Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins

Editing stats for at 15:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC):

General user info Username: Bwilkins User groups: rollbacker First edit: Mar 13, 2006 20:18:10 Unique articles edited: 3,013 Average edits per page: 1.94 Total edits (including deleted): 5,844 Deleted edits: 98 Live edits: 5,746

Namespace totals Article	2591	45.09% Talk	218	3.79% User	142	2.47% User talk	1269	22.08% Wikipedia	1470	25.58% Wikipedia talk	46	0.80% Template	2	0.03% Template talk	5	0.09% Category	2	0.03% Portal	1	0.02%

Month counts 2006/03	6	2006/04	0	2006/05	0	2006/06	0	2006/07	0	2006/08	0	2006/09	0	2006/10	0	2006/11	0	2006/12	5	2007/01	1	2007/02	1	2007/03	0	2007/04	12	2007/05	1	2007/06	2	2007/07	4	2007/08	6	2007/09	1	2007/10	5	2007/11	4	2007/12	2	2008/01	0	2008/02	1	2008/03	0	2008/04	16	2008/05	21	2008/06	133	2008/07	805	2008/08	298	2008/09	357	2008/10	438	2008/11	1141	2008/12	695	2009/01	747	2009/02	734	2009/03	247	2009/04	63

Logs Pages patrolled: 44 Files uploaded: 1

Top edited articles Article

* 53 - Trinidad_and_Tobago * 40 - 2007–08_NHL_season * 27 - Palmer_(surname) * 19 - List_of_islands_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago * 19 - Nashville_Predators * 12 - Tim_Allen * 12 - Silent_Hill_(franchise) * 12 - Dinosaur_Island_(2002_film) * 9 - The_Irish_Descendants * 9 - Ingersoll,_Ontario

Talk

* 36 - 2007–08_NHL_season * 12 - Silent_Hill_(franchise) * 7 - Trinidad_and_Tobago * 5 - List_of_islands_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago * 4 - The_Flummies * 4 - Ingersoll,_Ontario * 4 - Heather_Morris * 4 - Nashville_Predators * 3 - Tipatchimun * 3 - Toronto_Business_Development_Centre

User

* 71 - Bwilkins * 18 - Bwilkins/monobook.js   * 10 - Bwilkins/welcomecivil * 4 - Bwilkins/Userboxes/pocomail * 3 - Bwilkins/knob * 3 - Bwilkins/MediationAttempts * 3 - Montanabw/Peter's_Sandbox * 3 - Bwilkins/Userboxes/snack * 2 - Bwilkins/Userboxes/screwdst * 2 - Journaldiction/DJ_Warrior

User talk

* 196 - Bwilkins * 33 - FisherQueen * 23 - Gwen_Gale * 16 - Collectonian * 16 - Mr_T_(Based) * 14 - Wallamoose * 14 - Ecoleetage * 10 - Tavix/Archive_2 * 9 - Fragments_of_Jade * 9 - Stifle

Wikipedia

* 597 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 558 - Wikiquette_alerts * 45 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-03_Silent_Hill * 16 - Editor_review/Bwilkins * 12 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention * 8 - Articles_for_deletion/John_R._Palmer * 8 - Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_20 * 8 - Requests_for_adminship/Bwilkins * 8 - Articles_for_deletion/Britvic_Soft_Drinks_Ltd_v_Me... * 7 - Articles_for_deletion/The_Mana_World

Wikipedia talk

* 13 - Requests_for_adminship * 5 - Wikiquette_alerts * 5 - Article_Rescue_Squadron * 5 - Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin * 3 - Request_an_account * 3 - AutoWikiBrowser/Typos * 2 - Naming_conventions_(sportspeople) * 2 - Editor_review * 1 - Stub_Makers * 1 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Template

* 1 - TVDSB_Secondary * 1 - Infobox_Architect

Template talk

* 3 - Islands_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago * 1 - Did_you_know * 1 - Sexual_orientation

Category

* 1 - Homo_hop * 1 - Wikipedians_with_journalism_degrees

Portal

* 1 - Biography/Selected_article/July_24

Comment on Lar's support !vote
I want to comment on Lar's support here. Lar is one of the most respected commentators on RfA here; I certainly have immense respect for his opinion. When I saw him support I decided to review my neutral to see if I could somehow support the candidate. My recollection of Bwilkins was that I had had one fairly unfavorable experience with him a while back, and then followed his contributions at a distance ever since. I had been generally impressed with Bwilkins' work at WQA and AN/I and I had one pleasant interaction more recently when he supported me in a dispute. However when I went back and reread our interaction from last November I unfortunately found that it was consderably worse than I had previously thought.

In supporting a candidate, I am looking to establish a level of trust that the candidate gets it, and I found that I was unable to extend that trust to this candidate, based not on the fact that he disagreed with me but on two factors. One was the choice of language (calling someone's effort to remove an attack link from a user page a jihad), but the other and more serious one was his offer to "mediate" on a matter where he had already expressed a strong opinion in favor of one side over the other. Taken alongside the concerns of other users, I found that in spite of the time elapsed, I was unable to extend the necessary level of confidence in the candidate's judgement at this time and therefore had to go the other way.

I also want to put on record that if the candidate can internalize some of the contructive feedback he is getting in this process, I am sure he will be an absolute shoe-in on his next try. In closing, rather like GMW's neutral comment, I am surprised at the level of hostility he is receiving; I had assumed that BMW would be an obvious candidate for promotion. I wish him well and counsel him not to take any of this stuff too personally but instead to persevere with his fine work at WQA and elsewhere, and to try again for this in a few months' time. --John (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but this has three points that I see in several posts in the mainpage that I can't help but address.
 * I have to wonder at editors who will post that "in spite of the time elapsed," they are " unable to extend the necessary level of confidence" but are then "surprised at the level of hostility".
 * In the same post we get statements like "if the candidate can internalize some of the contructive feedback" he will "be an absolute shoe-in on his next try". Is this a suggestion to go back in time and change the phrases used? Because that's the "constructive" criticism you appear to be giving. Your criticism can't have anything to do with changes going forward because you state quite clearly "in spite of the time elapsed".
 * Lastly I can't help but notice urging the candidate to "try again for this in a few months' time" again despite having stated that the passage of time will not affect your decision.
 * Do you realize that, by your very statements, you are admitting that no amount of growth will persuade you to change your outlook? Thus I'm forced to conclude that your ideal Admin is someone who has never made a mistake in the first place. Never uttered a harsh word. Never lost their temper in the face of obscene stupidity. I can't help but wonder what the circumstances would be that would allow you to support someone. I also have to wonder how, after admitting the immovable bias you have, I am supposed to believe you dissent is "based not on the fact that he disagreed with (you)". Padillah (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Growth is not of course directly a function of time but of change. Maybe if you read my note above with that in mind it will make more sense to you. --John (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You really ought not to take the RfA process so seriously. Nobody has the will to change it from the popularity contest it's always been, and nothing will improve until they do. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my naiveté is showing. Padillah (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My analysis of GoodMorningWorld diffs
I have to question people who are opposing based on the diffs provided by GoodMorningWorld. I have to wonder if they've been read very thoroughly because there are conflicts within them that preclude them from being used as they were presented. For example:

Archive of first WQA thread. Request for closure by Goodmorningworld does not get heeded.
 * In point of fact this is not a request to close but a question regarding when this would be closed. Also, it does not go "unheeded". Firly, since no action is demanded it cannot be unheeded. Second, it is answered by BMW who explains that as long as the situation is dealt with using sarcasm it will take a while to calm people down.

Archive of second WQA thread.
 * How is this reflective of BMW? He doesn't even participate in this exchange.

Request for closure by Goodmorningworld in second WQA thread also does not get heeded.
 * No. This is the same request as above and is presented out of order which is misleading at best.

BMW rejects request for closure: "Not likely for a long time. Sarcasm used to undermine someone's input (and even to discourage it) is uncivil. All the rhetoric in trying to defend such actions are really allowing them to dig a big deep hole ."
 * Again, BMW is not rejecting closure, he is answering the question "when can this close". It can close as soon as the person using sarcasm and rhetoric stops and allows people to communicate in a civil manner.

Out of Wikipedia's 1600-strong admin corps, BMW turns to one with a rep for blocking established editors.
 * Inasmuch as the name-calling is inappropriate, yes. BMW asks simply for someone to look at this. Nothing more.

BMW starts a dialog on "Civility and Sarcasm" on GMW's user page.
 * Yes, and GMW responds by defending rudeness, sarcasm, and aggression. Is this really the way you want Wikipedia run? By getting yelled at?

GMW points out to BMW inconsistency between BMW's professed attitude to sarcasm and his own employment of it here; there is no reply from BMW.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First off you didn't point out his use of sarcasm despite his stand against it. You supplied a diff of his using sarcasm and joked about his acceptance of it. I believe the phrase you were looking for is "Well, what about your use of sarcasm here?" That would have been pointing out the inconsistency. Also, he was using sarcasm in the context of a diffuse situation, not one that was rife with accusations of incivility.

Hostile, possibly threatening comments from BMW directed at two users who showed up on blocking admin's page to register their objections.
 * Not in the slightest. He is, in point of fact, counseling the users that are irate to post a complaint at AN/I and they may well get action if their argument is convincing enough. He is offering them the opportunity to have their objects, which he disagrees with, observed and researched by others and by admins that can actually do the banning the editors are calling for. How is supporting dissent that is contrary to your opinion threatening others? If anything the steps he proffered could have gotten the admin in question blocked (or de-sysopped).

The same two editors are subsequently dragged before WP:ANI. When they try to defend themselves, BMW makes this comment but later, to his credit, strikes it through.
 * Yes, how dare he call for an end to the drama and a reproach to the people making hurtful uncivil comments?

In short, my impression was that BMW was painting targets on the backs of Greg L and Tony1, for reasons unknown to me.
 * Then I feel sorry for you. To have confused and confounded this argument to a point that you cite the same response twice for two different reasons and to think aggression is the proper way to run Wikipedia... I cannot bring myself to agree with this outlook nor any of the arguments you've posited thus far. I also have to call into question the !votes of others that have used your flawed logic and support of sarcasm and agression to back-up their opposition of BWilkins. I had hoped that this would be seen when you posted the diffs but all I've been witness to is how truly lazy someone can be when they have decided what they want to believe before they view the evidence. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but this is a farce. Padillah (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Let editors view the text behind the difflinks and decide for themselves. I stand behind my criticism and I also remain convinced that it is not enough of a problem to Oppose, when contrasted with the bulk of BMW's work.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A Sincere Thanks to EVERYONE Who !voted
I wanted to take a quick moment to say a fast "thank you" for everyone who supplied their !vote on this RfA (I will not send thankspam as I planned on). To say I am "surprised" not only at the outcome, but also at some of the reasons would be an understatement.

However, I respect that the comments/!votes were made based on clear and careful reading of all of my 6300+ edits, which is truly no easy feat. The fact that you did, indeed, take the time to do so does honour me. I appreciate the nomination, and the chance to "grow" in the future.

For everyone who said "no", and those who said "neutral" - I hope you take the time to let me know directly what it takes to actually earn your trust.

For those who said "yes", help keep me on the same track. Although I did not plan on running in RfA, one never knows if it may or may not happen again in the future.

We all have our unique ways of helping this project. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)