a) that was March 2009 - 10 months ago - and a lot has changed; b) User:Risker - who raised the BLP concern - and I have discussed, and clarified by knowledge of WP:BLP; and, c) I am certain that you have read this that more than covers the issue as well. Let me know if I can clarify further. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's generally pretty poor form to oppose someone for something that happened before their previous RFA that isn't part of a pattern of problematic behavior. Do you have any other "examples" of a newer vintage, or is this one of those "one mistake=a pattern and I will now perpetually oppose this person" things? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Candidate is being described as civil and level-headed, yet his previous RfA garnered a throng of opposes based on concerns over temperament and gross incivility. Sorry, but I cannot support. decltype (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   I don't want to seem like I'm badgering opposers, but c'mon, that's pretty weak. The whole reason we even allow a person to submit a second RFA is because of the idea that they might actually have learned from their own mistakes, which is a quality we want in an admin. I was strongly opposed at my first RFA for a recent mistake I had made, and since I didn't repeat that mistake or make any other egregious errors in the intervening time, folks were willing to believe I had learned my lesson, and I only waited three months. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Decltype, could you provide some diffs showing that in the 9 months since the candidate's previous RfA, they have demonstrated ongoing temperament and gross civility problems? If you can demonstrate this, I will think about my !vote in light of those, but I didn't see any evidence of this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Beeblebrox: I think the situation was a bit different, since you were pretty much opposed based on a single diff. To me, the concerns brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins were indicative of a pattern. As for more recent diffs, I found a few comments in User talk that, while not grossly incivil, demonstrates a communication style that I would prefer not to see in an admin [1][2][3][4]. Examining his user talk contributions also revealed several declined speedy deletion nominations [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] which show that Bwilkins was at the time insufficiently familiar with WP:CSD (he has since made few nominations). I therefore remain opposed. decltype (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for providing those diffs, Decltype. I notice that all the declined CSDs are from last July (6 months ago) and the User talk diffs were from July or August (5-6 months ago). I note (just from messages left on User talk pages, as I can't see deleted contributions) that since then, there are these results: deleted, declined, deleted, deleted,deleted. Although I respect your opinion, Decltype, I don't feel that the problems are recent enough to warrant changing my support. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, I would not normally give weight to mistakes from so far back, but like I said, there's little recent activity that demonstrates the understanding I would expect. User talk contributions are normally a good indicator, as all nominations should be found there (with the exception of db-moves and self requests). But my main concern is the "behavioral" diffs, even if they are a few months old. decltype (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for explaining your thoughts in more detail - I understand your !vote more now, thanks -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Weak oppose I think he is a friendly and likable guy and net positive to Wikipedia as his contribution to Wikispaces is generally helpful. However his language sometimes losses me such as this[12][13] In my observation, he seems very generous to inappropriate languages used by people when he deals with WQA complaints, which does not look to me a good sign for "communication skills" required for admins. --Caspian blue 13:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral