Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RfB)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Wbm1058 97 17 3 85 20:56, 30 August 2015 1 days, 23 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
Doniago RfA Withdrawn 22 Aug 2015 14 17 1
Ceradon2 RfA Withdrawn 21 Aug 2015 54 27 11
Nrwairport RfA WP:NOTNOW 17 Aug 2015 0 7 1
Cyclonebiskit2 RfA Successful 11 Aug 2015 121 12 9
Liz RfA Successful 6 Aug 2015 200 72 9
Primefac RfA Withdrawn 30 Jul 2015 12 17 7
Hexatekin RfA Withdrawn 30 Jul 2015 3 9 3

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like "baiting"), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to bureaucratic discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 20:58:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (97/17/3); Scheduled to end 20:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Wbm1058 (talk · contribs) – I've been editing Wikipedia for over four years, and am proud of my 60% article-space edits, top 1500 edit-count, and clean block log. I figure that most experienced editors have seen me around by now, or recall my failed December 2014 run for the Arbitration Committee. I may not be familiar to those who just hang out on the noticeboards. I'm not currently planning on running for ArbCom again; really my plate is too full and I just don't have time for that. I've been a template editor since December 2013, and have edited template-protected templates without drama. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2015 (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: Mostly I expect to use the move function, when an admin is needed to move over a page that's not a simple redirect. I'll help out a bit at WP:Requested moves, where I'm already a de facto manager (I'm the RMCD bot operator and have made significant enhancements to {{RMassist}}). I'd like to work on the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge – I'm not sure anyone is doing that. Also at Malplaced disambiguation pages. My deletion activity will be limited to speedies, as I haven't been active at WP:AfD, nor do I expect to be soon. Likewise, I have minimal experience at WP:RFPP, WP:AN3 or WP:AIV, so don't expect to page-protect or block much, except perhaps that poor user ThisIsaTest, if I resurrect this project. Finally, I'm interested in developing potential new uses of the GuidedTour extention. You may be familiar with this extension from its use in WP:TWA. I've already helped out by fixing a bug in the Adventure. You pretty much need to have tools to be able to play with this, as it lacks sandboxes that editors without tools could use.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: On the content front, I'm proud of the pageviews that Timeline of DOS operating systems gets. I'm the major contributor to that, as I took it from a stub to what it is today. I'm hoping someone might nominate it for "good article", as so far I haven't taken the time to familiarize myself with the procedure for obtaining that. Also, my three bots, RMCD bot, Merge bot and Bot1058, two of which manage major work Flows. On the template-editing front, I'm proud of my enhancements to the controversial {{Orphan}} template, where I found a compromise solution which limits its long-term visibility, that successfully withstood a template-deletion challenge. I eliminated false-transclusions of {{error}}, and now patrol for them. This catches both user errors and vandalism. I also patrol Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, a maintenance category which I requested and Lua editor Mr. Stradivarius created for me. Finally, I occasionally merge or rearrange related articles which are messed up in a major way. For example, Death in absentia needed to be disambiguated (In absentia (disambiguation)) and sorted out, which was a time-consuming project. I'm not planning on being in absentia for this RfA, and trust that it won't be declared dead ;)
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: No one seriously edits here for long without running into conflicts. I tend to get more annoyed than stressed; time off is generally a good thing in these situations. I'm usually pretty patient with conflicts, and actively look for compromises. I'll let my track record speak for itself.
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
4. Given your interest in RM's, have you closed any contentious discussions? If so, what were your rationales in such closures??
A: As the overall manager of the RM process, I don't intend to take a high profile in closing controversial moves. You won't see me deciding whether "Rodham" should be part of a title. More typically I patrol for and fix malformed requests, and moves that were completed without properly closing the discussion and removing the transcluded template. With the bit, I expect to help mostly where the consensus is clear and just needs moved over something with history. However, I also patrol for discussions that are running off the rails by bucking RM conventions in some way. Think of me as the guy who steps into such situations to get them back on track. Two examples:
Additional question from Glrx
5. Your answer to Q1 indicated you would work on deletion of "speedies" but you haven't been active on AfD and would stay away from it. What skills separate the tasks? Why do you feel comfortable with one but not the other?
A: I didn't say I wasn't "comfortable" with assessing consensus and closing AfD discussions (though I suspect there are some who are "uncomfortable" with the idea of me doing that, because of my limited participation there). Rather, I haven't made participation there a priority for myself. Assessing consensus, based on policies and guidelines, takes more judgement. Interpreting speedy criteria is more clear cut. Probably the best way to evaluate abilities and judgement there is to assess my track record for speedy deletions, how many pages I tagged for deletion were actually deleted vs. how many were declined. Also my track record for proposed deletions. I have some of those too. Can an admin do that? Expired "prods" are just a technical matter of deleting them once time has expired, as I understand it. Maybe I'll help there if I see a backlog, but that's an area I don't think gets that backlogged. Oh, and my Merge bot creates maintenance pages that need to be manually deleted once they're cleared. It would be nice to be able to just do that myself, rather than put a speedy template on those pages and then sometimes have to explain my rationale to someone who's not familiar with those pages' purpose.
Additional question from Kraxler
6. Have you ever had a look at WP:TfD? This being a technical venue, wouldn't that be an area where you could help out?
A: As a matter of fact, a maintenance category I created, that's populated by four templates, is up for discussion at the related WP:Categories for discussion now. My implementation is a bit of a novel idea, and the discussion has stalled with very limited participation. So I trust I won't be called for canvassing by giving it a mention here. Yes, I think I'd be more inclined to help at templates and/or categories for discussion. But WikiProject Merge has been really slow lately, and I'm not ready to abandon that. I'm hoping that clearing the hist-merge backlog might allow close to real-time detection and repair of cut & paste moves, just as clearing the transclusion {{error}} fog has allowed closer to real-time corrections to user mistakes and vandalism which that template detects.
Additional question from DavidLeighEllis
7. Under what circumstances should a user be blocked for vandalism without warning?
A: Thanks for the question. It's a good one. My immediate thought was, if I saw an editor committing vandalism at bot-like speed, I would want to block them as quickly as I could. I suspect the system has defense mechanisms for that, as it's something I've never personally witnessed (most I see editing at a pedestrian pace get at least one or two warnings first). But, I suppose that even though I'm not planning on working that beat, on an all-hands-on-deck basis, I should know the criteria for no-warning blocks in advance and be prepared to act quickly if necessary. The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Disruption-only. That last one is interesting: "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization" – I've seen many accounts whose entire contribution history is creation and edits to a single article. I think a high percentage at Articles for Creation may meet this criteria. I'm not sure how strictly this one is enforced in practice. I believe we want to encourage COI editors to request edits on the talk page, but they can't do that if we've already blocked them.
Additional questions from Ottawahitech
8. Do you believe WikiProjects are important for the heath of Wikipedia? — If your answer is no, why? If yes, what is your involvement in Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates?
A: Continued editor participation and contributions are important for the health of Wikipedia. I'm not sure how important to the mix of reasons for participation WikiProjects are, but surely they are helpful to some degree – I think some WikiProjects are pretty important. Can't say I've participated in the Templates WikiProject, but I'm an active participant at WikiProject Merge. Recently I enhanced RMCD bot to notify WikiProject talk pages which aren't subscribed to Article alerts of new requested moves.

9. Is there a connection between A7 speedy and Notability?
A: An A7 (no indication of importance) might be an article which led with "John Doe is a bricklayer who has worked on several major office building construction projects." and not much else about him. We would need to see some assertion of why this particular bricklayer was important, as most bricklayers are not "important" to readers of an encyclopedia. In contrast, "The J. Does are a band from Wichita, known for their hit single, 'The notable one'" doesn't qualify for speedy deletion because it does give an indication of importance. The notability guidelines may be interpreted by editors participating in a deletion discussion in order to make a determination on whether the J. Does are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Clarifying my earlier comment about expired "prods": I meant that generally they are just deleted after they expire. Of course, as with most administrative decisions, there are exceptions. The admin examining an expired "prod" is effectively the judge of last resort for the survival of an article, and in their judgement may remove the "prod" template if they feel the matter should be discussed. If someone tagged a little-watched article about say, a governor of New Hampshire in the 1820s, I would just remove the template. As to which speedies I'm likely to take on first, I may help with {{db-move}} requests, as I'm curious to see how often moves are requested this way vs. WP:RMTR.
Additional question from Rubbish computer
10. Can you detail a specific dispute you became involved with, and how you worked to resolve this?
A: "Dispute" is a strong word, I'd say I've had some debates or extended discussions over a variety of matters. I don't want to mention any specific discussion here, and draw unnecessary attention to the editor(s) on the other side of the debate. Though I did already link to a Categories for discussion debate above which is still open. In general terms, I try to find an acceptable compromise, but if that fails, I just drop the matter. Sometimes I put it on my back-burner and revisit it in six months to see whether anything's changed. There's just too much easy, uncontroversial stuff needing to be done here to waste too much time debating the hard stuff.


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

  1. Support WP:RM continuously has a backlog. I would say between there, WP:CP, and WP:AFC, we desperately need people who are willing to take on administrative tasks. The fact that Wbm1058 has already done a considerable amount of work there indicates he would be more effective if granted the tools. Not granting him the tools over low content creation would be to the detriment of the project. RFA is about seeking a consensus regarding trust, and it is a disservice to the gnomish editors to say they're untrustworthy because they've chosen to contribute in one way and not significantly in another. Mkdwtalk 21:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  2. Support. Not only a good candidate for adminship; the kind of candidate that is needed for adminship. bd2412 T 22:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support competent and collaborative candidate. --Stfg (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support, a trustworthy, competent person who will make valuable use of the tools. BethNaught (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support After reviewing this candidates contributions I feel perfectly confident that he will perform admirably. Aparslet (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Sure. → Call me Hahc21 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  7. Support Good contribs, wants to help out and the only oppose at this point is another one based off what this user hasn't done instead of what this user has done. Go for it. —Frosty 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support a consistent record of reasonable behavior. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support. Excellent temperament and attitude. Has technical skills and intentions that make him highly desirable for the role he volunteers for. While GregJackP's criteria are very important respectable, no admin should ever have authority over a non-admin with respect to issues of content, due to being an admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support - While I would definitely like to see more content creations (per GregJackP), this user has the right attitude and temperament for the role. My hope is that if this RfA passes that the user does good maintenance work while also creating a few DYKs, GAs, and other feature content. Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    "Because I see no good reason not to" does not indicate why you believe that Wbm should be trusted with the mop. Please justify your support of his candidacy. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I trust our excellent contributors in the oppose section to dig up the worst possible dirt on our candidate. If what's found there is the best they could find, Wbm will make an excellent admin. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support No reason to believe this editor would abuse tools. No reason to believe this editor wouldn't learn from mistakes. valereee (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support Althugh I have never interacted with him before, I see no reason to oppose the nom. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support, due to solid technical contributions and temperament. APerson (talk!) 00:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support, I disagree with opposing !voters' position: admins don't need to be godlike article writers because they need to judge behavior, not content. Max Semenik (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support – Since User:Wbm1058 has done bot work to assist with move discussions, I've interacted with him a fair amount. He appears calm and sensible. Having the admin tools would permit him to be even more helpful in the area of moves, and would let him do history merges. Already, thanks to Wbm1058 we have insta-documentation for technical moves, since the move log holds a permalink to the discussion where the technical move was requested. To see an example, click on the word 'permalink' in this entry. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  17. Support No issues. Jianhui67 TC 01:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    "No issues" does not indicate why you believe that Wbm should be trusted with the mop. Please justify your support of his candidacy. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support - likely net positive. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support I've poked around a bit, perused their talk page, and they seem like a pretty reasonable person. Lots of automated edits, but 16,000 non-automated is solid. My only suggestion (mostly personal preference) would be to set up a bot to archive old user talk page threads instead of doing it selectively section by section with the OneClickArchiver thing (like this). Also, I noticed you mentioned speedy deletion above, so I recommend studying up on WP:CSD cause somebody's going to quiz you on it here. I Best of luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  20. Support – definitely seen this editor around, and I foresee absolutely no problems here. And his professed Admin interests coincide with an area that specifically interests me and that I think is underserved. So, yes. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support - Plenty of edits and I see no problems with the user. I believe that he is very trustworthy and he should have the keys to the tools. I noticed his edits in the past and I am very satisfied with his admin work. So Wbm1058 best of luck to you as an admin. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  22. Support. I have some slight reservations about the lack of content creation, but the editor is so good in all other areas that I don't feel it's a big issue in this case. Answer to Q1 shows that he clearly knows his boundaries, and will take it slow if he isn't sure of something. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  23. Support - Everything looks good to me. I have been able to find no issues, and the answers to the questions so far are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  24. Support per bd2412 and to help cancel out oppose vote 1. —Kusma (t·c) 06:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  25. Support productive technically-oriented contributor with specific uses for the tools in mind. Opposition seems to have a much higher regard for the vicissitudes of the assessment system than I do, and yet would judge someone for creating redirects to subsequently deleted articles? Not convincing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  26. Easy decision for mine, I've been waiting for this. I'll always look kindly on someone who offers to help at RM and with the histmerge backlog, and Wbm1058 has already shown proficiency in these areas so I have no concerns about his use of the tools. Having had his talk page on my watchlist for quite a while, I can also say he's also a conscientious fellow who always seem happy to discuss and compromise with other editors in the best interests of the project. Will make a great admin. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  27. Support- Sure, why not? Candidate needs the tools for work in an area they're already active in, and where they have a track record of good judgment. Not convinced at all by opposes based on lack of GA content, because admin work is primarily gnomish anyway. Reyk YO! 08:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  28. Support - Nothing detrimental could happen with this user at the helm. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  29. 'Support. Candidate has a good contribution history (despite low level of article creation) and seems to know their own limits. I trust that the candidate will grow into shape and gradually become more confident in the various administrative tasks. Deryck C. 11:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  30. Support. Have had very positive experiences working with Wbm1058 on Lua modules for requested moves and elsewhere. He is civil, knows his policy, and has a clear need for the administrator tools. I don't think a relative lack of content creation should prevent a capable user from helping out where help is needed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  31. Support - no concerns from my review, and having read the petty opposition I'm more inclined to support. GiantSnowman 12:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  32. Clean block log, deleted edits look fine. I think all admins should have some experience of content contribution, happy to see that Wbm1058 is a content contributor, albeit without any GAs or FAs. As for the opposes for various good edits such as renaming an article when the subject of the article was renamed, all I can say is please look at the candidate's edits, if you rely on tools like you risk opposing someone for good edits. ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  33. Support. Seen him around, and this may be a little earlier than I might have done it but I don't think he lacks anything apart from seasoning. Certainly sensible and trustworthy, not constantly involved in drama, and unlikely to do anything stupid. With due respect to the opposers, adminship is not supposed to be a position of authority. The vast majority of it boring grunt work that goes completely unnoticed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Just curious: what do you mean by 'earlier'? He's been active since 2011. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Candidate seems fine, and gets bonus points for self-nominating. Opposes make a reasonable point about content creation, but not strongly enough to carry the day. Candidate's approach to this RFA demonstrates self-awareness and a likelihood of making the project better through their use of the buttons. Townlake (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Withdrawing my support, at least for now, in response to the ridiculous amount of badgering of the oppose voters below. If this candidate's record itself can't repel those arguments without requiring this degree of harassment, I'm no longer confident in this candidate. Townlake (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  34. Support - Although I'm a tad concerned there's been no participation in the Admin areas you do help out in other ways (IE Requested Move backlogs, TWA fixes etc etc) so in this case I can't really see a problem with you having the mop, Good luck. –Davey2010Talk 16:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  35. Support I usually want to see some "content awareness by content creation" (no GAs/FAs necessary, ordinary articles are fine) by admin candidates, but we have indeed handed over the tools to "single-purpose" admins who declared their intention to work in a certain area and stay out of others, especially in case of technical maintenance (for ex. Trappist the monk and West.andrew.g). This candidate has shown some clue and some technical understanding of his area of expertise, and I trust they will not venture into areas they don't understand anything about. AfD record is slim, but not bad. CSD is very different from AfD, the CSD guidelines are clear, and when in doubt, just don't take any action, let it be done by somebody else. Kraxler (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  36. Support Having read this page I see no sensible reason to oppose this candidate. I may reconsider if something like that appears later, but it ain't here now. Chillum 19:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  37. Support. Fundamentally, adminship is about trust, and his work at WP:RM shows that he can be trusted. Content creation is just one aspect of this project and isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for adminship since everyone has their own strengths. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  38. Support. I don't see anything to indicate that the candidate is likely to misuse admin tools. Most admin actions (UAA, blocking vandals etc) use a different skillset to crafting new article content so I don't see a lack of FA/GAs etc as being any reason to oppose. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  39. Support - While the candidate has not bothered to seek featured list status for his list, it is, nonetheless, good quality. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  40. Support. An editor with a clear track record of not harming the project, who has expressed specific reasons for using administrative tools, and this use will fill a need, and the candidate's statement makes clear that this is not someone predisposed to overstep. That's all good. As for content concerns, I don't see RfA as being about checking boxes on a checklist. The way that I see it, candidates need to demonstrate that they are able to navigate disputes about content. There are more ways to accomplish that than having a GA. Improving existing pages is every bit as helpful to the project as starting new ones. The answers to questions are clueful and articulate, there is no past indication of nastiness to other editors, and the candidate does not want to dive into every admin area. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  41. Support. Wbm1058 seems to be a trusted editor who helps the project despite not creating much content. He does help out in "real" admin areas, though, (like WP:RM) so admin buttons would be a good addition. Epic Genius (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  42. Support. RM could certainly use extra admin help from someone who's offering to do it - it's gotten pretty backed up at times. The candidate, from what I've seen, is calm and reasonable. I don't see any good reason to oppose this candidacy - if anything, the weakness of the seven opposes below only makes it seem like a better idea. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  43. Support, mostly to counterbalance the content creator bullshit.Hal peridol (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    So, in other words, you don't actually have a real reason to support. Do you have any opinion on Wbm at all? GregJackP Boomer! 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  44. Support The purpose of wikipedia is content and content creation only, it doesn't matter if the user has an FA/GA/DYK/A/B/DAB/DNR/D'OH..what matters is that he/she is well versed on terms in content creation and how to deal with issues related to the addition and removal of content, I agree with Sportsguy17 below, we have too many admins who don't have a single content or have done anything worthwhile in the mainspace but Wbm1058 is well versed in these sections with over 30 article creations which is way better than 90% of admins on this wiki..--Stemoc 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  45. Support – As a preface, I'm very much on the side of content creation being a core aspect of any potential admin candidate, but given sufficient competency in other necessary aspects of the site this can be worked around. The lesser focus on content is indeed concerning for me, with Timeline of DOS operating systems being their only major content-based contribution. A large portion of the user's edits are automated or semi-automated and, as brought up by some of the opposing arguments, the vast majority of created articles are merely redirects. That's not to say creating redirects is a bad thing, though. I've also seen some concerns over a lack of GA/FA/FL rated material. In my opinion, article assessments are secondary to the actual quality of the content added and Wbm1058's work with the DOS timeline is a clear example that they're capable of producing solid material. A "good" article can be made without actually having it be assessed as such (namely because the process can be very sluggish due to backlog). That being said, extensive content creation isn't an absolute necessity if the user shows competency in other more technical areas of the site, which this candidate seems to. Vast knowledge of the inner workings of WP:RM and a willingness to help reduce the perpetual backlog there is a huge plus. Their work with bots, something I honestly don't understand myself, is also appreciated. I see no outstanding reason that the candidate will abuse the tools, but much the same as any potential admin they should read up on policies and become very familiar with them before actually using the tools should this RfA be successful. Overall, the candidate is likely a net positive and I'm happy to support. Best of luck, Wbm1058. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  46. Support - net positive. Swarm 09:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  47. Support precious bot help and good reflection of my arb candidate question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  48. Support Trustworthy editor, good attitude, lots of clue and a willingness to help with maintenance. Miniapolis 14:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  49. Support, no concerns and we need more admins to perform page moves. Incidentally, are people really opposing an RfA because of deleted redirects to articles created by other people?. Best site ban me now, since I must have hundreds of similar deleted edits. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  50. Support. I am a so-called "content contributor," but I prefer to be called something simpler: a writer. I endorse Wbm1058's RfA candidacy. As long as Wbm maintains a good perspective that the primary reason administrators exist is to facilitate the creation of quality encyclopedia articles, and to assist, but not govern our writers, then he will have my unconditional support. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  51. Support: seems interested in helping out with admin backlogs; intends to work in an area they are very familiar with (merging); has been template editor for a while with (as far as I can see) no major controversy caused; clean block log and seemingly good conduct; enough edits in enough namespaces show a decent depth of familiarity with the site; seems intelligent and very helpful to the encyclopedia. The GuidedTour extension thing seems interesting and TWA is very important for editor retention, so fixing bugs and helping out with that could be very important work. On an unrelated note, your user talk page is a bit long and could perhaps do with some more archiving. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  52. Support As I've said before, not everyone is a writer, and being a writer doesn't mean you can't be an editor. If he can't be trusted with the tools because he doesn't write articles, he shouldn't be trusted with editing. All of us have a role here. Some of us write, some of us don't. Knowing your limitations vis-a-vis writing isn't a's an asset. Gah. There's no evidence presented this editor can't be trusted with the tools, nor can I find any reason to believe he would. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  53. Support Content creation, when it comes to admin candidates, is no longer an issue for me. If someone has a good attitude, treats others with respect, has common sense, understands policy, and doesn't attract drama, you've got a decent admin candidate in my book. -- WV 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  54. Support. Wbm1058 understands policy, has experience of dealing with admin areas and has shown his competence in these areas. Content creation is not significantly relevant to whether someone will make a good administrator or not. I can't see any reason why entrusting them with the tools would harm Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  55. Support: Clearly an editor who would be an asset as an administrator. Content is, and should be, king on Wikipedia, but it is not everything. We need people who can get the jobs done and if there are reasonable people willing to do the work I hope they will volunteer and be selected.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  56. Support, qualified and trustworthy candidate. I believe there is merit to the argument that admin candidates should have substantial content creation experience, but I also think we need technically oriented admins who are eager to work on backlogs and get things done. I don't see anything in this candidate's history to cause me to be concerned about his judgement or ability. --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  57. Support A committed long term editor with clear intentions to improve the wiki. Also, their attitude towards managing conflicts is refreshing. I see no problem with this promotion. Rcsprinter123 (comms) @ 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  58. Support I see no reason not to, as some of the issues addressed below can be improved in the coming months. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  59. Support Net positive. I never had a GA or FA before running for admin, so I surely won't require them from others. I think getting a few made me a better admin, but to get the tools, I'm more interested in someone who is very familiar with content at some level or another. I was a gnome that did a lot of sourcing, which is important. Some are great writers of prose, which is important. As long as we are talking about people who have spent the time doing something within content, they pass that particular bar for me, as it is easy to see where their priorities are: content being the first among them. I'm satisfied here. We have to be reasonable with our thresholds if we expect to have any admins, and as long as they have shown they are here to promote content in whatever way they do best, we should consider that adequate for that particular metric, imho. Dennis Brown - 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  60. Support. If I knew that the nominee wanted to be an administrator, I would have been a nominator. But, since they decided to nominate themselves, here goes why I think giving Wbm1058 the mop is a net positive. For one, we need more technically-minded admins. This non-admin is one of the few non-admins I would trust to edit pages in the "MediaWiki:" namespace. The nominee manages the bot that assists with the WP:RM forum, and that is a big deal. About a year or so ago, Wbm1058 made some substantial changes to how the WP:RMTR page works to allow the the edit notices generated by denying a request to not break in the edit notice due to being to long. In my opinion, an admin has to have either content knowledge or technical precision with coding to a point where trust exists where the editor will not break Wikipedia; both is preferred, but that almost never happens with admins. Wbm1058 is strong in the technical department, and decent in the content department. In my opinion, some of the opposers below have not grasped the fact that both content and coding are important to this project, and think that it should all be content, content, content. (Warning: tangent ahead.) Well, where would that useful hatnote template be without someone to build that template? Where would the coding used to display references be if the code was not developed? Templates, HTML, and bots everywhere ... and most of these are not created or edited by "content creators". (End of tangent.) Anyways, bottom line, Wbm1058 is a net positive to Wikipedia, and I can only see their potential to improve this project grow if they were given the admin toolset. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  61. Support per WP:NETPOSITIVE and WP:NOBIGDEAL. (Yes, I still believe that with a straight face, despite the mockery which may result. Adminship is not an absolutely irrevocable lifetime appointment and it is possible to remove the tools from problematic admins, although I still do advocate a more efficient and directly community-based system to do so.) I have no issue with Wbm having access to the necessary tools to perform uncontroversial deletions (expired PRODs, to make way for page moves, etc.). Although I view it as a plus, I still hold that content creation should not be the primary gauge by which we determine who our admins will be; everyone has a different area of focus and every editor is important, despite the belief among some that editors who do not have any GAs or FAs are worthless. Wbm's specialty seems to be in technical matters, as shown by his bots and his possession of the template editor right, which as I understand requires a good deal of trust. Next, those who did proper research would find that his "deleted articles" were in fact redirects to other pages that were deleted. Wbm did not create the main pages themselves. This is not something that only admins can see; anyone who has access to xTools and looks at the rationales given by the deleting admins would see it. --Biblioworm (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  62. Support. Looking through the candidate's contributions, I see nothing that is problematic. This candidate does appear to be technically-minded and I agree with Steel1943 that more technically-minded admins are needed. To me, it's important that an admin display good judgement in conflicts, an awareness of their own skills and limitations, and have contributed to the encyclopaedia, and this candidate fulfills those requirements. An editor need not have taken an article through the GA/FA process to have had to resolve conflict and to show how they work with other editors. While writing content is undeniably important, I think that template-editing and copywriting and categorization and creating redirects and all of the other tasks that support content writing are also important. Ca2james (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  63. Support (edit conflict) Biblioworm says it well. I have not looked very deeply (not being familiar with WP:RM, I'm not really sure what to look for), but I see nothing that would suggest that Wbm1058 is not a net positive. I won't ask for GAs or FAs, just some non-trivial article work and Timeline of DOS operating systems easily fits the bill. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  64. Support I haven't looked very deeply, but from the other !votes and the questions, I see an experienced editor who appears to be happy and skilled doing the kind of boring, routine work that keeps Wikipedia running smoothly. The other people in those areas think higly of them. They need the tools to be able to do what they do more effectively. Sounds like a natural candidate. The concerns about them using their tools in areas in which they are not proficient is valid. However, the candidate has expressed a commitment not to do so and from what I have looked at they seem steady and reliable so I trust that statement. I think we need admins with a range of skills and interests and this candidate has some important skills and is willing to work in under-staffed areas. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  65. Support His existing work speaks to me as being somewhat similar to my own, and he seems sincere. I trust him with the tools.StaniStani 02:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  66. Support The candidate doesn't have thirteen FAs and nine GAs under their belt, so I trust them with the tools. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Sarcasm? At RfA? I'm shocked, shocked! <g> BMK (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  67. Support Nothing alarming. Widr (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  68. Support From research, they seem like someone who is trustworthy and I dont believe that approving this will result in harm. Tortle (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  69. Support Seems like level-headed, technically minded editor with edits on the gnomish side, but content creation is good enough for my criteria. His desire to help with backlogged area such as RM is certainly a plus. I didn't find any reason not to trust. No such user (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  70. Support Has enough content creation (okay, pulling a bare Google Books URL is not the haut cuisine of content writing, but so what?), sticks to mainspace instead of dramah, a clear and obvious rationale for the tools, sensible, polite and level headed. Edit: And good answer to Q9 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  71. Support Appears to be a reasonable candidate. Has handled some thorny page move discussions well. Don't see any major red flags. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  72. Support. They're gonna make a far better admin than many current admins. Alakzi (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  73. Support Edits seem good enough, good luck.--5 albert square (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  74. Support based on the overall record of contributions. However, I hope and expect that if the RfA succeeds, Wbm1058 will take the opposers' concerns into account and move slowly in the areas with which he is less familiar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  75. Support per all those who just said "support" without explaining why. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  76. Wikipedia succeeds because volunteers work together as a team sharing individual skills and motivations. Each person contributes what they can, when they can. Nobody can do everything on their own. We value diversity. We need diversity. We need those who are willing and able to sort out content disputes, and those who are willing and able to do complex history merges. Rarely will we find someone who is willing and able to do both. If a person has been around long enough to show they understand our processes and procedures, to show they are civil and level headed, to show they can be trusted, and to show they have some skill or interest that is useful to the community if they became an admin, then they will get my support every time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  77. Support I'm in full agreement with SilkTork (right above). There's every reason to believe that sysoping Wvm1058 will be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  78. Support Apparent good demeanor and temperament. Does good and necessary work in areas that are technical and which few others, administrators included, wish to spend time. Content creation is important. Yet, I think a !vote should not always be based solely on a content creation criterion, especially a strict and narrowly interpreted one. Each candidate needs to be evaluated on whether the candidate has useful skills for and good contributions to administrative (type) work, and a good temperament and demonstrated ability to work with others. FA and GA article creation may show that the candidate has these qualities and experience, but it is not the only way to do so, nor the only way to show satisfactory competence and contribution to content creation. When a candidate has experience, special skills and interests and has established trustworthiness, giving them administrative tools should be a net positive, as it is here. Also, per the specific comments and rationales of EdJohnston, StringTheory11, Kraxler, Tryptofish, Cyclonebiskit, Steel1943, Dennis Brown and Silk Tork, and others making similar comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donner60 (talkcontribs) 01:42, August 27, 2015‎ (UTC)
    Cleaned up my typos and remembering to sign it this time. Sorry. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  79. Support. Civil and productive user with a need for the tools in an area of competence. No indication there would be misuse. No indication that user would stifle content creators, or blunder foolishly into unfamiliar areas. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  80. Support - Based on their work with requested moves, Wbm1058 has shown he could help the technical side of the encyclopedia by being an admin and has demonstrated a trustworthy track record. In my opinion, this outweighs concerns over his level of content creation. Altamel (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  81. Support per Wbm1058's potential to assist with page moves and the extent to which this is needed. Rubbish computer 13:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  82. Support as the sort of editor I trust with the tools. While I respect a lot of the editors on the oppose side of the ledger, I don't agree with most of their concerns - especially the ones about deleted redirects. I just don't see anything to cause concern here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  83. Support, per EdJohnston, Altamel and UltraExactZZ. I have mainly interacted with Wbm1058 over bot jobs for WP and merges where we have broadly agreed on the best way to improve those processes. On the occasions where we disagreed (on other matters) the exchanges have been courteous, and a compromise has been found. -- PBS (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  84. Support While their content creation is thin, this user knows their own limitations and seems like they can be trusted with the tools. I would advise Wbm to stay away from closing PRODs until they have some AfD experience (as an editor, not as an administrator), as they aren't as cut and dry as speedies, but that shouldn't prevent Wbm from getting the bit at this time. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  85. Support. Rzuwig 20:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate a little? CassiantoTalk 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  86. My encounters with him have left me with the impression that he is enthusiastic about helping others, which is a big plus. None of his answers to the questions raised any red flags. I feel confident that giving him the added toolset will be of benefit to Wikipedia. Kurtis (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  87. Support. I don't know the candidate at all. I know that many people bemoan the RfA process, but perhaps it wouldn't be quite so bad (I can't imagine it ever being a walk in the park) if editors didn't expect candidates to be perfect in every area in which administrators operate (see MaxSem's vote and the word "godlike"). For example, one of the main areas in which the candidate works is WP:RM, and I virtually never touch that corner of the wikiworld. Administrators should not be expected to know everything about everything so they can use their tools for any issue. Indeed, administrators, just like non-administrators, are not required to act. Like all of us, they are volunteers.
    There's an unusually large group of administrators who support this candidate, administrators I respect. I'm not going to name them all because I'll probably forget one and be embarrassed, but their support votes and the rationales behind them speak highly as to this candidate's abilities. Although I understand some of the oppose votes related to content, even there we expect too much. What we have to do is trust that the candidate in enforcing rules doesn't impede content building. It's not that important whether the candidate is a content builder. I've only created a couple of articles myself, and I think they're both start class, so that ain't much by most people's standards, but at least having done so I understand how hard it is to create a decent article, and I respect those who do it. I don't believe anyone has said anything about this candidate that demonstrates that they will obstruct content building as an administrator.
    Finally, I think someone said something about occasional lack of civility on the part of the candidate. You know what? All evidence to the contrary, administrators are human. I'm often frustrated that as an administator I have a heightened burden to be civil because sometimes I just want to say it like it is, or at least like I think it is. From what I can see, this candidate will be an asset to the admin pool, and we can certainly use some more good admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  88. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  89. Support I don't see anything that makes me think the tools are going to be abused. Davewild (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  90. Support Just 'cause. Drmargi (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  91. Support I am one of the most regular editors on threads notified at WP:RM and through numerous encounters with this editor cannot remember a single instance of Wbm1058 putting a foot wrong. Consistently positive contributions are made and I do not think that there would be any change as an admin. Has a balanced temperament with a safe pair of hands. GregKaye 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  92. Support We need more admins involved with the technical side. And any concerns I trust they'll gain the experience to do it right. I'd say the people who worked out the templates, the category structures and the overall design behind Wikipedia:Good article nominations did as much as many content creators. However, like the really good tech stuff, it just seems like magic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  93. Support - per Dennis Brown and SilkTork. Net positive for the project. shoy (reactions) 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  94. Support - while content contributions are somewhat light, overall candidate seems solid, and has showed reasonable judgement by staying calm despite excessive derailment going on here. Sidenote, while people challenging GregJackP's vote obviously had good intentions, I believe that everyone would have been better off if that had been avoided.--Staberinde (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  95. Support - After reading description and looking at a few of this person's edits, sounds like this candidate could be a good admin! Class455fan1 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  96. Support Candidate may have weak areas, but I trust them to be self-aware and avoid them, as far as using the tools are concerned. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
  97. Support Looks all right to me. Deb (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per this. Almost all of the articles created are dab pages or lists, no B class or above, no GA/FA, way too many of the created articles have been subsequently deleted. GregJackP Boomer! 21:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Long discussion moved to talk page. --Biblioworm (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose "New articles" appear to be almost entirely dabs or simple lists - and I prefer that editors be fully aware of the specific policies applicable to complex articles and editing. The editor has opined on a total of only 15 AfDs, so I do not think he is specifically qualified for those either. As with other editors in the past (some of who became admins, but where I maintain my opposition was correct), I can not support. Using X's Tools shows 47 articles "created" of which 15 are marked by that tool as "deleted". None of the ones I examined appear of significance. [1], [2] pour exemple. SMC Corporation, Barco Silex, Stern Stewart & Co, all read like PR material, alas. Zero as far as I can tell otherwise - dabs and lists are not that hard to make, alas. No sign of awareness of the nuances of WP:BLP (zero noticeboard edits AFAICT) or WP:NPOV (zero), WP:RS/N one single edit (he asked whether "" was a reliable source). Sorry about that. Collect (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  3. Oppose Some created articles are deleted. Means you have no idea about notability. As an administrator, how will you delete newly created pages which "doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia"; if you create articles not fit for Wikipedia as these Stern Stewart & Co and Barco Silex, you will keep lots of bad articles created by other users in AFD. Aero Slicer 03:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Add SMC Corporation.Aero Slicer 13:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  4. Oppose. Zero retained articles created except one single stub, and another unreferenced two-sentence stub that in my opinion should be AfDed. Apparent massive edit-countitis; article-space edits appear to me to mainly consist of tens of thousands of automated or semi-automated edits, or moving images around, etc. As candidate says, I believe his only main credible article-space content contributions have been his work on Timeline of DOS operating systems. Inadequate rationale for wanting the tools. I also personally consider the ArbCom run to be hubris. Poor showing at AfD. I think this candidate's assessment of his qualifications for adminship is out of proportion, especially since the tools are not handed out piecemeal, and that his reach exceeds his grasp. I wish the candidate well, because I think he is definitely a positive for the project, but I personally do not believe he is admin material (at least not at this juncture). Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Nah. BMK (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  6. Oppose I share the concerns of other opposers such as Greg. Also, if someone's not comfortable at AFD, they should not be doing speedy deletions because the speedy process has less oversight and is more bitey. The clincher is that the candidate says "I'm proud of my enhancements to the controversial {{Orphan}} template..." My view is that those enhancements subverted the community consensus to stop this template appearing on articles. As the candidate hasn't created articles, he perhaps doesn't appreciate how annoying such templates can be. He needs more skin in the game before he starts deciding what's good for us. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I continue to oppose candidates who do not have significant content contributions. How can you judge between those who have skin in the game when you don't? And per the other opposers who have expressed similar concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  8. Oppose Cursory review shows a lack of sufficient competence in deletion policy and a poor track record with content creation. Once upon a time the argument that it's NOBIGDEAL could be made with a straight face, but that's not longer the case. GraniteSand (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. GregJackP raises some very salient concerns that alarm me. The deletion of articles he created implies to me a lack of understanding of the notability policies. Based on those and a lack of creating and developing quality content (I prefer an admin candidate to have experience cultivating at least a few GAs, preferably a FA if possible, to know what content creation demands, but here we don't even have B-class content). I think the candidate is a nice guy, seems decent, but I'd like to see more substance to his contribution. The comment above about template annoyances is quite valid. Until then, per BMK, nah.JackTheVicar (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - per BMK, GregJackP and Andrew Davidson. I find what I'd call the badgering of opposers both hypocritical and offensive when, as BMK correctly observes, very short supports are tossed off without question. Early opposers have come to be grilled with near outrage. I do as usual thank the candidate for their efforts on behalf of the encyclopedia, and suggest they come back in a year or so with the concerns addressed. Jusdafax 10:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    @Jusdafax: I trust you won't mind a bit of "badgering" from me. I want to note that I'm not seeing any replies to opposes by the candidate, only by other editors. I'll also point out that there are replies to supports this time, and in my opinion there's something to be said for everyone who comments at RfA to explain what they say, and not just post canned !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - per Wehwalt. I'd like to see a bit more content building first before such tools are given out. This kind of bit "awarding" is regrettably par for the course around here now. CassiantoTalk 15:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I am a fan of the DOS article he highlights, but am otherwise underwhelmed with this candidate for admin. If he's not up to speed with policy sufficient to judge AfDs, then he's not worthy of being appointed to this lifetime position. Hassling of "opposers" doesn't help. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to replies section
  13. Oppose Reaching for the janitor's key ring and ArbCom with such a "young" perspective makes this a no for me. In the ideal world we'd be able to apply for "Admin-Protection Request", "Mover", "Admin-Deleter", etc. but we don't have that. We have the bundled package Administrator that has many different things in it besides those small components. We have to consider the candidate's qualifications against the full package of privileges administrator entails. No opposition to the candidate coming back when they have improved bona fides with respect to assisting content creation (AfC), content creation on their own (A few B/C level articles under their belt or a few DYKs), and content deletion (a good overlap on multiple deletion discussions between their viewpoint and the eventual consensus) for a new evaluation. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Deep down, we are building an encyclopedia here. While I appreciate the work that Wbm1058 has done and I understand that the nominee wishes to focus on gnomish aspects of the role, the powers that are granted to an admin are extensive and need to be wielded by an individual who understands the process of content creation at a far deeper level. Someone who has been through the process of nurturing an article from a stub to DYK -- let alone GA or FA -- status, or has had an article that they created go through AfD, will have a far greater understanding and appreciation of the awesome responsibility of the powers granted to them in an administrative role and will be far more likely to use those powers responsibly and fairly. I cannot support the nomination at this time, based on the current edit history, but I encourage the nominee to work more assiduously on content creation areas to build up the broader skill set and experience necessary and appropriate for an administrator. Should this nomination fail, I hope to be able to support a second nomination that demonstrates strong efforts to gain these skills. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose In the past I would overlook a lack of content work if admin related items were impeccable, however that is no longer the case. Should user spend substantive time over next six months on content work I would gladly support then.--MONGO 18:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose . Apart from the nomination statement just not being compelling enough, there isn't sufficient active work in all areas to inspire confidence in the use of the tools. I don't need to see FA, GA, or DYK, or anything like it, but I'll repeat my mantra: 'Anyone who wants to police pages should demonstrate that they are able to produce them'. Candidate has the right temperament for adminship so I could very well see myself supporting once those criteria have been addressed in six months or so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I cant think of a single reason this editor needs tools or why it would benefit the project to give them to him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Neutral while the candidate has wisely indicated he/she is not going to delve into inexperienced areas, having a potentially faulty grasp if notability criteria does have me concerned. I'd be more comfortable supporting if user was more familiar with such requirements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, leaning toward support. The candidate is a longtime, highly productive user, with a clean block log and no civility concerns. They want to work in a specific area, where they are widely experienced and where the tools will enhance their value to the encyclopedia. My only concern is their lack of demonstrated experience with article deletion. I would normally hesitate to hand the tools to someone with so little AfD experience, but the candidate has already indicated they realize their limitations there and don't intend to close AfDs unless they get a lot more experience. Unfortunately they have not created a CSD or PROD log so I can't evaluate their skill there. I am a little worried by their incorrect belief (Question 5) that expired prods should be simply deleted as a technical matter; personally I evaluate any prod before I delete it, and in probably 10-15% of cases I decide that prod deletion is not appropriate. What I would suggest is that before the candidate does any article deletion (other than to facilitate move requests or service their own tools), they set up a CSD/PROD log (do it at Preferences / Gadgets / Twinkle preferences panel), use it for a month or two, and then ask an established administrator if they appear to have a decent grasp of deletion policy, or where they might need improvement. I am not worried that they will use the tools to block people inappropriately, because they don't intend to work in areas where that kind of judgment call will be needed. My bottom line is: we need administrators with interest and skills in underutilized areas, and this candidate seems well suited for adminship. I am just looking for some assurance that they will get more deletion experience, and solicit some feedback, before doing much article deletion. I would welcome the candidate's response to these comments. MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I have concerns about lack of experience in the deletion and content creation areas. Apropos the former, as I've said before, adminiship is not a training school and the community has the right to expect new appointees to hit the ground running. AfD forms a key nexus in policy/guideline interpretation and a paucity of experience there belies a lack of the essential experience needed to wield the mop.  Philg88 talk 07:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

General comments
  • It's really inappropriate for those who oppose an RfA to have to face a gauntlet of comments, criticism, and calls for explanations. If those in opposition did the same to every lame reason for supporting a candidate, we would be accused of disrupting the RfA. If it's not disruption, just let me know, and we can ask the same sort of questions to the supporters. GregJackP Boomer! 06:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Discussion of this general comment moved to talk page.
  • If an editor can't be trusted to stick to admin tasks they're familiar with, there's a much bigger problem than a lack of familiarity with a few esoteric admin areas. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    +1. But we're getting to the point where if an RfA candidate doesn't have experience in 100% of the areas that an Admin might possibly, theoretically come in to contact with, then they'll garner about 20% "opposes" (if not more) as a matter of course. But (beating the dead horse here...) this is I think just a symptom of a larger issue, and is more fodder for the idea that the current governance structure of this project is becoming unworkable, and more radical solutions are likely to be necessary, going forward. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Mkdw, in support section
Support WP:RM continuously has a backlog. I would say between there, WP:CP, and WP:AFC, we desperately need people who are willing to take on administrative tasks. The fact that Wbm1058 has already done a considerable amount of work there indicates he would be more effective if granted the tools. Not granting him the tools over low content creation would be to the detriment of the project. RFA is about seeking a consensus regarding trust, and it is a disservice to the gnomish editors to say they're untrustworthy because they've chosen to contribute in one way and not significantly in another. Mkdwtalk 21:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Has someone stated or inferred that Wbm1058 is untrustworthy? GregJackP Boomer! 00:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It was a general statement. The fundamental point of RFA is to determine whether the community would trust this editor with the tools and not abuse their position. Mkdwtalk 01:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
How can such a generalisation be justification in this case that the candidate is trustworthy? CassiantoTalk 17:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cassianto: What do you mean? I provided a very specific rationale about why I believe this candidate is trustworthy to be granted the tools. I then made a general statement about what RFA is about. If you notice, I said 'it', grammatically being a reference to what GregJackP had asked regarding a specific part of my support statement. Mkdwtalk 19:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Hahc21, in support section
'Support Sure. → Call me Hahc21 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"Sure" does not indicate why you believe that Wbm should be trusted with the mop. Please justify your support of his candidacy. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I can see you have a bone to pick against him. → Call me' Hahc21 10:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually not. I like Wbm. What I was asking is for the basis of your support of his request for the mop. "Sure" does not indicate your reasons, and per the guys hectoring the opposes, we should be asking the same question of the supports who have not laid out an actual reason for support. My personal view is that people should state their opinion and be done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Pick a position Greg. Either you think people asking people to justify their opinion is hectoring, which you have decided to do here. Or you think that it is a reasonable thing to do, which you have decided to do here. If you call it hectoring when opposes are questioned, but are just asking for a basis when you do it then you have discredited yourself by contradicting your own premise. Hahc21 would do well to explain their point of view, regardless of the manner in which it was questioned. If this ends up being close no crat' worth their salt will give much weight to what you have put down. Chillum 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are the one that said to question both sides, now you're opposed to it? I'm happy to post my position and be done, but you and others won't let that happen, so, although I disagree with it, I'm doing what you suggested. And now you criticize for that too? Why don't you just leave people alone instead of badgering them? GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Kusma, in support section
Support per bd2412 and to help cancel out oppose vote 1. —Kusma (t·c) 06:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Articles like these are well sourced other than official websites? Stern Stewart & Co, Barco Silex. In AFD , i have seen many new users who create articles about their company with only company website as reference without any independent source. Aero Slicer 06:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither of these articles was started by the candidate (although the candidate made the oldest edit in the page history), so I do not know what you are talking about. —Kusma (t·c) 09:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The page creator is Wbm1058. Stern Stewart & Co Barco Silex.Aero Slicer 09:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but if you actually look at the pages, you'll see Wbm1058 just created a redirect and moved a page; neither of these count as creating articles and neither have had significant work by Wbm1058. I also dispute your implication that someone who creates an article is responsible for its content; they don't own the page or have any obligation to help expand it once it's been created. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You know there are users who represent a company and create Wikipedia articles about their company where the lone source is their official website. Now if Wbm1058 becomes administrator, i hope he is able to take the tough decision of deleting such articles. Such articles maybe like the one I have pointed above. Aero Slicer 10:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see why COI editing is relevant to Kusma's support !vote. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Townlake, in support section
Candidate seems fine, and gets bonus points for self-nominating. Opposes make a reasonable point about content creation, but not strongly enough to carry the day. Candidate's approach to this RFA demonstrates self-awareness and a likelihood of making the project better through their use of the buttons. Townlake (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawing my support, at least for now, in response to the ridiculous amount of badgering of the oppose voters below. If this candidate's record itself can't repel those arguments without requiring this degree of harassment, I'm no longer confident in this candidate. Townlake (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This is baseless. You are withdrawing support because we are discussing the opinions presented? Several supports have been questioned as well, I think you will find this is normal, and very much beyond the candidates control. I hope you don't find my response to your decision to be "badgering" but on Wikipedia people are going to tell you what they think about your opinion. And I think it is baseless and unhelpful. Chillum 02:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are the expert on unhelpful. Stop lecturing me about what to do with my vote. Townlake (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Townlake, he, and the others don't see it as badgering. I would prefer that everyone just put their reason for support or oppose in their own section and be left alone. Unfortunately, they want to do it this way. I'm sorry that he did the same to you as he did to us. GregJackP Boomer! 05:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Chillum, in support section
Support Having read this page I see no sensible reason to oppose this candidate. I may reconsider if something like that appears later, but it ain't here now. Chillum 19:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a "sensible reason" to support this candidate? The absence of an objection should take you to a neutral position, not support. If you are going to give someone a lifetime appointment as an admin, it behooves us to show a positive, clearly thought out reason to do so, not that there is no reason to oppose. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Being an admin is not a big deal and it is not a life time appointment. Plenty of people are now ex-admins. The candidate has contributed significantly here including a butload of content contributions and has not ran afoul of our policies and has been civil and reasonable. I have no reason to think they will abuse the tools so I am supporting them. The most important reason is that we need more admins and if there is nothing reasonable to object to in this candidate then it would be silly of me to object. Chillum 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"Being an admin is not a big deal..." Balderdash. It may have been true at one time, but it ain't true now, not when Wikipedia is the primary place people go to for a quick hit of information, where businesses and professionals go to try and promote themselves, where ethnic warriors fight each other for dominance, and conspiracy nuts and fringe advocates try to get traction for the pet theories. Yes, rank-and-file editors do a lot of the grunt work of holding back the tide, but it almost always comes down to someone having to be blocked, or topic banned, or IPs being range blocked, or enemies being IBanned, or articles being deleted, and the only ones who can do that are the admins. They're goddamned important, and it's demeaning to keep saying that they're not, that being one is "no big deal" -- especially coming from an admin! It just isn't true in the Wikiworld of right now, not 2003. BMK (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Admins are of course important, without them this place would grind to a halt. But it is no big deal. All of those things you listed are content issues, content is decided by the community not admins. Blocks, bans, and all other admin actions come down to the community too. It is not a big deal and that is not demeaning at all. Chillum 04:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, right. No big deal may be the spin admins put on it, but BMK is absolutely correct. GregJackP Boomer! 05:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay you caught me. I am secretly a rouge admin. Chillum 13:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Considering the recent ArbCom-mandated desysops, and the rather unsettling discussion now ongoing at AN/I, I think perhaps some of the fun has gone out of that joke, Chillum. BMK (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Widr, in support section
Support Nothing alarming. Widr (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but is it really your contention that the absence of anything "alarming" qualifies this or any editor for a lifetime position as a super-editor? Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if my little comment was difficult to understand. It means pretty much the same as "no concerns" or "no issues"; in other words I have no reason to oppose the candidacy, and nothing in the oppose section makes me think I should. That's it. Thank you. Widr (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry the context of this discussion is lost, I hope that gets fixed. In the meantime I will respond here. Being an admin is not a lifetime position, we all know there are numerous ex-admins due to either inactivity, retirement or removal of the rights by arbcom. We are most certainly not super-editors, this comment reveals a fundamental understanding about what admins do. Chillum 17:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Clerking note: Chillum's comment was made when part of this discussion was on the talk page. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean misunderstanding? But anyway, I believe you're sort of begging the question. Nothing alarming against me or any number of thousands, perhaps millions of editors, the vast majority of whom have done nothing terribly alarming. I could see myself nominated for admin: Coretheapple has done nothing alarming. Perhaps you feel the majority of site editors should qualify for admin, but I do not go along with that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I disagree but it is reasonable position. Yes I forgot the "mis", thank you for pointing that out I have corrected it. My main point was the admins are neither life time appointees or "super" editors. Chillum 20:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Collect, in oppose section
Oppose "New articles" appear to be almost entirely dabs or simple lists - and I prefer that editors be fully aware of the specific policies applicable to complex articles and editing. The editor has opined on a total of only 15 AfDs, so I do not think he is specifically qualified for those either. As with other editors in the past (some of who became admins, but where I maintain my opposition was correct), I can not support. Using X's Tools shows 47 articles "created" of which 15 are marked by that tool as "deleted". None of the ones I examined appear of significance. [3], [4] pour exemple. SMC Corporation, Barco Silex, Stern Stewart & Co, all read like PR material, alas. Zero as far as I can tell otherwise - dabs and lists are not that hard to make, alas. No sign of awareness of the nuances of WP:BLP (zero noticeboard edits AFAICT) or WP:NPOV (zero), WP:RS/N one single edit (he asked whether "" was a reliable source). Sorry about that. Collect (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You mention AfD despite the candidate clearly stating "My deletion activity will be limited to speedies, as I haven't been active at WP:AfD, nor do I expect to be soon". I don't follow. —Frosty 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
AFAICT all he would need is a flag for moves - but he shows nothing to indicate he is aware and competent to handle anything about deletions, biographies, sources, conflicts etc. at all. Since Admins automatically have all powers to deal with them, it is, IMO, essential that their background on Wikipedia show some awareness of the major areas in which they will have the ability to act. There was a recent case where I held that opinion, and I continue to hold that opinion. And experience bears this position out - not that I insist on every aspect being known, but only knowing one thing is, IMO, insufficient to ask for the mop. Collect (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the editor's 2014 Arbcom run and noticed you supported him for Arbitrator, but now you don't support him for Administrator? If it's not considered badgering, would you mind explaining that? StaniStani 01:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for Collect, but had I been active then I would have supported him for ArbCom too. The reason is simple for me, he was not an admin and I firmly believe that a significant portion of the members of ArbCom should be non-admin, normal editors. It's two entirely different roles and issues. GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, opposing a person for ArbCom because they are not an Admin is quite a bit different from opposing a person for admin because they have not had to show awareness of the core policies for editors. For ArbCom, I presented a series of questions, and used the answers to the questions posed to see how they would act as an arbiter -- ArbCom specifically does not consider policies in its remit, and makes no decisions about policies. Collect (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In reply to Aero Slicer, in oppose section
Oppose Some created articles are deleted. Means you have no idea about notability. As an administrator, how will you delete newly created pages which "doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia"; if you create articles not fit for Wikipedia as these Stern Stewart & Co and Barco Silex, you will keep lots of bad articles created by other users in AFD. Aero Slicer 03:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Add SMC Corporation.Aero Slicer 13:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You're not an administrator, so you can't see what those deleted pages were as I can. Nearly all of them are redirects to pages Wbm did not create. Pages that were later deleted, along with their redirects. xtools has an option not to show redirects, but it can't tell what content a page held that no longer exists, and lists those pages anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonable to an editor to infer that a large number of deleted articles implies a problem with understanding notability or other issues. Non-admins have no way of viewing that information, and it is not really appropriate for an admin who is supporting the RfA to criticize his position based on the information he has access to. GregJackP Boomer! 05:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I am criticizing no one, merely providing information. Though you can interpret my statement however you like. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
When the statement starts You're not an administrator... it sound like you are saying that he's not as important or knowledgeable, so he should defer to your position. If it was not meant to intimidate or criticize, then I apologize, but RfAs should be based on information that all can see, not super-secret stuff that admins may deign to share with mere editors. GregJackP Boomer! 06:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I honestly regret using that wording then. I only said that to make it clear the information I was providing was not something he could check himself. My only intention here was to correct what I thought was a misconception on Aero's part, though he has made it clear below that he believes even G8 deletions reflect poorly on an editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Aero Slicer which created articles in particular were deleted as a result of notability issues? Perhaps we can review them to separate out the redirects or moved articles (which were created by others) that were subsequently deleted and help clarify a few things. Mkdwtalk 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If he created redirect for deleted articles, then he supported those articles. Pygments - reference is wikipedia signpost. Stern Stewart & Co No reference and source right now. Only two external links which are official websites. Lepid What is the purpose of this article?. Barco Silex zero reference other than official website. I am talking about the current version of those pages. Aero Slicer 05:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Criticizing Lepid with the rationale "What is the purpose of this article?" is ridiculous; it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary, not an article, and serves the purpose of taking Wikipedia readers to a relevant page on Wiktionary, since WP is not a dictionary. If you have a problem with this, go to Template talk:Wiktionary redirect, not the RfA of someone who happened to use the template once. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding SMC Corporation as the pdf links are taken from the websites.Aero Slicer 09:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the history of Barco Silex the candidate created a redirect in 2012 which others have expanded to an article. In what way could the candidate be held responsible for that article's state of referencing? Struck as that example has now been struck ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
SMC corporation was created three years ago, arguably the use of primary sourcing indicates that the candidate wasn't ready for adminship in July 2012. But how is that relevant to a 2015 RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Last edited by Wbm1058 on 26 September 2014 and at that time the page looked like this.___ Stern Stewart & Co First and last edit in 2014 by him.____ Pygments created edited regularly in July 2015 by Wbm1058 using Wikipedia signpost as source . All three pages depend on the official websites. I am not 100% confirmed, but there is a small concern, that if he becomes Administrator, he will create more articles about private entities, software firm, newly created industries using official website as his best reference as he did here. ____This page states All article topics must be verifiable with independent,third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Thanks.Aero Slicer 14:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The first reference in SMC_Corporation, back in 2012, was to a primary source, but surely an independent one, and an indicator that this is most unlikely to be a very small "garage" or local company. As for date of most recent edit, we encourage people to watchlist articles, it is an important layer of our defences against vandalism; The content was contributed in 2012, editors are under no obligation to take ownership of articles they have partly written. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"there is a small concern, that if he becomes Administrator, he will create more articles about private entities..." – Aero Slicer, there are 79 user rights that administrators have. The only one that is relevant to creating articles is the ability to create salted pages, which is only necessary in rare situations. Wbm1058 can create articles under almost any title now, without sysop tools. Ability to create pages is not what adminship is about. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Bilorv As an administrator, he will get more respect and there will be problems if he uses Wikipedia as reference. Aero Slicer 14:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Admins do not get more respect, where did you get that idea? Go read the talk page of any random admin and see just how much respect they get. Chillum 15:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've had a look through all of the deleted pages that Wbm1058 created, and they were all redirects, not articles, so the notability policy wouldn't have applied. The only one that looked at all bad was his redirect of Kitchen collection to Kitchen utensil, which was deleted at this RfD discussion. Personally, I don't think that's a very big deal. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Beyond My Ken, in oppose section
Oppose - Nah. BMK (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Please explain why you don't think he should be an administrator. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you ask the equivalent question of the "support" vote that said "sure"? No, you did not. BMK (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
By long convention Support votes such as "sure" or "per nom" are interpreted as agreeing with the nomination. Oppose !votes presumably disagree with the nomination, but it helps the RFA to know in what way they disagree with the nomination. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
BMK if you are going to oppose someone at least of the courtesy to explain why. If this turn out to be close don't expect the crats' to give your "Nah" any weight at all. If you want to question the guy who said "sure" be my guest. Chillum 16:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Nah. BMK (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, let's start a new "convention". Just as a support without an explanation is said to mean "per nom" (lotta thought went into that vote, dinnit?), an oppose without an explanation means "per what every other 'oppose' vote above me has already said". So, if things get close, and the 'crats are starting to weigh votes, I fully expect that if my "nah" is thrown out or undervalued, so will all those "sure"-type support votes which took no time or effort to produce. BMK (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If you combine that with a proposal that Support and Oppose votes should have the same value then I wouldn't agree, but I could see the logic of that. However "Nah" is rude and dismissive in a way that "per Soft Lavender" or "per the above opposes" isn't. ϢereSpielChequers 10:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Support and oppose votes already have the same value, each is worth exactly 1 vote. That we set a certain bar for acceptance doesn't make them of unequal value. BMK (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Wehwalt, in oppose section
Oppose I continue to oppose candidates who do not have significant content contributions. How can you judge between those who have skin in the game when you don't? And per the other opposers who have expressed similar concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The candidate already has access to content, just like IPs do. Do you have any concerns about their use of admin tools? Chillum 19:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Chillum, admins should be able to create content because then they actually know how to handle content disputes using said tools due to their experience in the area. I see an awful lack of content-creating admins nowadays. A lot of admins have created few or no articles and spend <10% of their time in the mainspace. The whole point of this site is to build an encyclopedia. We don't need admins at places like ANI and Arb pages (in fact, Wikipedia could live without that shit). We need admins handling content issues and helping to build and improve the encyclopedia. Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Except that any admin acting as an admin in an area should not be involving themselves with a content dispute, and if they are involved in the content dispute they must not act as an admin. "Handling" of content issues by admins should be limited to interpreting the desires of the community as described in policy and by consensus. They should not be using their content skills to be making the right administrative decision in a content dispute, because deciding what is right in a content dispute is beyond the discretion of an administrator. I am unconvinced that anything put forward indicates this candidate will not do well with the tools. Chillum 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I mean, I guess I concur with that, considering that I !voted support in spite of the concerns regarding content. All I'm saying that it's not fair to badger those kinds of opposes, as they are legitimate concerns. We have far too many admins that waste too much time in meta areas and spend almost no time helping out with content, even just by helping resolve content disputes. So it would be nice if you would eschew negative responses to legitimate opposition/concern(s) (I could understand being concerned by an opposition like BMK's though). Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see my comment at the bottom of the discussion page. It is not badgering, it is the same debate that happens everywhere else on Wikipedia. I also got my support challenged and I met it in the spirit that it was given. If we do not talk about each others opinions then we are really not doing a very good job at exploring the issues. As to your other point administration is meta work, that is the job. If they do content as well that is be great too but they need to take off their admin hat while they do that. Chillum 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Procedural note: Comment in question since moved to talk.
No, Chillum, there's not much to debate here. The whole point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, which is something too many admins fail to actually try to do. Admins should be doing meta work in addition to content work. Even admins are expected to hold up their end in helping the encyclopedia, and that certainly doesn't happen by hanging around arb and drama board pages all day. I'd like to bet that a lot of current admins on this project couldn't even create a GA on their own (now, there are a lot that could and have made lots, such as Casliber, Bagumba, Go Phightins!, Wizardman, to name a few, but there are also many that couldn't, which is disappointing). Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sportsguy17: None of us have unlimited time available, and the admin bit does not grant anybody more hours in the day. To do meta work - even if only a small amount - means that time has to be found for that by not doing something else. Inevitably, time that would otherwise have been spent in content work is going to be sacrificed at some point. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sportsguy17: That's offensive. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of admins who work their bollocks off behind the scenes to keep things moving. If they all went on strike, even just for a day, the project would collapse under all the vandalism, spam, and abuse that admins fend off daily. Try spending a day looking at places like AIV/UAA/RfPP or at Special:Log, and you'll see just how much essential work is done, the vast majority of it without so much as a bat of an eyelid from the people who loudly proclaim to speak for the encyclopaedia. That your articles aren't inundated with vandalism (and that the vandals there are are swiftly blocked or the article protected) is because of the hard work of those few dozen admins—and none of this stops during the time that you're bellyaching at RfA about how useless admins are. And just to rebut your last point, as well as my >40,000 logged admin actions, I've also written seven featured articles. While the latter is the raison d'etre of the project, it can't happen without the conditions created by the former. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It is offensive, and I hope the responses here show that there is in fact something to debate. @Sportsguy17: is reminded that we are all volunteers. Our goal is to create an encyclopedia and that cannot be done with the meta work. You need to get off your high horse and stop pretending that content contributions are the only thing Wikipedia needs. Admins do work that needs to be done or Wikipedia will fail in a matter of weeks, just see how far you will get in content creation if nobody keeps the sea of vandal away from you. Telling volunteers who do good work here that they have to contribute in specific ways is out of line. You can send me a pay check if you want to assign me duties. Chillum 15:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On a more obvious note, Wikipedia is not compulsory and the idea that admins are expected to do anything is just false. Okay, we can take their bit away if they're not using it, but admins are people who are free to choose how they spend their time and they do not need this kind of crap. The idea that anyone is expected to do anything at all at Wikipedia when the vast majority of visitors to the site are solely readers, and have never clicked the edit button, is ludicrous. As long as it is constructive, anyone can do however much or little they want. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I totally understand how AIV, RFPP, XFD, and those kinds of pages can benefit the encyclopedia and I appreciate all the admins who work their butts off to keep the site clean, but it's also important to know how to create the content itself, not just protect the content. It doesn't mean that everyone has to create content all the time, but I think that even said hardworking admins should balance their time appropriately. After all, you can neve have too many content creators. The only admins I have an issue with are those who have <10% mainspace edits and no legitimate articles created (i.e, beyond a stub or even an article at AfD), those always making controversial blocks on content editors for a bunch of nonsense, and/or those who perpetuate drama of various sorts at arb and AN pages all the time.
And @Chillum: Wikipedia wouldn't be itself without people who create quality content either, so you can get off your hign horse and stop acting like content contributors don't matter either. If maybe the globs of admins who sit around arb and AN pages would actually go out and do something to benefit the encyclopedia, then maybe the site wouldn't have this whole content creators vs. admins argument wouldn't occur all the time like it does now. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Please show me even a single example of where I have claimed "content contributors don't matter". If you find putting words I never said into my mouth helps you to make your point, then you may just want to reconsider your point. I would be happy to get off my high horse if I had been going around telling people that their contributions are not as important as mine because they are not like my contributions, but I am not the one who has been doing that. I agree content contribution is crucial to the site, I don't agree with the idea that it is the only contribution of value, or that people who contribute in other ways are somehow not useful. Chillum 19:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
^^What he said. Carve it on your hand or forehead or something. He's right and it's that important. GregJackP Boomer! 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You asked me to leave you alone and stop "badgering" and "hectoring" you by challenging your position. Do you now want to talk about this? Chillum 19:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't count on it, Chillum. Neither he nor I want to be having this conversation right now, but yet here you are continuing to question and badger legitimate !votes. How about you go do some of the amazing "site protection work" that admins are apparently supposed to be frequenting so that the encyclopedia doesn't collapse and I'll go back to my insipid and useless content creating that is meaningless to the encyclopedia (because Feature Articles and Good Articles do nothing to help build an encyclopedia, apparently). Sound good? That way this pointless conversation won't continue to drag on and no vandals will get to the articles. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Again if you must put words into my mouth I never said then I cannot take you seriously. I never diminished content contributions and your repeated attempts to alter what I am arguing to something easier for you to defend is nothing more than a straw man argument. Don't ask me to resume protecting the site because I have never stopped. The idea that you put quotes around the idea that admins protect this site shows me that you do not recognize the good work we do. If you want to address what I have actually said here I am happy to do that. Chillum 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't give me that straw man bullshit, Chillum. You have implied through your messages that you believe that admin work is far more important than anything else on this site, which is so far from true. A lot of the drama on this site can be traced back to ludicrous admin actions and not content contributors. The thing is with admins is that the good work by many are tarnished by the drama and idiocy that some admins cause and sadly, the latter is often more noticeable. Maybe if we cut out the monkey business and had admins focus on blocking vandals and spammers, rather than the civility police target content editors, then I think this site would be a much better place and people would actually get along. Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is not my position and you insisting that it is shows that you are unwilling or unable to refute my actual position. My position is that there are many reasonable ways to contribute to Wikipedia, ways that the project depends on. You choosing to interpret that as "content contribs suck" is entirely in your head and in no way representative of a) What if have said, and b) What I believe.
When I tell you that my position is that content contributions are crucial to the project but are not the only crucial contribution to the project you can take that to the bank. Please stop trying to read my mind, you are very bad at it. Read my words instead.
As for civility, if you think it should not be enforced then go get consensus at the policy talk page. Until then I will enforce the policy as it is described by the consensus of the community. Chillum 20:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
As I've said many times before, administrators come second to content creators, let's not forget that. If it wasn't for content creators, administrators would have nothing to administer. CassiantoTalk 20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Coretheapple, in oppose section
Oppose. I am a fan of the DOS article he highlights, but am otherwise underwhelmed with this candidate for admin. If he's not up to speed with policy sufficient to judge AfDs, then he's not worthy of being appointed to this lifetime position. Hassling of "opposers" doesn't help. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058 has clearly stated that he has no intention of doing article deletion. Why are the opposed insisting that the candidate do gruntwork in an area that the candidate has already expressed no interest in?! It's this kind of oppose rationale, right here, that is the best argument that this concept of the "one-size-fits-all" Adminship is broken, and that we need to unbundle the tools so that editors like Wbm1058 can work in the areas they want to without getting slapped with demands that they work in areas of the project for which they have no interest... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@IJBall: Re: Wbm1058 has clearly stated that he has no intention of doing article deletion - actually he only said he has no intention of doing deletion at AfD. He said he does intend to do speedy and prod deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the 'oppose' I responded to specifically referenced AfD's, which is what I was referring to. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with any RfA candidate's statement of intention is that we don't hand out admin tools that are only good in one place or for one task; once you have the tools, you can do anything, and people's interest naturally change over time. So, in evaluating a candidate, one really has to think about the whole enchilada: article deletions, blocks, protection, moves, etc. etc., because the candidate will be able to do all of them. BMK (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That's why good judgment is more important than experience with some specific process. What you want to know is whether the candidate will do the research before jumping in when their interests change later. By your standards, shouldn't we also expect admin candidates to demonstrate proficiency with editing full-protected templates or interface pages? After all, those are bundled in the admin toolset too. The abusefilter right might as well be - should we start asking questions in the form of "design an edit filter to catch the following instances of vandalism"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No one said that every admin candidate needs to show proficiency in every possible task they could do, that would be, as you imply, silly; instead the argument is that having a candidate say "I will do X" is fine, but the potential is there for them to do many other things as well, so the candidate should not be evaluated only in terms of X -- and, yes, "good judgment" is a more-than-acceptable proxy for that. But has this candidate showed good judgment by, for instance, creating articles which are later deleted? Have not the opposing voters pointed out concerns about the candidate's judgment? And for this, the opposers are -- well, not "vilified", but certainly not treated well. It seems to be lost on some people that opposition -- for a wide variety of reasons, some of which may seem picayune to some of the supporters -- is a legitimate part of this process, in fact, the core of the process, because without it, we'd just be handing out the bit to anyone who wanted it. BMK (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058 has not edited this page outside of the "questions to candidate" section, so I am not sure how he can be accused of "hassling" opposers. Could you clarify this point, please? Reyk YO! 18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
He didn't say Wbm was hassling opposers, just that we were being hassled. GregJackP Boomer! 18:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I really hope that's not part of the reason for Coretheapple's oppose. Punishing the candidate because you disapprove of what other people say in the RfA would be really low. Reyk YO! 18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe he was hoping that Wbm would tell them to knock off the harassment of opposers. Maybe the policy concerns that he mentioned as his primary reason for opposing, is really his primary reason, and, as he indicated, the harassment by supporters is just another straw. GregJackP Boomer! 20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I take the candidate's silence as signifying approval for his supporters tactics. As an aside, it's almost amusing to read some of the support !votes. "Nothing alarming," for example. Yet those are pretty common in these RfAs. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages