Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bilby

Bilby

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (112/2/1); Scheduled to end 00:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Bilby (talk · contribs) – There are people who are out there that I'm surprised are not an admin, and am more surprised are not as well-known as they are with all the work they do. Bilby is one of those people.

Bilby has been around for over six years, and has become a well-established user. He has contributed a great deal in fighting copyright, and I see him plenty at WP:CCI. He has written his fair share of articles as well, which include the GA Belldandy and AWU affair.

More recently, he has contributed to the Teahouse. Beyond that, he's a sensible user, one that I cannot see any drawbacks to giving him the admin tools. The sooner we give this guy the mop, the better. Wizardman 02:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. - Bilby (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I haven't been to RfA before, because my focus has always been on writing and referencing - I was worried that admin work would mean I would have less time to work on articles. However, I've been finding that my background means that I can help out with copyright violations, and it is an area which is both much needed and always in need of assistance. So my main area will be at CCI. That said, there are other jobs where I hope I can assist, especially in areas where a quick response is needed, so I'll turn up here and there if I can be of use.

In regard to CCI, (which I should have linked to: WP:Contributor copyright investigations), the main role for the bit is to delete unsalvageable articles that contain significant copyright violations under G12, or to delete revisions containing copyright violations where those revisions can be removed without losing other content. Once a CCI is opened the issue is simply cleaning up the articles where needed, where the first choice is to salvage content if you can, but permanently remove it if you can't. Non-admins can do a lot of this, but in the end we have to delete pages or revisions where they can't be fixed.

Just to clarify, because it was raised below, there are two stages in a CCI. The first is the investigation, when we determine if there is a problem to pursue. While I guess tools could be handy, it isn't an area with a major backlog. The second, which is where the huge backlog sits, is in cleaning up through the CCIs and articles raised on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. While the term CCI sounds like it is an investigation of the contributor, once open it is better seen as investigating and fixing the contributions, and in that process our interest is in live edits.

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

A: A lot of what I do is off wiki, but on wiki, the article I loved working on the most was the Shrine of Remembrance. It was a long time ago, (back when it was at FAR), but it was the first time I'd really experienced how enjoyable online collaboration was, and how different it was from other collaborative work. When I talk about what I most love about Wikipedia, that experience of working with other editors on the Shrine is the one I point to.

Otherwise, again as collaborative work, I liked what we produced on Emu War. National War Memorial (South Australia) could do with a revisit and a copyedit, but I was happy that it ended up being what I think is one of the most complete sources available on the memorial. And I found Wizardman's mention of AWU affair interesting. It was a difficult topic, very politically charged with a risk of all sorts of BLP problems, but I think all of us involved should be pleased. Even though we had very different perspectives and different expectations, so that discussion was hard, we managed to produce an article under difficult circumstances that is a fair account of the issue.

Outside of writing I think I'm getting the hang of product shots, so I'm looking forward to getting my studio set up again so I can photograph what I've been collecting for articles over the last year. I've been very happy with some of the photos, especially when they've appeared in other publications as well.

To be honest, though, a couple of years back I realised that I wasn't interested in pursuing FA or GA, so after my initial flurry at trying my hand at FAR and GAN, I thought I'd be more useful making small or difficult articles work better. So a lot of what I'm probably proud of now is little jobs, where I help out with sourcing a difficult topic, write or develop a short article that warrants more effort, or tackle a particular problem to help an editor.

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: I've been here for a while, so I think it would be surprising if I hadn't - although normally the stress level is fairly low. At times I've dealt with conflicts well, at other times I haven't handled them as well as I might have liked.

I've learnt, though, to try to follow four personal guidelines when I get caught up in a conflict. The first is to remember that everyone involved is here because we wish to help develop the project. If we have a dispute, it is almost always because we differ on how to approach this, not because we differ on what we are trying to achieve. (There are always exceptions, but generally this holds). The second is to remember that I might be wrong, and that's fine. The third is to trust the community - I might disagree with the consensus, but that doesn't mean that the consensus is wrong, and if the consensus is against me then I'm probably the one who erred, even if I can't see it. And finally, I try to remember to step back and give others space. That one is hard, because as an academic (or maybe just because of the type of person I am), I tend to think that if only I can explain something better, the other person will see my point. But that is often not the case, and attempting to do so can drown out other voices. So now if I feel that I've said too much I deliberately step back to leave room for consensus to develop.

Additional question from Go Phightins!

4. A fun scenario: You have one edit left to make to Wikipedia before the ability to edit is eternally obliterated, and what readers see after your one edit is permanently etched in history. How do you use your edit?

A: With all the work I want to do here, I'm not sure I could bring it down to one edit. But I guess I'd make one of two choices. If I had enough time, the article I most wish to finish is Euthanasia, and I'd really want to make that last edit make a difference on that article. Otherwise, I think I'd want to do something innocuous, but on a topic I love, so I'd probably use it to make one last article or edit on one of the Big Things.

Additional questions from Carrite

5. Have you edited Wikipedia under any other user name or names? If so, what were these?

A: No, I've only ever used the one account. As mentioned on my user page, my wife also has an account, but she hasn't really been interested in editing, (unfortunately), and thus only ever made a few edits. We would have edited from the same IP but different machines when she did.

6. What recommendations do you have to improve the work of Contributor Copyright Investigations? Do you feel that cases are accepted there too easily? Why is the backlog growing? What can be done about it?

A: I wish I had a nice neat answer as to how we should fix the backlog. At the moment, it comes down to "need more help". If I was to suggest an approach, it would be to introduce a triage or another method of prioritising work. What I wouldn't want to see is a slash-and-burn on suspected contributions, any more than I think we can ignore known problems when they arise.

The main reason it is probably growing is a combination (I hope) of us becoming more aware of the issue, and (unfortunately) not having enough people working through cases as they arrive. Like many administrative tasks on WP, it is difficult, time consuming, can involve a lot of work for little apparent output, and it can be very frustrating to do. (I'm currently working on an off-wiki project where one of the proposed steps is to look at how the CCI and WP:CP backlogs have changed over time - I don't know if it will be of much help in fixing things, but it might do something towards answering this).

In regard to opening CCIs - the difficulty is that a CCI is only opened when there are at least five cases of clear copyright violations, so by that stage it is known that a problem exists. What isn't known is the extent, so there's a risk, as has happened, that the case is going to sit there for a long time when the majority of the edits were sound. This increases the backlog, pulls people away from potentially worse problems, and is difficult on the editor. There are times when problems can be handled without a full CCI, and I've tried that in the past. But I do think we have to look, because I think as a community we need to be proactive when we identify a risk of problems, rather than only reactive when they are raised.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Northamerica1000

7. Do you have any interest in participating in other administrator-related duties on Wikipedia, such as contributing to and responding to requests at administrator noticeboards (e.g. Requests for closure, Administrators' noticeboard, etc.), applying blocks, page protection, etc. or in any other potential areas?

A: My primary focus is in assisting with copyright violations, but that's mostly because I think I can be most helpful there. I'm very happy to help out in other areas where I'm of use - I expect that I'll keep more of an eye on RFPP, if only because it is an area where responding quickly to issues is important, and I think more eyes there would help. I will certainly help out in requests for closure, because we tend to get a bit of a backlog there, although the tools aren't always needed.

Generally I believe that if you see a problem on Wikipedia that you can help with, the nature of the project means that you should at least consider stepping up. If I can do something to help, know what I'm doing, and it needs to be done, then I'll do what I can.

Additional question from Sphilbrick

8. Can you expand on your comment "A lot of what I do is off wiki,"?

A: I was VP of Wikimedia Australia for a year a while back, and I give talks to community groups about using Wikipedia. Nothing official, as it isn't connected to the WMF or WMAU, and the frequency varies a lot, but as I'm fairly open about my involvement here my name seems to crop up as a speaker for local groups. Generally I either do a 2-4 hour introduction to editing Wikipedia talk, which hits the major policies and general editing principles, or I talk about how WP works for people who aren't focused on contributing but want to know more about what it is. I'm pretty happy with the what is Wikipedia talk, but I'm currently revising the editing one, as I think I need to reduce the emphasis on details of policy and simplify it to five rules. And while it is still in early stages, I've been working with another local editor to set up a regular monthly meet-up style event with formal structure, to give new editors or people interested in editing a place to go to get started. That's only just got past the find a venue stage, though, with a long way to go.

I also do research which I hope to feed back into the project to help with discussions. Recently I've done some work studying the impact of paid editing, and I'm currently collecting data as part of a study of potential changing response times on noticeboards over a six year period, in the hope of helping with discussion later on, although the Head of School wants a publication out of it too. :) That one is where I've been focused lately, as writing the code to collect and analyze the raw data was interesting, but now I'm mostly just running it in the background as it does its job. Back when I started my doctorate I had a supervisor who insisted that all research should be aimed at improving what you're researching, so I'm hoping to start applying that here.

There are a lot of people in my position editing, and I suspect a lot of people do this sort of work on and off. But I enjoy it, especially the talks.

Additional question from DGG

8. I see that you have joined relatively few Wikipedia policy discussions. It's clear from your work that you actively support & defend WP policy, and I wouldn't question that in the least. But there are always difference in interpretation. As your main area of interest is copyright, , are there any current questions over the interpretation of them about which you have some position? (or , if you prefer, about any other aspect of WP policy, such as COI, where I see you have made some comments)?

A: Within the area of text copyright violations, I haven't felt that the policies are particularly problematic, especially as they represent a legal requirement. Fundamentally, with text we always have the option of rewriting or quoting, and that doesn't necessarily affect the quality of what we are building. In regards to implementation, the point Axl raises about the need to delete edits from history is a discussion I've had with others, and I agree that the first priority is to remove violations from the text. But, all else being equal, not having the violations in the history is better than leaving them there, so the balance concerns how much non-violating material we are willing to lose in order to clear the history. My reading of this is "not much, if any", but then much of how the editors fixing copyright violations work is based on trying to find a way to retain good content and keep editors, even if that isn't always possible.

COI is an area where I have a particular interest. But it is a messy problem - I think part of the reason why the community has had so much difficulty in formulating a stance on some issues, such as paid editing, is that it is hard to even define the nature and extent of the problem. Part of how you address messy problems is to focus on understanding their nature, so that's where some of my work has been off wiki. But to do that, I need to minimise the impact of personal bias, especially as I tend to use variations of grounded theory. Thus I've avoided forming strong opinions until I can finish looking at the data and I have something to offer. I don't know if what I can offer will help, but I figure it is worth a shot. But the COI guideline isn't one that needs much interpretation at the moment, as the "strongly discouraged" wording means that it doesn't really offer much to interpret as it seems a bit toothless. In the end, COI editing is currently presented as a problem because of other issues it creates, such as disruption and non-neutral edits, and I think we'll need to make a conscious decision as a community as to whether or not we're happy with this approach.

8.1 You say text copyright is mainly a matter of legal requirements. Do you think that in the US the copyright exception of fair use would permit us much wider latitude than we make use of, just as in images? If so,do you think we are right to not make use of it in text.(provided of course that ww avoid plagiarism by making attribution) DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A: Our interpretation of fair use is much stricter than permitted under US copyright law, because we hit problems in regard to our mission and licensing. In particular, to be a free encyclopedia that can be used by anyone, for any purpose, we need to create content that doesn't place reusers under undue risk, and what might be fair use for a free educational resource, might not be fair use if reused in a different environment.

The difficulty we face comes from the need to present high quality and valuable material, which, at times, means that we need to use material under fair use. For images, this means that we permit non-free images if there is no free use equivalent and it is necessary to understand the subject. We balance out the problems that this may potentially cause by tagging the images in a manner that is machine readable, allowing the image to be readily removed if needed.

Unfortunately, we could theoretically tag text, but we don't have any current provisions for this, and it will be very difficult to enforce if we did. More importantly, in many cases non-free text is replaceable, as unlike a photograph we can rewrite the text in a way that prevents it from being an infringement, giving us an option of employing a free equivalent. With that said, we do permit text under fair use through the use of quotations. I think it can be argued that we are sometimes a bit too restrictive on the length, but where the original words are important for understanding the content we can (and should) include them, so long as we're careful. :)

So the short answer: yes, we could, I think, make more use of the free use provisions under US law, but that would damage the ability for this work to be reused, and unlike images I think we have a much greater leeway for producing a free-use equivalent.

Additional question from My76Strat

9. I would like for you to read Warden's comment in oppose, and tell me why you think Warden makes a fair point or not, and then, more importantly, tell me why I do not need to be concerned about this at all.

A: This was a couple of years ago, but as background, the Ugg boots article has been a particularly messy problem for some time. Editors involved have been trying to find a balance between competing interests with some very strong opinions mixed in - on the one hand, Deckers owns the UGG Australia brand and holds a trademark to "Ugg" in many countries, and is aggressively protecting their trademark, (including, at times, on Wikipedia), while on the other hand "ugg boots" is a generic term in Australia and New Zealand for the style of boots, which originated there and has cultural significance in those countries, and is applied broadly. At the moment, the approach is to have an article on UGG Australia to cover the specific brand, an article on Ugg boots in general, an article on Sheepskin boots which encompasses different styles of boots including uggs, and recently an Ugg boots trademark disputes article. The dispute across these articles has been intense and ongoing.

The Sheepskin boots article was created as a content fork of Ugg boots - as there was no consensus to rename ugg boots, it seemed the intent was to manage a rename by copying much of the content from the old to the new article. At the time I voted in that AfD, I voted either to delete the article as a content fork, or to rewrite it as an article about sheepskin boots in general. [1]. Col Warden started that rewrite by completly replacing the original content fork, [2], and the version I voted on was the one that Col Warden deleted, not the one he created. Since then I worked to support Col Warden's direction, and worked to try and expand it while keeping it neutral and focused on sheepskin boots in general, rather than a particular style, but it was a difficult article because the dispute over at ugg boots was also being played out there, and there was a major problem with socks in the AfD that continued into the article.

So I guess I disagree with Col. Warden's view that I wanted the article to be proprietary - my recollection was that I wanted it to be about sheepskin boots in general if it was to be kept, rather than about the style already covered at ugg boots. Col. Warden had to completely rewrite the article to remove the content fork problem, and I fully agree with his rewrite, admired his work, and fully support the direction he took it in.

Additional questions from RightCowLeftCoast

10. Although the content on Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, are there articles on Wikipedia that are not neutral? If so, please provide examples, and why you believe they are not neutral. Although Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, editors opinions are not; as such, what is your opinion of the communities political balance at this time? Are there political ideologies that have greater representatives than others? If so, which ideologies? How does this effect the community? How would this effect your role as an Admin?

A: Wikipedia is very much a work in progress, so yes, non-neutral articles are common. One I recently tagged and plan to work on after this process is The Daily Telegraph (Australia), but there are many more that I've been involved in. In this case it is because it is largely presented as a series of well sourced but uniformly negatively controversies, which needs to be balanced and put into better context.

I certainly think that contributors tend to be more liberal than the general populace, but I don't see that stance as being as extreme as some claim, and we do have a range of views. It does seem to affect the community in terms of the decisions we make on policy, which are certainly more liberal than what I'd expect if we had a more typical makeup. How it would effect my role is more complex. In regard to NPOV, I don't see the admin's role as to enforce neutrality, so much as to help ensure an environment in which our processes can work, and when our processes work we can produce some very strong, complete and neutral articles. In regard to policy, I don't always agree with every aspect of our policies, but I agree with the process which creates them. So whether or not they fully reflect my own stance, working with them is not a problem.

11. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Bilby, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may they effect your usage of the Admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with the Admin tools?

A: Never an easy question. I know we have a tendency to say that we understand and allow for our faults, but I don't think that most of us ever really do. I do recognise that I have a tendency to get too involved in an argument, so on Wikipedia I've been trying to make sure that I step back when this is happening and edit elsewhere for a bit - I don't need the last word, and it is important to recognise when your involvement is damaging rather than furthering the discussion. The why the community should trust me is tricky. I guess the main one is a willingness to listen to advice - I'm not perfect, I'm very aware of that, and I am very willing to be criticised and to take that into account.

12. Although all people have their faults, we also have our strengths, those things that set ourselves apart (in a positive way) from others. Therefore, what are your strengths? Due to these strengths how may they effect you usage of Admin tools?

A: Sadly, I spent 8 years studying philosophy, and if that provided me with any valuable skills, I like to think that I learnt how to view a problem dispassionately, analyse the arguments, and question any assumptions, although that might just be me trying to justify several years of enjoyable but arguably not very useful academic study. :) Recognising and understanding the underlying arguments is, I think, always useful for determining consensus. Otherwise I have a lot of experience teaching people who are new to a subject, and I think as an admin remembering that my assumptions and experience isn't shared by someone new, as well as what it is like to be new when working on a complex project like Wikipedia, means that I try to take the time to try and help someone through a problem. I think part of what makes the admins I most admire good is their willingness to look for alternatives, and try to find a solution that doesn't end with a block of removal of content. I'm not sure that I'll be as good at it as some I admire, but I'd like to use that as a model, and I hope my experience off-wiki will help.

13. Ultimately Wikipedia is about presenting neutrally presented, verified to reliable source content about subjects determined to be notable as defined by the various notability guidelines that presently exist. As such please tell us about your article content editing experience. What article content that you created are you proud of? Why? Of the article content that you created what have been elevated to GA and beyond? In editing article content have you ever come into conflict with another editor? If so, please provide examples; specifically, how in dealing with those conflicts do you believe show that you would be considered responsible in handling the admin tools.

A: I really enjoy working on articles, and I've had a lot of interesting experiences. Other than the ones mentioned above, I was pleased with Louis Laybourne Smith, as he was an interesting figure to research, although a nice copy edit wouldn't be bad idea. I haven't focused on GA for a while, but articles that I helped with for GA include National War Memorial (South Australia), South African War Memorial (South Australia), Belldandy, Club Penguin (now delisted - I'll have to revisit it), and Frog cake. Articles I've helped through GAR include Illawarra Steam Navigation Company and Mount Osmond, South Australia, and through FAR I've helped with Cane toad, Dietrich v The Queen, Shrine of Remembrance, Waterfall Gully, South Australia and History of the Australian Capital Territory.

My difficulty with naming conflicts is that I've been in a lot - it is part of editing, and if you are willing to edit difficult subjects you can't really avoid them. I think the issues around AWU affair could be described as a conflict, but there I think we were all able to work through our views and reach a consensus that works. To do that we all had to move our positions a bit, but we came out of it well and I have a lot of respect for all the editors involved in the dispute. I'm involved in the various disputes around Ugg boots, and that one is much more intractable. There I guess there are two things which might help. One is that I am happy to recognise and try to work with both perspectives - I have a preference in how they should be presented, but I strongly support presenting both. And the other is that I try to recognise when I'm going to do more harm than good, and step away from that debate - the views involved are polarised, and it is important as both an editor and an admin to recognise when your actions will damage the process rather than help. That's hard to show, though, as it is seen more in inaction than action.

14. Do you have experience in conflict/dispute resolution? If so, please describe this experience and how it would assist you as an admin.

A: As someone who has used DR to work through a dispute, yes, but not in a formal role as someone trying to resolve it. My first experience of dispute resolution was being involved in formal mediation as part of a group trying to work through a dispute. It was very good, and we were fortunate to have an excellent mediator, who followed a rewarding process. The main thing I pulled out of that was the value of taking an issue through clear, formal steps - I tend to be more freeform, but the formality was very good. Well, that and how undervalued the people mediating disputes are until you get caught up in one and see what they do. In regard to my involvement in dispute resolution, mostly I'm involved because someone relatively new has run into problems with more experienced editors. What I've found in most cases is that when they understand the reasons behind the policies they are running into, they often can work within them. The difficulty often comes from referring to policy but not explaining the context.

The main thing I've got from being in disputes and working through the DR process is the understanding that both sides of a dispute can be valid, and that when the parties are willing to work through DR, the process can help. Directing and assisting people in working through that process may be the best option.

15. Please inform us of any conflict of interest, if any, which you may have. Do you pledge to use the admin tools without your political opinions effecting their usage? Do you pledge to recuse yourself from areas where Admin actions are required in situations where you may have a conflict of interest?

A: My only significant professional COI is with University of South Australia, where I work. I have in the past reverted blatant vandalism there on a few occasions, but stopped doing even that a couple of years ago to avoid any possible problems. In terms of personal COIs, I think a couple of colleagues have articles, but I stay well away from those, and I am not aware of any friends, relatives, or people with whom I'm in a dispute having an article. If such changed, I would stay well away from them as well. I have no political affiliations, and in Australian terms I'm a swinging voter, but otherwise yes - if any political opinions I hold would affect an administrative action, then I pledge to seek other solutions. And in regard to general use of tools I pledge to recuse myself where there is a COI, although I'd also add that in those cases I also wouldn't be directly editing the articles.

If I can just go a bit further, I think Col Warden raises a good point about using tools while involved. I believe that if we do any editing at all there's a chance that we'll get stuck in a dispute, and I've been in my share. I very willingly pledge not to use tools while involved. Doing so is very likely to make things worse, even if we ignore the risk of having your judgement compromised, and there are good avenues where we can request neutral assistance.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

16. Are you now, or have you been, a member of any WikiProjects?

• If yes, which WikiProject(s)? For how long? What is/was your contribution? Etc...
• If no, how important do you feel WPs are to Wikipedia. Do they add value? Do they detract? Anything you can elaborate on?

A: I joined a few with the intent of being more involved, but I haven't always been able to be consistently active. I'm a member of Wikiproject Australia, WikiProject Adelaide, WikiProject Sailing, and WikiProject Cooperation. The Australian WikiProjects I joined just after I started editing, WikiProject Cooperation about a year and a half ago, and WikiProject Sailing about three years back. I have at times been fairly active in the Australian ones, did some editing on the Article of the Month back when that was running, and the FARs I worked on were mostly through there. I've organised a couple of meetups for the Adelaide project. With the Sailing project I developed a navbox for dinghys, worked on the infobox, and used it as the basis for gnomish work on dinghy articles. I'm not very active in the Cooperation project, but occasionally check over articles that pass through it. I occasionally tag and rate articles for the projects, but that's generally more as an aside from something else I'm doing.

The Wikiprojects were very helpful to me. I got a lot of support when I started editing through the D&D and Australian projects that made the experience much more enjoyable than it would have been on my own. It helped that there are some really great editors working in both projects. I occasionally contact WikiProjects as a source for expert advice about articles if I hit a problem, and I think the support they can provide to new editors interested in a topic area is great. They have problems, but my experience of the active ones has been positive.

Additional questions from JayJay

17. What do enjoy most about Wikipedia

A: Research and collaboration. I really enjoying researching topics related to what I like, rather than what I need to do for my job. I find it interesting that I rarely edit here on the same areas I research professionally, because research here is for enjoyment first. I'd be curious to know if other off-wiki researchers manage things the same way. And all of the moments I liked most here involved working with someone to make a better article, even if we were coming at it from different stances. Collaborative work isn't something I do a lot of outside of Wikipedia, so it is something I only really get to enjoy here.

18. Have you ever ran into a situation where you could not or did not edit Wikipedia for a extended amount of time, whether for personal reasons or other. If so why?

A: There are times when work gets busy - generally at the beginning and end of semesters, when courses have to be written or assignments and exams marked. Then I pull back on editing, and only do relatively small things. When things get more relaxed I work on bigger jobs. So no, I edit fairly regularly, but the types and number of edits I might make vary on workload.

19. It is common for schools and colleges to ban Wikipedia for essays, homework, and other things. Do you agree with these schools and colleges decision to ban Wikipedia and how do you think we can make Wikipedia a more reliable site to use for educational and academic purposes?

A: I like this, because I'm in an unusual position. The biggest course I teach has about 500 students a year, and when I took it over from the previous owner I was surprised by how often the lectures would reference Wikipedia, but the assignments still said that you couldn't use Wikipedia as a source. So one of my first changes was to remove the prohibition against Wikipedia. I do two things. One is that I keep an eye on articles relevant to the course, and the second is I talk to the students about how best to use Wikipedia.

The problems inherent in using Wikipedia are not dissimilar to those inherent in using any non-peer reviewed source, with some unique touches. What we want to produce through teaching is not students who blindly use sources, but students who can evaluate for themselves the reliability of a source and how much to trust it. We don't do that by banning sources, so much as by explaining how to think critically about any source they read. People will read and use Wikipedia - what I'd like them to do is to read critically, not to pretend that they don't read it at all.

Sorry, I realised that I was caught up in the first questions, and hadn't tackled the last. Very simply, I don't think we can without significant change. What academia wants in a source is a combination of recognised expert writer, peer review and editorial oversight. We can't do that. I can't see that Wikipedia will be considered acceptable for most academic writing, unless it is changed to the point of not being Wikipedia. But for educational purposes, and especially as a quick reference to start off research, I guess we need to do more of what we're doing - only verifiable statements from reliable sources, with guides for readers to help evaluate the content. When I've given talks to teachers and librarians about Wikipedia, the focus has been on how to look in the history, how the rating system works, how to evaluate the contributors, what happens on talk pages, and what the tags mean. We have the tools to make it viable in education, but if we want that market we need to show how to use the tools as much as we need to change how we work.

General comments

• Links for Bilby: Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Bilby can be found here.
• Edit stats posted on (talk) page.--My76Strat (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Exceeds the qualifications on every point. Look like an excellent candidate:reasonable, moderate and focused. Good find by the nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Seen him around. He seems more than fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Yes - CCI is hugely backlogged and needs every hand it can get. — The Potato Hose 01:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support as I trust nom. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  01:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Strong support - Best candidate I have seen in a while: Wizardman is trustworthy, Bilby has the content experience, has his priorities in the right place (e.g., here to build an encyclopedia), and is willing to help in an area where help is desperately needed. Why are we still discussing this? Go Phightins! 01:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Support as nom. Wizardman 01:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Support . Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Support Fine candidate working in an important area. Will be able to help out even more with the mop. Miniapolis 03:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Support, excellent candidate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
13. Support. The copyvios are calling... (Admin tools are required to remove autopatrolled/reviewer from editors who are subject to a CCI). MER-C 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Support - CCI volunteer, who needs the tool kit for that work, if nothing else. Sufficient tenure, clean block log, etc. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Support – no problems here. I thought he was an admin already. Graham87 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Support of course! TCN7JM 04:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Support About time.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Support Never came across this user. But supporting because I trust nom. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 06:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Support - no concerns. Stalwart111 06:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
20. Agree --Rzuwig^► 07:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Support - Good candidate. NO concerns, as per nomination. Faizan 07:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
22. Support - Garion96 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
23. Support Seems reasonable and trustworthy. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Support, do not see any problem and wants to work in one of the most understaffed areas.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
25. Support No issues here. Widr (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
26. Good --Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
27. Support. Solid contributor. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 12:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
28. Support. An editor who really cares about the content of the encyclopedia, and does lots of great work in the very under-appreciated area of copyright? Yes please! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Support - 100 percent, with absolute confidence. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - he deserves the tools. sats 15:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
31. Support: The editor is a good candidate who is willing to help with one of our largest backlogs! A well-rounded contrubutor. -- Dianna (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Support The project will benefit significantly from this grant of tools, the editor seems level-headed, and CCI is a thankless, important task. In reviewing his contributions outside of his primary areas of interest, I saw evidence of WP:CLUE, humility, and putting the encyclopedia and consensus first. I have no concerns. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Support Looks good to me. We need more people who know what they're doing in that area. Peridon (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Support Joe Decker said exactly what I was going to say. --Stfg (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
35. Support A trusted, experienced user that won't mess things up. ThemFromSpace 18:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
36. Support 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
37. LlamaAl (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
38. Support. I've been spot checking Bilby's contributions and the worst thing I found were stylistic errors, e.g., "violating" MOS:HEAD at Barry Hannah and other articles. If that's the worst thing ... Otherwise, I agee with Joe Decker's comments and would add that Bilby seems to defuse drama rather than create it, which would be welcome. Actually, he just seems genuinely nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
39. Support - Great work on improving article quality! —User:JennKR | ☎ 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
40. Support - can't see why not. Deb (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
41. Support. This is a very easy one for me. I've worked with Bilby numerous times, and I know from direct observation that this is someone with all of the right attributes for the position: intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, courteous, respectful of other editors, unlikely to overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
42. Support - Seems like an extremely qualified and well spoken candidate that's willing to help out in an area that needs the help. CaSJer (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
43. Support My only regret is not being higher on this list. As others have pointed out CCI is perhaps one of the most thankless jobs on Wikipedia. It is both extremely time consuming and under the radar for most editors. As one of the most backlogged areas, and even ahead of AFC, CCI also requires a tremendous understand of Wikipolicy due to the nuance in every use rationale that can come along. I have no concerns that this editor is light in other administrative areas; I've always supported the fact that we should trust editors with the tools where they need them, and to assume good faith that if they venture into other areas they will show the same responsibility they have shown up until this point. Mkdw^talk 20:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
44. Support. Extremely well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
45. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
46. Support experienced, well trusted user, with great communication skills, who wishes to work in an area crying out for help. Begoon ^talk 02:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
47. Support per nom. INeverCry 05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
48. Support per Tryptofish. Jusdafax 06:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
49. Support A most worthy candidate.Hughesdarren (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
50. I trust your judgement. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
51. Support - I have learnt so much from this candidate, about editing on Wikipedia; without their help in steering myself in the right direction, through their 'tough love' - I probably wouldn't be where I am today. They have an impeccable reputation on the project, creating quality in articles, and an interest in WP:CCI - I'm quite confident that they'll make a wonderful Administrator. Bilby, good luck, and thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
52. Reasoned, thoughtful, intelligent, academic, polite. Indications are that Bilby is interested in and supportive of the project as a whole, rather than just working in favoured topic areas. Seems spot on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
53. Adelaide cabal support. Excellent candidate. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
54. Support No issues. The oppose does not concern me. That sheepskin boots was a content fork of Ugg boots is a legitimate reason to favour deletion, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
55. Support Tolly4bolly 11:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
56. You gave a tremendous answer to Q9; answering the first part so completely you answered the second part without an additional word. Believe me, I know I have nothing at all to be concerned with in this candidacy.--My76Strat (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
57. Sure.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
58. Support - No issues here. Seems like a good candidate. Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
59. Support There's nothing I can say here that hasn't already been said. Bixby is an excellent candidate who will most assuredly be a superb administrator, serve this site to the best of his strong capabilities, and truly benefit the project in its entirety. Best of luck to you, mate! Laurinavicius (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
60. Support I have no concerns that Bilby will be anything but a conscientious, helpful, and trustworthy admin.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
61. Looks like you'll do well. You have my vote. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
62. Support - He seems like a strong contributor and I would be glad to have him as an admin. WP:CCI is one of the most important things on Wikipedia and I'm glad to have an admin who works so diligently on it. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 18:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
63. Support per nom. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
64. Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
65. No red flags, good record and a genuine need for the tools. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
66. Support Great answers to questions (especially #9). This nominee has my total confidence. Jschnur (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
67. Support I see no reasons why another mop should not be dished out.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
68. Support - Excellent candidate for copyright work, and, if that's all the opposers can bring up, he's more qualified than most. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
69. Support – Well qualified, no concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
70. The name sounds familiar. There is no indication that Bilby would misuse or abuse the tools. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
71. Support—admins don't have to be professionals in all levels of possible admin work. I don't have experience with this editor, or with CCI in general, but it doesn't seem like there would be any problem with tool abuse. Ignatzmice•talk 04:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
72. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
73. Support, persuaded by his answers, his copyright knowledge and experience, and his off-wiki work. Huon (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
74. Support, no concerns about how Bilby will use the tools provided Gnangarra 05:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
75. Support I collaborated with Bilby on the Shrine of Remembrance FAR back in 2008 which was a very positive experience, and since that time have observed him frequently popping up on my watchlist making thoughtful contributions.Oh and kudos for his analysis of the internal workings of a frog cake.--Melburnian (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
76. Support, certainly. Jafeluv (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
77. Support. Good day, Bruce. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
78. Support Long overdue, imho. Lectonar (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
79. Support; I'm confident that Bilby can be trusted with the mop, and would be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
80. Support As per Wizardman and Experienced and has been editing regularly without a break since Jan 2008.Good content work including creating 31 articles and also in WP:CCI.The Project will only gain withe user having tools fully trustworthy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
81. Support per Wizardman's nomination. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
82. Strong support. Trustworthy and clueful candidate. I have no reservations. Moondyne (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
83. Support. There's nothing I can add to the supports above, really. Great candidate. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
84. Support - I'm impressed with Bilby's reasoning on talk pages, AfD discussions and in the questions posed above, especially number 8 (DGG's; both parts). I'm certain he will make a fine admin. - MrX 18:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
85. Well Bilby, you have Major Support from me on this one. This is a really promising candidate. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
86. Support; given the great answers to questions 10-15, a clean block record, and the subject of this RfA is a net positive to the community I am happy to support giving the subject of this RfA access to the Admin tools.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
87. Support — -dainomite   22:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
88. Stephen 02:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
89. Support - Passes my criteria. ZappaOMati 02:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
90. Support. Looks like a fine, experianced editor. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
91. Support Appears to be very sensible and knowledgable in the principal proposed area of work, and it would be reasonable to expect equally good judgment elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
92. Support - Highly-qualified, thoughtful candidate who is entirely unlikely to misuse the tools. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
93. Support Level-headed, calm and experienced. I don't see that the issue raised by the one "oppose" so far is a serious one. Long running disputes have two (or more) sides, and I don't see that Bilby has been unreasonable in advocating one side. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
94. Support. I saw him around at WP:requested templates and he helped very much new / unexperienced editors. mabdul 06:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
95. Support - Appears to be qualified, competent and trustworthy to be a sysop with the tools. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
96. Suuport No concerns Jebus989^✰ 08:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
97. Support no issues, and plenty of support from editors I trust. GiantSnowman 10:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
98. Support. Welcome aboard :) -- œ^™ 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
99. Support Bilby is great! Totally trust him with thy mop. SarahStierch (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
100. WP:RFX100 Support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
101. Support I've seen a lot of good work with copyright issues--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
102. Support per all the good work they've done in the past, the work they intend to do as admin (CCI needs help), and their excellent answer to Q3. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
103. Support Why yes of course, I'm sure Bilby will be a valuable admin to Wikipedia. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
104. Support having reviewed answers and a smattering of contributions, I see no reason for concern about future use of the bit; I found the tone of the answer to #9 reassuring. -- Scray (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
105. Support While I recognize warden's oppose below and I am totally in support of his position, I find the candidate's answer to Q9 to be adequate. I see no reason to believe that this user will be anything but a net-positive as an admin. Trusilver 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
106. Support - meets most of my standards, although I am concerned about the lack of work at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
107. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions were all satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
108. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
109. Support. Only did a quick vetting, since this seems a landslide anyway, but didn't find any problems. Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
110. Strong support As I'm the person referred to by Bilby (as "another local editor" in his response to the first question No. 8 above, first paragraph), I have met him personally through several Adelaide Meetups. I have been very impressed by his knowledge of WP policies and issues, and his personal skills, experience and willingness to help. This has been especially apparent in his support of my own proposal to help improve the uneven quality of WP articles on South Australian natural and cultural history topics, through setting up GLAM collaborations with our local cultural institutions, and recruiting their volunteer guides and teaching them the skills to become proficient WP editors. Giving Bilby the admin tools would certainly raise the credibility of this proposal with these institutions. Bahudhara (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
111. Support I thought that Bilby already was an admin... Thanks for nominating! Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
112. Support no concerns with the request. Dan arndt (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose When I checked his contributions, I noticed a particular interest in Ugg boots. This reminded me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheepskin boots, in which the candidate seemed to prefer that we address the topic in a proprietary way, rather than a generic one. This does not seem sufficiently neutral and so I am concerned that he might use admin tools in a partisan way. It may well be that he is very sensible in other respects but as I am most familiar with that particular incident, I'll put the boot in :). Warden (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Warden, would you be able to further explain what you meant by he advocated that the topic be addressed in a proprietary way? (I'm not very familiar with the discussion but didn't really see anything that stood out as ownership). Also, this all appears to have happened in 2011; arguably a considerable amount of time ago. Mkdw^talk 19:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   The matter of the boots seems to be a trademark dispute and this is the sense in which I used the word proprietary; I was not referring to article ownership. You see, one of the issues is whether ugg is a generic term or not and this depends upon the jurisdiction, as I understand it. I sought to resolve the matter by making the article sheepskin boots to be about sheepskin boots in general, not the disputed fashion item. My impression is that the candidate has acted reasonably well throughout that matter but he did seem to maintain a !vote of Delete throughout that discussion, which was counter to this. That discussion was some time ago but it seems that the candidate is still active in the continuing wrangling. As it seems to be a vexed question, I'd like to be sure that we are not giving admin powers to one side in a long-running dispute. By recording the matter here, many eyes are attracted to the issue and it gets thorough consideration. Better safe than sorry. Warden (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose Bilby seems to be a very fine candidate in most respects. But Warden has highlighted a problem. On the Ugg boots trademark disputes article, there has been a series of Requests For Comment. The first one was closed improperly by an Australian problem editor who has been involved in repeated misconduct. The second one has an obvious meatpuppet case by another Australian editor described here, and another possible case that is more subtle and much more damaging to Wikipedia described here, also possibly involving several Australian editors. As I have said on the Talk page, it looks good but it smells bad. I think Bilby is a fine editor. He is the best Australian editor involved in that series of articles. But when the trouble started, he disappeared. Bilby has done nothing to counsel the problem editors from Australia and improve their behavior. Instead he has become their ally whenever they needed one. Therefore I am concerned that we are giving administrative powers to one side in a content dispute. I am also concerned that the first RFC was closed improperly, and the second may be closed improperly in a very similar way. Consensus should be determined by WP:CONSENSUS#Determining_consensus: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The number of votes is not mentioned and should not matter. Also, in Wikipedia:Closing_discussions: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads." But the first RFC was closed by the Australian problem editor, by counting votes and ignoring policy arguments. The second time it was closed, the administrator admitted that one side had stronger policy arguments, but he allowed the larger number of votes on the other side to balance it, producing a "no consensus" result. This RFC needs greater participation by experienced editors who will rely on policy, not the number of votes. Bilby has voted on the side that has more votes and no policy arguments. Then he disappeared. This raises doubts about how he would use administrative tools if they are given to him. I regret I must oppose this nomination. Liangshan Yi (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

   What I see is the first RFC failed because it was poorly worded, canvassing occurred to garner a specific outcome, and broke down into long rambling discussions that made it impossible for any neutral admin to actually reach any conclusion hence a no consensus closure, oh and Bilby didnt partake in that discussion. The closure made suggestions about a way forward, first discuss a neutral worded question, which Bilby proposed, you agreed to and a third editor used to start the new RFC. Secondly that editors make a single argument and dont badger every opinion expressed with their POV, again which Bilby has done, for which you are now complaining about. The second RFC was on the border of breaking down again because of bad faith accusations, conspiracy theories, and borderline personal attacks many of which have come from you. What you have shown is that Bibly has acted as the community expects an admin to act, yes he can participate in discussions, show restraint when being personally attack and disengage. What you have shown here is that your oppose has nothing to do with Bibly's ability as an admin but rather its just another opportunity to express a negavite opinion against people who dont share your POV. Gnangarra 05:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I am unconvinced that revdeletion is an important part of dealing with copyright violations. I am surprised that Bilby hasn't mentioned inspection of deleted content, which would be a legitimate part of investigation of suspected copyright infringement. Toegther with infrequent AfD contributions (only two this year) and an absence of CSD tagging, I am reluctant to endorse use of the deletion tool. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   Revdeletion is a very important part of copyright cleaning up copyright violations though. You don't want to keep the violations in the article history. To see deleted content is actually not that important, the biggest goal is to find and remove the "live" copyright violations from the article. Garion96 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   For copyright issues introduced midway through the development of an article, revision deletion is the only feasible tool, there's really no other way (save Oversight, which is arguably revdel on steroids) to preserve the original contributions and attribution history. That can be painstaking work to do, and it compounds the difficulty of it when a complicated set of redactions need to be communicated to another party to manage. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   Axl, I think it's more probable to assume that an editor with Bilby's experience knows all about AfD and CSD tagging (new page patrol is a thankless task) and their policies, but just donsn't want to work there. Admins can't be, and are not expected to be everywhere at once. If this was a candidacy from a user with less experience, I could understand your concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   While I think AFD and CSD are important in the deletion process, I do not feel they are necessarily a good indication on how CCI deletions are processed. The copyvio deletion cases one faces in CSD and AFD are often either very straight forward and not complex, or we send them to CCI. That includes everything difficult such as complex plagiarism, close paraphrasing, intentional abuse of verifiable in references, synthesis, etc. CSD and AFD are often looked at as the benchmark for the deletion process but only because of sheer volume. If this candidate has shown in your evaluation an effectiveness and comfortable level of trust in CCI, we should allow them the tools to continue their work, while assuming good faith that they will continue that same level of responsibility should they venture into new areas. Mkdw^talk 21:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   To clarify: I am still not convinced that revdeletion is an important part of fixing copyright violation. (I have made this point before at RfA although I didn't receive this much attention over it.) To SPhilbrick (who commented on my talk page): it is irrelevant to me whether this is "established practice". And I am aware of the policy. To Garion96: at WP:CCI, I would have thought that the ability to view deleted content would help editors/admins to spot those rogue editors who put copyrighted text into multiple articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   Smarter people than this potato have commented above, but: the only ways to remove copyvios from article histories are 1) Oversight, 2) Revdel. How is this not an important part of fixing copyvios? — The Potato Hose 23:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   I don't believe that the removal of copyright violations from article histories is important. This boils down to a difference of opinion between me and you. I am aware that article histories can be viewed by anonymous readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   Please don't take this as badgering, but I am intensely curious as to why you find it unimportant. From a legal perspective, leaving copyvios in articles is no different than leaving them in article histories, I think. And I'd guess that you don't think copyvios should be left in articles? So I struggle to understand the difference. Feel free to respond on my talkpage if you'd rather not continue the derail here. — The Potato Hose 02:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   "From a legal perspective, leaving copyvios in articles is no different than leaving them in article histories, I think." I strongly disagree. Historical pages are not easily viewed, and (I would guess) rarely viewed by casual readers. Indeed they are rarely viewed by most editors. While it is plausible that a copyright owner might seek a legal injunction to remove material from an active article, it is unlikely that they would do so for a historical article because Wikipedia has clearly made an effort to remove the material from casual viewing. Indeed such a legal process would ironically lead to more viewing of the copyrighted material, not less. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Sorry for jumping in - I had decided before this started not to comment on !votes, as I don't want to badger anyone, and different time zones meant that I've missed most of this anyway. But we're in a difficult position with regard to copyright violations in history. They are technically visible, even if not readily so, and they give the mistaken impression that the text has been released under a CC license. But at the same time the first priority is and should be to remove the text from the live page. So the advice in regard to revdel and copyright violations is only to remove it if we can do so without removing viable content as well. Thus I agree with Axl that revdel isn't the first priority, and it only comes into play in a subset of articles. But there are so many copyvio cases that revdel is more useful than I'd like. - Bilby (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I land neutral as well.Moving to support I think Bilby will be a fine administrator and I see nothing that would warrant an oppose. I do think you missed a perfect opportunity to deescalate the pile on commentary directed at Axl. A neutral vote should never garner this much flack and we damn well know that Axl is a clueful contributor participating in good faith. --My76Strat (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   I thought the discussion above was reasonably civil. I thought Neutral means "I haven't decided, but might go either way". It doesn't mean "I don't care", or they wouldn't have said anything. Often, discussion in the Support or Oppose sections is a bad idea but a Neutral vote is essentially asking for discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   I suppose that's fair. I may find my way into the support column based on your admonition.--My76Strat (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   I might add, @My76Strat, although I can't speak for Bilby, during my RfA, I made it a rule never to comment on votes. If someone wanted to ask me a question, they knew how to do it. Sometimes, though, it was very hard not to comment, but I stuck to it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   You make a valid point as well. I think Dennis was very astute in pointing out that the discussion was civil. In fairness I've stricken the part where I suggested an opportunity was missed as it appears more likely that I have erred in this regard. --My76Strat (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Wasn't meant as an admonition though, just an observation, friend to friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Occasionally, some oppose votes are beyond the pale, even deceitful, disingenuous, and even lies, so they need to be addressed by the candidate because other voters who simply pile on might believe it - especially when it comes from an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   I agree, however for the most part the user should avoid trying to defend themselves and mostly let the supporters/nominators handle it; which they generally will. I do like to see a candidate exude calm leadership to deescalate tension if it seems appropriate. But that is probably just me. And I'm not suggesting this would be one of those times. I've already said this was more of an error in my thinking. --My76Strat (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   "I thought Neutral means "I haven't decided, but might go either way".... A Neutral vote is essentially asking for discussion." I disagree with both statements. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   When you start with "I am unconvinced..." and end with "I am reluctant..." the lack of absolutes imply contemplation and a willingness to revisit the vote, which encourages discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Regardless of your interpretation of my !vote, your characterization of Neutral !votes as "I haven't decided, I am asking for discussion" is wrong. Regarding my statements, my implication is that these concerns are not strong enough for me to oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)