Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058

Responding to the content creators
C'mon, guys. Give me a break. I spent the better part of my first year here working on one single article, which I pointed you to: Timeline of DOS operating systems. OK, technically I didn't "create" the article – someone else started it – and I don't want to get into which specific IP addresses I edited under before I signed up, but that article looked something like this when I started working on it. I spent months focused on this one single article; it is my showcase work here. So, why don't you review it, and tell me whether it's a "good" article, or maybe even one that merits being "featured".

You're picking on some pretty trivial stuff:
 * Special-purpose page name maintenance templates was a mistake. I intended to create Category:Special-purpose page name maintenance templates, and neglected to specify the namespace. An easy thing for a relative beginner to do. I requested the deletion of my own mistake.
 * R from foreign name – I don't remember my mistake there, but likely I intended Template:R from foreign name.
 * Brand New (prefix) was specifically created for some sort of page-views analysis for the one of the requested moves discussed at Talk:Brand New. It was only intended to be temporary, for analysis purposes.
 * Regarding my WP:RS/N edit asking whether "FamousWiki.com" was a reliable source: I was asking a question to which I knew the answer. A persistent editor kept reinserting a birth date sourced to that, and I wanted to get some backup to reinforce what I was telling them.
 * SMC Corporation, I created that, per my edit summary, because it was one of only three category:TOPIX 100 companies not to have an article yet on Wikipedia. I was just starting a stub to fill in a coverage gap.
 * "Lujanbio was simply a redirect to a page that did exist, created by a different editor, that was later deleted. Same story for MOGAS Oil, which incidentally was later recreated. Same story for Westland United F.C., IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, and EHMC." Exactly. I patrol Category:Missing redirects. Someone starts a marginal article on an African oil company. They put a hatnote on their article that says, "MOGAS Oil" redirects here. For other uses, see... Well, no it doesn't redirect here. Not until I do them a favor, and create the redirect to clear the maintenance category. Don't blame me if their article later gets deleted.

— Wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . I'm sorry, I like you and I like that you ran for ArbCom as a non-admin. But you don't create content. Even granting a pass on all of the above, you still have not taken an article to GA or FA status. We already have plenty of admins who are not content creators, way too many in fact. Once someone becomes an admin, it is basically an appointment for life. So I don't support RfAs for those that do not have content creation experience, and part of that experience is taking the article to GA/FA and dealing with the process. In your article's case, all of your prose is in a table format, which would normally cause a fail. You would need to convert most of the article to prose. You may be able to get it to a featured list status, see Timeline of chemistry as an example, but you need to be the one to take it through the process. You need the experience of that to understand what content creation is all about. GregJackP   Boomer!   06:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058, if you think never having created even a halfway decent article is "pretty trivial stuff", then you clearly do not have the mindset to be an admin, in my opinion. Likewise, if you are going to whine (in my opinion) at length like this over every well-thought-out oppose, then I don't think you understand RfA very well. Your work on the Timeline article was admirable, but the article already existed, and it's just a timeline article, and it's one single article. You need to allow editors to use what criteria they use for assessing your qualifications for adminship. The tools are not handed out piecemeal, and candidates are expected to have shown the broad range of administrative skills before being given lifetime access to the entire set of tools. Please see Advice for RfA candidates, if you need to. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like whining to me, but a list of bona fide explanations. Wbm1058 has also not responded in this manner to any of the opposes specifically. The post above is, in fact, their only contribution to this RfA after accepting and transcluding. To me, it reads liks a collective response to those who have not (or are unable to) consider each deleted mainspace page (not all of which were articles) on its own merits.
 * Making my own independent assessment, I see that there were fifteen mainspace pages created by Wbm1058 which were [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?user=Wbm1058&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects later deleted]; most of these were redirects, but the report cannot distinguish between deleted redirs and deleted "normal" pages. The deletion log for all of them is linked from that report, and is public; it shows why the deletion took place. Eleven of these do not reflect badly on the candidate:-
 * G6 (Deleted to make way for move): Bitter melon tea; Land to the tiller
 * G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page): Special-purpose page name maintenance templates; R from foreign name
 * G8 (Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page): Lujanbio; MOGAS Oil; IMDRF; K.Hari Kumar; EHMC; MS-Net. With these should be included Westland United F.C., which shows Articles for deletion/Uphill Castle F.C. but was technically a G8
 * This leaves four which might be considered problems. Two of these were redirects: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27%27%E5%94%90%E5%B1%B1%27%27 唐山 ] was deleted following Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 20; and Kitchen collection was deleted following Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 30. Of the other two, one (Brand New (prefix)) was an attempt to create an index page using Special:PrefixIndex; the other (Wbm1058/sandbox1.php) was apparently intended to be in user space, but mistakenly created in mainspace instead, it was deleted as G2 (Test page). So to my mind, there are few actual problems here, and the most recent of these occurred one year ago. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Redrose. I created 唐山 because an editor was quite persistent in insisting that Chinese characters should not be italicized in hatnotes. I would have been happy to have simply removed that foreign-language "redirects here" hatnote, but they insisted on keeping it. So, my compromise kludge was to create that redirect to keep the page out of the "flagged for maintenance" category. I was quite happy to see the redirect finally come off that page, which in turn made my work-around unnecessary. And no, I never said that creating even a halfway decent article was trivial. I meant that focusing on pages I created and which were subsequently deleted was focusing on a trivial aspect of my overall contribution history. The content contributions you should focus on are substantial improvements I've made to articles which were started by others. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re your comment "But you don't create content." It's one thing to oppose per idiosyncratic criteria; As a something of an inclusionist myself I find your only works on existing articles - never creates new ones opposes go somewhat further than I would, I oppose people who have made multiple recent deletion mistakes, but I don't agree that creating new articles is an essential skill for someone to make a good administrator. When you oppose a candidate because they "have not taken an article to GA or FA status" again I find your comments accurate, though I think your criteria unhelpfully harsh. However we have plenty of content contributors who have never taken an article through the GA or FA processes, the test of whether someone has created content is whether their edits include adding content to articles, not whether they have audited content contributions. So can I suggest that you strike your words "But you don't create content." as incorrect?   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  13:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , only works on existing articles - never creates new ones is not and has never been my position, nor will you find that statement by me anywhere. I don't care if he created the article or not, I'm perfectly happy with a content creator who takes an existing stub to GA or FA status. Adding a word here or there is not, IMO, content creation. In this case, Wbm1058 does not create content, he does other stuff for WP. I don't support non-content creators for lifetime appointments as admins. So can I suggest that you strike your statement as incorrect? Or should you be allowed to have your own opinion about who should or should not be an administrator? GregJackP   Boomer!   15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read the rest of the Oppose section you will find several examples being debated where the candidate has added rather more than a word or two. We may have to debate at another time whether someone who only adds a word here or there is creating content, this candidate clearly goes beyond that. As for creating new articles, I'm happy to accept your reassurance that you are "perfectly happy with a content creator who takes an existing stub to GA or FA status." I'd genuinely prefer that we disagreed on one issue rather than two, but this very recent oppose of yours "Has only created 2 articles", left me with the opposite impression.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  15:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Had you gone further down the page, you would have seen: The whole point is that the editor needed to have some background in content creation and in working with others to bring articles up to a certain level. That review process, whether at FAC or GAN, gives the editor an experience that no amount of time on the drama boards can replace. I'm sorry, but Wbm does not have that experience. In Liz's case, most of her time was not dedicated to content creation and never had been. It's a moot point, she got the mop and I wish her well, but I did not believe that she had sufficient content creation experience. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with WereSpeilChequers; the number of articles one has taken to FA, FL, or GA is not in itself an indicator of whether one should be an admin. Users are not required to have any of those to be good admins. I hope nobody gets discouraged for running for adminship simply due to not having FA's, FL's, or GA's. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I absolutely hope that non-admins look at this, and if they are not content creators, I hope that they reconsider an RfA until they have created content. They should be discouraged from running until they have created GA, FL, or FAs. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember that there is a difference though between creating content and getting articles to FA, FL, or GA. Having articles promoted doesn't by itself mean someone is going to be a good admin. There are many great users (both admins and non-admins) who have no such articles, but nonetheless frequently build and expand upon pages. I highly doubt a proposal for being discouraged from running for adminship without such articles would be accepted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no policy about those with extensive block logs from running either, but they are de facto discouraged from running. I'm not talking about a policy, I'm talking about what passes an RfA and what does not. I also disagree with you on what is content creation. I have no problems with the gnomes who build and expand pages, but this is an encyclopedia. We should be focused on content creators, not the support staff. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It used to be that those with a block in the last twelve months needed a pretty good explanation, and after a certain time most blocks were considered moot. But that isn't a relevant topic for the RFA of an editor with a clean block log. As for those who build and expand pages, in my book they are the content creators, and some but not all content creators have contributed FAs or GAs. I'm primarily a gnome, most of my mainspace edits are fixing typos. Adding the missing l in public typically only adds one byte per edit. I suppose that makes me "support staff" in your book, but on that basis admins are support staff - the FAC coordinators certainly need to have written FAs, but admins don't.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We both know that no block in twelve months hasn't been the standard for a while. Many look for clean block logs now. Look, if we could be sure that the new crop of admins were going to be more like you, it would truly be no big deal, but that's not what happens. You have some admins whose sole purpose in life seems to be to nitpick and hound content creators. Some who believe that they should be SJW and "fix" what we should believe, allowing for no dissent at all. Those who don't understand the real concept of WP:IAR. So I look for candidates who I believe will not do that, and for the most part that means content creators. It is, after all, the primary goal of WP, to create content. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   15:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Break 1

 * It's entirely possible to be a dedicated content creator without being keen on the GA and FA processes. There's nothing special about having successfully nominated an FA; you write a decent article, then entertain periodical and hollow MoS checks until enough people in your WikiProject type up a two-line "support" rationale—usually on the order of 8 or 10 weeks. It's admirable to be a serial recognized-content creator, but on the same token I can easily understand why someone might not like the idea of being bound to FAC for the entire summer. Wbm1058 is not a content creator—on that, you'll get no argument from me—but generally speaking it would be a darn shame for a qualified candidate to be "discouraged from running" because they don't have as many tacky GA icons as you or I. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed. You can think content creation is important but the important part stems from the actual writing of encyclopedic material, not the process of GA/FA/FL/FT/ITN/DYK itself. Someone could well have written an FA standard article but never felt confident enough to nominate it for FA, or didn't want to go through the hassle, heard the process took too long, didn't want to add to the backlog etc. And in my opinion at least, lots of C class articles is about the same as a few GA class articles (and the former is probably worth more to the encyclopedia), so people who create them are just as valuable as those with hat-collection-esque topicons on their user page (me included). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember being at RFA and 60% article space contributions used to be considered a good ratio for article to project edits. Mkdw talk 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be able to say that the experience of peer review is an important component of content creation, but I can't. If we had a process that said "experienced Wikipedians knowledgeable about the topic area have reviewed this article and believe it to be thorough and accurate, but nobody has bothered with the niceties of prose, or checked that the dashes are all the right length, or made sure that the footnote formatting is consistent" then I'd use it, but as it is I can't justify spending my limited amount of hobby time on that stuff. I certainly can't expect it as a prerequisite for things like performing history merges. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with you, Julian and Opabinia. Personally when I passed RfA last January, I had four GAs and no FAs. In fact I don't ever intend to submit anything for FA. Writing good articles is one thing; submitting yourself to a months-long meat grinder where every punctuation mark is quibbled over is not why I am here at Wikipedia. There are many ways to be an excellent "content contributor" here; FAs are not the only measure (and in many ways not even a good measure). For that matter I don't require admin candidates to be "content contributors" at all, but that's another story. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. An editor need not have created a single FA IMO to be a content creator, but if not, should have taken at least two articles to GA. I personally hate the FA process, but believe that it is needed to provide high-quality content to our readers. GA serves the same purpose, albeit on a lesser level. In any event it is my view that editors who are content creators prior to becoming admins have an entirely different perspective than those who don't create content. I want admins who have the content creation perspective. The rest are pretty much useless, IMO, so I don't support non-content creators.
 * I understand that admins who do not have a content creation background don't like my position. I don't much care what they think. Until they manage to get a policy where admins aren't appointed for life, I'll continue to hold that position. It's based solely on the perspective of the individual, and content creators have the perspective I want. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that FAC produces a polished product, but it's more fuss over trivialities than you get for a real publication. GA just takes too long and is too variable in review quality to feel like a good use of time. You've written admins who do not have a content creation background don't like my position as if it's just some kind of sour-grapes thing, but some admins who do have a content creation background disagree with (not "dislike") your position.
 * I don't see the connection between the "appointment for life" argument and the desire for pre-adminship content creation. While it's widely believed that admins who don't create much content are worse at their jobs in some way, I haven't seen any evidence of it. (Pointing to a specific individual does not count as evidence; you need to define what you mean by "bad admins" and then apply the definition to the group as a whole.) How would a different model for adminship (term limits, reconfirmations, etc.) actually address your problem? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, a different model would dramatically alter my position. But that's not going to happen. An RfC is going on about whether there needs to be a better way to recall or desyop admins. Only one groups supports the idea—editors, at over 75% support. Admins, crats, and Arbcom members all oppose the idea. Overall you have 60-65% support for change, but it won't happen, because those currently in power don't want to change. As an example, recently an admin who had an open for recall sign up was asked about recall—and immediately removed the open for recall statement, telling the editor to take it to ArbCom. You can't trust them to follow up on what they say if it looks like they may lose the bit.
 * So what I look for in an admin is someone who creates content, who does not look at this as a big social media exercise, and who doesn't have a grudge against content creators. I want someone with the perspective that content creation is why we are here, and who protects content creators from the riff-raff. In my view, those who have created content are the most apt to hold that view. And while some admins disagree with my position, other admins have denigrated the position, so I will stand by my comments on that.
 * Finally, I'm not trying to convert anyone. This is solely my criteria, and if no one else agrees with me, that's fine. I know it is not the majority position, most of the time when I oppose the candidate still gets the bit, and that's fine. It's what the community wants. But my position will be the same on the next RfA and the next, etc. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but the question was how any of that would change under an alternative model. You say you'll demand content creation until admins aren't appointed for life. Below you suggest two-year reconfirmation. So you'd vote in a non-content-creator because their coming reign of terror is term-limited? Because a reconfirmation two years from now will be a meaningful constraint on behavior two days from now? Not likely. These two things just don't go together.
 * What's more, you don't seem to have any evidence that people who have written content are any better at keeping the riff-raff away. The fact that it 'sounds right' isn't good enough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The offer's open to you also. It's not a proposal at the Village Pump, it is an offer to admins who do not like my position on content creation. On the second part, I don't need any evidence, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. You are free to vote however you want, and I'm good with it. I would only need evidence if I were trying to convince someone to change to my way of thinking.
 * No, what I'm doing is saying what I look for, what I believe. You have to find your own path. Unless of course, you want to make the deal with me on resigning the bit and all. GregJackP   Boomer!   07:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I try not to believe things without evidence to substantiate them. And if I do, I don't expect other people not to challenge question  express doubts "badger" me about my poorly substantiated beliefs. Your "offer" is specious: nobody is disagreeing with you just out of general dislike. I don't want you to change your position; I want you to be amenable to changing it based on actual evidence. Otherwise you might as well post on every RfA "Oppose, I like pie" for all the use it is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I could oppose on the basis of pie, but then I doubt that three-quarters of the other opposers would agree with me, at least to some extent, as they have here. Even some of the supports have cited the lack of content creation as a concern. You know, a content creator just got blocked for incivility because he protested that another editor was f'ing up the citations in violation of WP:CITEVAR - and the blocking admin, having no content experience over a single B-class (the rest were stubs/start), couldn't recognize the actual problem, but became the civility police. And we lose the use of a valuable content creator because the admin doesn't have a clue. I'm not going to go out and look for evidence, anecdotal observations are good enough for me. Hounding me isn't going to change that. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you and others have made factually inaccurate claims about the candidate's deleted contributions. You can define "correcting my factual errors" as "hounding me", I suppose, but you're going to get hounded a lot then. Shouldn't a committed content creator care about not making poorly substantiated claims?
 * You're preaching to the choir on the topic of hasty and ill-informed "incivility" blocks, but those would be a problem regardless of what else the person issuing the block spends their time on. You're creating a major distraction from the problem you claim to be trying to solve, based on nothing more than guesswork. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that I'm trying to "solve" a problem. I have expressed my position on Wbm getting the bit. I don't want non-content creators to become admins. It is that simple. There is no ulterior motive other than admins should be content creators. A judge should be a lawyer. Same principle. That's it. Simple. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Break 2

 * Right. I've probably done 250 FAs, FLs, GAs, etc., and I could not disagree more with the assertion that you need recognized content to be a good admin. Oppose votes to that effect often (but not always) seem like tremendous exercises in ego-stroking. I'm a big fan of the recognized content institutions and will continue to support them as long as I edit here, but it's simply not true that they're "needed to provide high-quality content to our readers". Our readers aren't idiots; they don't need stickers to tell them whether an article is worth studying. I think you have to be awfully naive to think that counter-abuse specialists and the like are "pretty much useless". Spam, simple typos, malformed pages, subtle vandalism, BLP violations, misnamed articles, link rot, plagiarism, and disruptive editing disputes are all so rampant on Wikipedia that so-called gnomes can play a much, much larger role in improving the site than someone who writes a handful of 1,100-word GAs that struggle to hit 400 views per month. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it sometimes does seem like ego stroking. We get content contributors are great, we get that you wish everyone was like you. That is not the end all be all of contributing to the encyclopedia though. If you are a great content contributor and think admins should be great content contributors then run for RfA and pick up a mop and help. There are other forms of contributions and being an admin is one of them. Chillum 02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You going to nominate me? You and I both know that I don't stand a snowball's chance of being an admin, nor do I want to be an admin. Don't make facetious comments. It's not becoming.
 * What this is actually about is that you don't like my position and want me to change it. I'll make a deal with you, resign the bit and agree that to regain it you have to stand an RfA every two-years, and I'll no longer oppose based on content creation. After all, the bit is no big deal, right? GregJackP   Boomer!   06:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Bad deal . I have no intention of resigning, I have have no wish for you to stop expressing your opinion. You seem to be confusing me disagreeing with you wish me thinking your opinion should not be expressed. You are welcome to express dubious claims all you want, just don't cry foul when people disagree with them or think your judgement is flawed. You need to be more able to handle people telling you they don't agree with you if you are going to support unpopular ideas. This "don't disagree with me it is badgering" nonsense only discredits your position. If you don't want to support your position then you may want to reconsider it. Chillum 13:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised that you wouldn't take the deal... As far as badgering, one of the support !votes dropped out because of the badgering he observed, and I believe that he didn't like your comments to him telling him how he should !vote either. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that lapse in judgement in any way forwards your position. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 19:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I though you were an admin, albeit a slightly cranky one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, only "slightly" cranky? I've gotta up my game. GregJackP   Boomer!   07:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Break 3
I don't know why expecting an admin to have GA or FA experience is whined about. I'd support a guy or gal who had two decent sized GAs if they were solid articles. Successfully getting through FAC is an achievement, but even that isn't as hard as it used to be. It isn't that hard to do and expecting it isn't demanding. It should be a no-brainer. JackTheVicar (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, GAs are sufficient. What I want to see is how the admin candidate dealt with critiques of his work, for one thing.  And I want him to be able to point to some portion of the encyclopedia that he contributed to in major part, and that he has had to justify to a reviewer. If he's averse to processes where his work is reviewed, why is he submitting himself to RfA?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, a couple of GAs are sufficient, and it is how the candidate handles the process that's important. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that dealing with criticism is a very important trait, but based on my experience of GA reviews, it's more "here's a trivial issue [quotes typo]; fix it" or "I don't really understand [phrase]; can you just explain what this means?" If you're a half-decent content creator, the biggest problem you'll get is "I don't think this reference [link] is reliable." That's not substantial criticism, nor something one is likely to take personally or get annoyed at, unless most people are far more fiercely protective of their work than I am. I also disagree with the idea that not having bothered to nom an article for GA and then wait several months makes someone "averse to processes where his work is reviewed". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Question to "supporting editors" not Wbm1058
Please explain the notability of Pygments according to the latest edit right now.

Why the page Stern Stewart & Co has only company website, with no third party/independent  review at this time? Aero  Slicer  16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Which administrative duties is this related to? <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 16:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To comprehend WP:COMPANY and respecting the principles of WP:PROMOTION  for WP:AFD.  Aero   Slicer  17:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy, basically. Lack of notability is a major reason why the deletion button is pressed, so to speak. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Deletion policy says that administrators do not determine notability. That is to be decided by the community at AfD. We look for a mere assertion of importance to determine if CSD is viable, but we don't delete based on our perception of notability. I point this out because this is a content issue not an administrative issue, a very intentional separation by the comminity. It is determined by everyday editors not by admins. Determining consensus is an administrative duty, determining notability is not.


 * I agree it is important to know deletion policy off by heart. I also think it is important to know all relevant content policies and guidelines related to an AfD, though I generally read up on those as I am closing the AfD as there are just so many of them. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 17:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a point worth noting: One of the best skills someone could show is the ability to find, read and comprehend a policy. That is something admin do daily, there is no way we can memorize them all, and they all change.  IMO, this is why a good question is a hypothetical (or current issue) that forces a candidate to go read up on policy and make a determination. People don't realize how much reading admin have to do, assuming they do the job right.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Stern Stewart & Co
This was the original title of Stern Value Management, created by User:Boris Barowski. In 2013 Wbm1058 made the move (see the page histories). Stern Stewart & Co was then expanded from the redirect by others. So in short Wbm1058 is not responsible for the creation of this weak-notability page. BethNaught (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Frankly a lot of the examples being given are poor. For example Special-purpose page name maintenance templates was given as an example of a page created that got deleted, except the deletion log shows it was deleted at the authors request per WP:CSD. I think there is a lack of homework being done resulting in these poor examples. I sincerely hope that people do their on homework before taking these claims at face value. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 18:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. This. Pygments is the only even arguably problematic example offered so far, and our approach to notability and sourcing for open-source software is (ironically) so broken that I can't hold that against someone. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why I cannot abide by the philosophy that we are not supposed to debate people's point of view. Those who think that people commenting on your oppose !vote is badgering should take into account that debate allows us to see when people are just plain incorrect. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mkdw
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. Mkdw talk 01:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hahc21
"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  Hahc  21  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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 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)


 * I said to question any opinion you felt was dubious because it was productive and not hectoring. But when you do the exact same thing while at the same time claiming it is hectoring you must see the conflict. Again, do you think questioning other people's position is reasonable or not? Either way you have chosen to do it. What I am saying is that doing something while at the same time claiming it is not appropriate is clearly a case of self-contradiction.


 * I suggest that the best resolution of this conflict is to accept that it is reasonable to challenge the ideas of others that you find dubious and that this is the normal state of affairs on Wikipedia. This will involved you accepting that people will disagree with you, but will also allow you to debate others without being hypocritical. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Someguy1221
"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)

Jianhui67
"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)

Kusma

 * 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)

HJ Mitchell
Just curious: what do you mean by 'earlier'? He's been active since 2011. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Chillum
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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 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)
 * I think it is hilarious, I am not alone. I don't think the essay has much to do with the recent cases of admins being held accountable by the community. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 20:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Widr
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)


 * 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 misunderstanding about what admins do. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 17:37, 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. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 20:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. By the way, I just noticed that my original comments were directed at the person making them, User:Widr, not to you. Your rationale was different, and was not "nothing alarming," so now I'm a bit confused why you responded to my remarks. I should point out that all my replies to you above were made under the mistaken impression that you had given the "nothing alarming" rationale. Coretheapple (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I responded to your remarks because the basis of them, that admins had a life time appointment and that they were super editors, is factually incorrect. The purpose of an RfA discussion is to investigate various view points about the fitness of a candidate and then use that information to make an informed decision. I am simply responding to your view point with my own so that the community can make an informed decision. At no point did I think that you were talking about my !vote. The discussion got muddled and confused by being moved around so I understand if you thought I was someone else, I did not notice. While the comment may have been directed at someone else it was made in an open forum where you can expect responses from anyone. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 21:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP
Could you expand on "too many of the created articles have been subsequently deleted"? Looking through Wbm's edit history, I only see a single mainspace page he created in the last year and a half that's been deleted since. I also see no pages moved to mainspace from AFC that have been deleted in that same time period. Sure, If I look back to 2012 I can find a bunch of categories he created that have since been deleted - is that what you were referring to? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lujanbio, MOGAS Oil, Westland United F.C., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%94%90%E5%B1%B1?redirect=no 唐山, IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, EHMC, Brand New (prefix), Special-purpose page name maintenance templates, Kitchen collection, and R from foreign name. In addition, MS-Net was deleted and recreated by another editor. The Bitter melon tea redirect was deleted to make room for a real article. Land to the tiller was deleted to create a dab page. He's created 47 mainspace pages. Of those, 15 have been deleted according to this. That's 32% of the articles that he's created being deleted. To me, that is a problem. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Trolling? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No,, I do not believe that you are trolling. But thanks for your input. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No,, he's not trolling. In fact, he raises a legitimate concern. While this particular user seems like a fine candidate, I also think that admins should be able to create good and/or featured content, even it's just ITN or DYK. We have too many admins that don't contribute to content at all, even though content is the most vital part of Wikipedia.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree on that point, but it's monumentally silly to hold procedural deletions of single-revision redirects against a candidate. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly how are non-admins supposed to know that it is a single-revision redirect? We cannot look at the contents of the deleted page and the information is not posted on the deletion log. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not, but that's why a reasonable non-admin might first inquire as to the contents of the deleted pages instead of opposing straight-off. That said, you could have probably pieced together what was going on from the helpful deletion rationales, which overwhelmingly cite G7 or G8 and not something more indicative of wrongdoing. I'd be happy to describe each of the candidate's deleted pages, and the events leading to their deletions, if anybody's interested. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm soo glad that you distinguish between reasonable and non-reasonable mere editors inquire about. That way, those who might otherwise be seen as trolls know how to properly act so that admins are satisfied. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you fall solidly into the "non-reasonable" camp. Thanks for making that so clear. My offer stands, in any case. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I will give it all the consideration it is due. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems unfair, greg. Lujanbio was simply a redirect to a page that did exist, created by a different editor, that was later deleted. Same story for MOGAS Oil, which incidentally was later recreated. Same story for Westland United F.C., IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, and EHMC. I won't defend the rest, but most were years ago. I get your point, but six of your examples are just instances of Wmb doing gnomish work related to an article, created by someone else, that was later deleted. I'm not trying to change your mind, by the way, just clarifying what you found. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm basing it on the x-tools articles created page, linked above in the hatted RfA/RfB toolbox section, or directly above in my response to your question. Even if you discount all of those, you still have no article creation to speak of, and in the questions above he speaks of hoping that someone else will take the article he is most proud of to a GA status. If he wants it to be a GA, read the instructions and do it. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gah, its almost a cliché for you to auto-vote oppose because of no GA/FA and I know that opinions will not change, but currently, I do find things like GA and FA extremely backlogged and slow. It simply isn't a good marker for content creation at this time. I nommed an article for GA back in June and it still hasn't been touched, like many articles. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 10:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'll continue to oppose RfAs where there is no content creation. I actually agree with your position on the backlog, and would take that into consideration were it a factor. Thus far, none of the candidates I have opposed have even had an article in the GA/FA pipeline. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   15:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with GregJackP about much -- and, in fact, I don't agree with the extremely tight focus of his content creation requirements -- but he has as much right as every other editor on Wikipedia to set up standards which are his standards, and to follow them where they take him. The badgering of him in this RfA is unseemly, and counterproductive. More editors should do what he has done and come up with a set of standards they follow.  (I certainly haven't, my standards are more ad hoc, although there are generally things I look for.) Now, can we stop this sideshow, leave GregJackP alone and get on with it?  I'm not sure why supporters are being so aggressive, considering that it looks more than likely that the candidate will pass the bar. BMK (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all understand that he's entitled to his opinion, and Greg knows full well that his singular RfA criterion stirs up a lot of controversy and he seems to be at peace with that fact. Whatever. His own behavior has become increasingly unseemly and counterproductive though and I suspect that has something to do with the ensuing flame war getting worse. Condescension, passive-aggressiveness and now badgering supporters for not offering a support rationale (something that's quite literally never been demanded from anyone at RfA), he seems to be hellbent on getting increasingly unreasonable and POINTy at RfA and I expect the sideshows he provokes will continue to grow with his own unproductive commentary. S warm   ♠  20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go harass some little kids somewhere? If you want to know why I'm questioning supporters, talk to, he's the one that told me to do so. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to leave you alone GregJackP and I did, why are you pinging me? If you want to talk about this you can come to my talk page but I have no intention of engaging you further here. Clearly this is a drama fest and not everyone is into that. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a danger that this discussion will soon turn into a mud-slinging festival if it doesn't end shortly. Can't everyone just drop it and move forward with the RfA? I'm also moving this to the talk page; it's become much too long and messy for the main page. -- Biblioworm  (talk)  00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I ask for a cessation of hostilities, and you come back with that? Not the kind of good judgment I expect to see from an admin. If you've got problems with GregJackP, bring it to the noticeboards. Let's allow this whole thing to drop, please. BMK (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect
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? &rarr; <b style="color:green">Stani</b><b style="color:blue">Stani</b> 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)

Aero Slicer
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)

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. Mkdw talk 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  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  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?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  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 www.jpx.co.jp 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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "there is a small concern, that if he becomes Administrator, he will create more articles about private entities..." –, 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 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 to Kitchen utensil, which was deleted at this RfD discussion. Personally, I don't think that's a very big deal. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BMK
Please explain why you don't think he should be an administrator. -- Eurovision Nim (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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  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)

Wehwalt
The candidate already has access to content, just like IPs do. Do you have any concerns about their use of admin tools? <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 19:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually,, 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.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 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).  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: Comment in question since moved to talk.
 * No,, 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).  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 03:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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  &#124;  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. 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. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 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)
 * 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 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.  Sports guy17  ( T  •  C ) 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. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 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? <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 19:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't count on it, . 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.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 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. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't give me that straw man bullshit, . 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.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 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. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 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.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been hatted based on the idea that it has been moved, but I don't see this conversation anywhere and it is ongoing so I will respond. I think the idea of ranking which crucial contributions are more important than other crucial contributions is unhelpful. There would be no way to contribute content in a meaningful way without admins, the vandals and POV pushers would prevent it. Now stop pretending that your contributions are better than other people who keep this place running, it is insulting and pretentious. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unhatted based on that reasoning.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a chicken and the egg scenario Chillum. If the project was a blank canvas, as it was 12 or so years ago, and someone created an article, an admin would then be elected to police that article.  Do you not see that?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

, it was hatted based on the foolish idea that I could add your comments back to the main page before I got an edit conflict. I was aware that I was hatting some comments that didn't exist elsewhere. I think I've fixed everything here. , do I have your permission to add the hat back? Then there's just the small problem of where this comment and the two above it should go. 20:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) comment added by
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm new to this discussion and I have no idea what is where.  In the meantime, perhaps it's just better to let things burn out until everyone has had their say.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that this specific discussion is a little bit meta perhaps the talk page is a good place for us to decide to continue it if at all. I don't think it is a big deal if it is also represented on the primary page. This whole thing has gotten terribly muddied by the moving around. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 21:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * yep, absolutely. Two identical comments > comment removed. I've done some very, very quick selective hatting and some more copying over to the main page. I'll try to sum this up quickly: someone moved all discussion to the talk page; I moved it back. 70 gajillion edits were made between those two actions so it took my a while, by which point, a further 30 gajillion edits had been made. I'm trying to clean up what wreckage I can but would appreciate it if no-one reverted me without understanding the situation. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should've left it alone? Just a thought.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was planning on saying the exact same thing to you when you reverted my edits, but I didn't want to come across as rude. I had broad consensus and am still firmly convinced the RfA format is better now than it was before I began. If you'd like to point to out an error I've made, please do so. If you want to try to undermine 3 hours of good faith edits I've made, could you please wait until tomorrow, when I'm less likely to snap? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you've worked hard to rectify the problems, but I feel like you've perhaps created a whole load of confusion for nothing. I reverted your edits as you archived a live discussion; there was no bear baiting, grave dancing, absence in time between posts, or incivility, so I couldn't work out why you hatted the discussion which was very much alive. Like I said, I'm late to the party, so perhaps I'm not in full view of what went on before. I A'd GF and I'd appreciate it if you took my "maybe you should've left it alone" advice in the same context.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   22:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I apologize for not assuming good faith in a message which hypocritically linked to AGF and for having poor enough judgement to post that message at all; I think it's a confused mix of fishing for thanks ("3 hours of good faith edits") and attempts to lure you into some kind of trap, and I should have followed through with the urge to strike it that I had as soon as I posted it. I won't apologize for the archiving attempt on this page (I used the edit summary "quick hat" and intended to check through and fix everything ASAP), but I do completely understand why you reverted me and can't blame you for doing so. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you shouldn't apologise for the archiving. You were Bold, I Reverted, and then we Discussed.  That's a dying art around here these days and completely right. Thanks for taking the time to sort things out.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   23:47, 26 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)

Coretheapple
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 (contribs • talk) 17:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 (contribs • talk) 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 <sub style="color:blue;">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  <sub style="color:blue;">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)

Garwood Green

 * Oppose and suggest withdrawal. I tried to advise the candidate to withdraw the RfA. I left talkpage messages on m:user talk:Wbm1058 and v:user talk:Wbm1058 but he ignored them. This is unacceptable. A wiki admin must regularly check talk page messages both on en.wp and on sister projects. Failure to do this means that I don't trust the candidate to respond to wiki editor messages in the future. Garwood Green (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) . <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience  t 00:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You tried to contact them on two projects unrelated to this one and are opposing here in response? I am asking because I am really trying hard to figure out where you are coming from. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see now you have 3 edits. You are clearly someone trolling this RfA and can be safely ignored. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I have to agree with Chillum on this, the guy's not an admin (yet), and your suggestion wasn't really one that required a response, was it? I mean, you said he should withdraw, that's your opinion, fine. Did you expect him to discuss the fine points with you?  I think that the best you could have hoped for was a polite "Thank you for your opinion" message, but I'm not going to fault the guy for just ignoring you (assuming that he even saw your messages -- why didn't you leave a message for him on his talk page here, where he's actually standing for admin?) BMK (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to 'crats: I agree with Chillum, Garwood Green is clearly a sock or a troll and his !vote should be struck or ignored. BMK (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And now he's indef blocked. BMK (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Global locked by Bsadowski1 for cross-wiki abuse. I have indented the !vote. -- KTC (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved to talk

Townlake
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. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 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)
 * , 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)

GregJackP

 * 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)
 * I completely agree, it is utterly inappropriate. As that has not happened here, this comment seems a little disingenuous.  Of the three current Opposes, one (#2) has been questioned because it appeared to be based on something outside the candidate's request, that was then more clearly stated; the other two, brought explanations or clarifications from admins who have extra information that the !voters are unable to see, thus giving them the opportunity, should they want it, to rethink their oppose in light of the clarification/new information.  That neither chose to do so does not make the attempted help comments following the opposes inappropriate.  I, for one, am glad to know what has been deleted, as i cannot see it, and to learn that much is not anything to concern us. Cheers, LindsayHello 07:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody's stopping you from asking questions of supporters. There's a couple of reasons for the questions asked of opposers. Since you need at least 75-80% support to pass an RfA it follows that opposes are 3 or 4 times as powerful as supports. It's only natural to scrutinise influential vetos more closely. Another reason is that opposes are, by their nature, expressions of disapproval towards the candidate. If someone is going to disrespect a candidate's character and contributions, they should expect objections if that derision is not well-founded. Another reason is that sometimes you just can't win. For example, we have one RfA regular who opposes anyone who doesn't write articles, and another who opposes anyone who works on articles in the "wrong" subject areas (ie. every subject area), so the deck is really stacked against all candidates. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, I usually agree that you get too much badgering for your !votes (even if I personally disagree with your criteria), but I'm not sure that's true here, especially if you're referring to responses to your oppose in particular. "Could you expand..." is a perfectly valid question and if you want, you can ask it to as many supporters as you want. Juliancolton's "Trolling?" was unhelpful, but everything else seemed to be constructive. (I know this general comments section has been moved already but I'm still going to complain; I think this discussion belongs on the talk because it's not directly related to Wbm1058.) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I think calling out unhelpful RfA rationales like GregJackP's (which has nothing to do with the question whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools) is necessary in the current RfA structure: shouldn't we rather have this discussion at WT:RFA? It is not at all related to the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 09:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful comments such as yours are the exact reason that this discussion should be here. Harassing and belittling those who take the time to participate is not appropriate behavior. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @GregJackP, We've already seen some of the Oppose examples stricken by the people who made them because of the comments that others have raised. I'm sure if there were an equivalent in the support section then it would be challenged. Taking a hypothetical example, if there was a support for writing a particular article, and all the candidate had done was rename that article, then I would hope that there would be a challenge from someone else pointing that out and the person who had done that would amend or even remove their support. But whilst there were clear mistakes in the oppose section, so far there don't seem to be among the supporters.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure is an equivalent in the support section, yet it has been unchallenged. Are you saying it should be challenged? GregJackP   Boomer!   15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure is the equivalent of per nom, it is not in any way the equivalent of the example I gave. The equivalent in the Oppose section would be an oppose that was per one or more of the earlier opposes, such are common in RFAs once the Oppose section gets into double figures. The only challenge I have made to such !votes in the past is when someone opposes per an earlier Oppose, and the original opposer later strikes that oppose.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd that this is brought up by the first person in this RFA to "call for an answer". And now they've asked a number of supporters to explain their rationales despite clearly stating this shouldn't be done for the opposes. It seems particularly WP:POINTY. Mkdw talk 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you make an opinion here you can expect it to be challenged, questioned and commented on. Just like on the rest of Wikipedia. I don't know where the idea came from that someone questioning your opinion is some sort of inappropriate act. This is how things get done here. If you don't feel like you can defend your position then perhaps you need to reconsider it.

Question the opposes, question the supports. It is the only way to filter out when people are basing their opinion on sensible or stupid things. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 16:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why it is important to question people's opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Wbm1058.


 * Sometimes people are wrong and debate allows us to find that out. If we are just to let people put down their opinion without the opportunity for rebuttal then we are going to miss it when they are incorrect. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 19:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved from RFA page.


 * RFA is, at base, a discussion, so this must be kept in mind when expressing your opinion (even if done in the form of a numbered list). Asking someone to expand their position is a completely legitimate exercise in this context and if the position is well-founded, the elucidation of same may in fact sway participants to opine similarly if they are able to fully understand the position. Of course there is a line to be drawn between "questioning" and "hectoring", but I do not think that line has been crossed here. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It happens on every single RfA. Comments such as "trolling," "non-reasonable," "unhelpful," and other pointed comments are badgering, especially when numerous editors are also pointing out the same thing about content creation. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll agree, but in less polite terms: it's extremely childish to post an admittedly controversial vote and start barking about "badgering" when somebody tries to engage you in discussion. "I'm sorry that he did the same to you as he did to us"? Really? RfA becomes a round of "us vs. them" as soon as a conversation emerges? Well, apparently so, seeing as people have begun voting to align with the victims of this rampant badgering. I'm not often this blunt, and I hold no animosity toward anybody involved in this discussion, but some of the ideas submitted here have been absolutely outrageous. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comments, coming from one whose first comment to me was to ask if I were "trolling," are hypocritical and disingenuous. It is outrageous and you should be ashamed of yourself. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was genuinely wondering the same thing. I held my tongue though. It seems now that you are serious. Really it is a bit much that you complain that people have challenged your position when several of the examples you have given are shown to be flawed. If we did not challenge your claims we would not have figured that out. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I will give it all the consideration it is due. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to interject that, to be fair, it's nobody's fault that the supporters haven't been questioned as much as they should have. For instance, in this and other RfA discussions I have seen a proliferation of "nothing wrong with this fellow" type remarks, one of which I discussed was moved to this page. In one case, "nothing alarming," which is at far end of ridiculous. I haven't scared the horses so I deserve to be an admin? I have created any major nightmare so I deserve to be an admin? Really. If we become so relaxed about allowing people into the ranks of the life-appointed super-users, we can't complain when there are efforts to make it easier to remove them. Until there is an easier mechanism in place, such thin reasons for support need to be scrutinized and prospective admins need to be qualified, cognizant of policies, reliable content contributors, and cleaner than a hound's tooth. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that supports should be challenged for their veracity like any other claim. Of course any unsubstantiated position should be challenged and audited by the community.


 * I will repeat that admins are neither "super-users" or life-appointed as you keep saying. These claims are demonstrably false. If you want a list of ex-admins I can find it for you, a quick reading of our WP:ADMIN policy shows that we are not super users. We are janitors and 99.99% of what we do is incredibly boring. If we try to use our position gain advantage in a content dispute we get called on it right away.


 * I will ask you the same thing I ask everyone who says that the current mechanisms for removing the admin bit are insufficient: Can you give examples of admins that should lose their bit but the current system has failed to do? <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 21:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh sure, I'm going to antagonize superusers appointed for life. No thank you. But just to address your central point, so you don't think I'm just shrugging it off (ok, I am shrugging it off), the view I'm expressing is widely held and there's no point in discussing it here. At least I'm not. The subject bores me. An effort was made recently to make it easier to remove admins. It was shot down by - ta da! - admins. So I don't weep when admins get bent out of shape by accurate descriptions of their positions. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The recent effort(I assume you mean BARC) was shot down by the community, not admins. It was even closed by a non-admin. This is the same question I always ask, your answer is the same answer I always get. I ask you instead then what sort of alternate system will work when the people with the concerns will not say who it is they are concerned about? <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 21:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the community didn't kill BARC, admins did. Normal editors favored the proposal by over 76%. Admins, crats, and ArbCom members opposed it. Admins are why it did not pass, because none want to give up the lifetime power. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Admins are part of the community, not as you seem to think something that sits above it. The community as a whole rejected it. We are "normal editors" and not some sort of elite uber-editors, we were each counted as 1 person by the closer not as 2. You keep acting like we are on different teams, it is unproductive. We are both working towards the same goal. That proposal was closed(by a non-admin) as no consensus, but in the last 10 days of the RFC support steadily declined with mostly new opposes and even a support changing to oppose. The non-administrator who closed it really could not have closed it any other way.


 * It was rejected for many valid reasons after the default 30 days, primarily among those reason was the a lot of the actually active crats' objected to it and it was they who the proposal wanted to do all the work. You can claim that admins are conspiring the protect themselves, but you really are discounting same very valid reasoning made by all types of editors. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said it was a conspiracy, please quit making stuff up and then pretending that's what I said or believe. I used the table that an admin drew up. The non-admin editors overwhelmingly supported the proposal. That's clear. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , if you don't wish to make a list of admins who should be desysopped, then here's a alternative: show me an ArbCom case which concerned a specific admin who deserved to be desysopped, but wasn't. Back up your claims. Of course, as I mentioned in my support vote, I do believe that a directly community-based system is preferable, but my point here is to prove that it is possible (but perhaps somewhat more bureaucratic than necessary) to desysop problematic admins. If you are unable to present evidence that ArbCom has failed to desysop problematic admins (as a result of a formal request, of course; you can't complain that the current system is not desysopping problematic admins if you refuse to mention who those admins are), then your argument is not valid. -- Biblio worm  22:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . It's a trap!, why would he possibly want to do that? Why not just paint a huge target on his back? If he's not stupid enough to name bad admins who are still admins, it says nothing towards the validity of his argument. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose we will always run in circles, then. If people claim that admins are eternally appointed superusers but yet fail to produce any evidence proving it, how will these concerns ever be addressed? Are we really expected to take these unsubstantiated claims at face value? Wise people don't blindly believe bold claims; they want evidence for them. Wouldn't you agree that it's quite bold to say that admins are irrevocably-appointed superusers despite evidence to the contrary? People who are unable or unwilling to back up their claims with evidence shouldn't be making them in the first place. It's a fundamental principle of good debate. -- Biblio worm  00:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a pretty clear rule in pre-liberation Iraq that one did not criticize Sadaam too. Editors who've pissed off bad admins have a habit of getting blocked or banned. All you have to do really is look at the BARC results, linked above. Why did 76% of normal editors want a way to easily desysop admins? Because they were doing such a great job? Remember, it was the admin vote that killed it, not the community. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That slightly overstates the case but is basically correct. However, I think relaxed behavioral standards for admins is more of a problem. For instance, one admin attacked me and other editors on his talk page and still has it there, violating the rules on such things. No one has ever breathed a word about it. I and the other editors haven't because it would just create drama, which this guy appears to want. (He has stepped down but can get back his "tools" at a moment's notice, so he is effectively part of the club.) Also because it really makes him look bad, not me, and that the general rule in such situations is that it's better to wait for third parties to correct such things, but they won't because he's a super-user with life tenure, albeit on sabbatical. What this illustrates is what all non-admins know and admins too, if they are honest enough to admit it, that admins get away with stuff that ordinary mortals don't. I think one sees that reflected in the BARC proposal, where there was a clear division of opinion between admins and non-admins. That being said, my own personal interactions with admins (except for the nutty example just cited) are usually pretty good. I agree that admins can be put-upon like everyone else, but I'd have more respect for the institution if there was a greater desire to reform from within, and more interest in policing their own ranks. Coretheapple (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said you said counterproductive, but it was said. Again, you keep up with this we-them, battleground crap. You are projecting. I want to !vote and be left alone. I want supporters, opposers, and neutrals to be able to take a position and not be harassed. Second, I made no factual claims that were incorrect. There may have been explanations for the actions/deletions, but everything I listed was factually accurate. He did create forty-something articles and about 1/3rd of them were deleted. He has not created or improved an article past B-class. What is incorrect? No, what we have here is someone who doesn't like that I oppose and my criteria for opposing. Too bad. It's my position. GregJackP  Boomer!   02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, you have made sixteen posts on this page> Does that not seem to you to be fractionally excessive?--<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 14:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, not so long as it is OK to beat the hell out of people who oppose a nomination, those individuals should be able to respond to the BS comments. If, of course, you want to talk to the other editors about the nature of their comments (well, actually primarily admins, the editors tend to be more polite), I will support that and shut up. Somehow I doubt that was the intent of your comment here, which seems more designed to quiet the opposition. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as you insist of viewing this as an "us vs them" adversarial situation you are unlikely to participate in productive discourse regardless of how many times you post. Those disagreeing with you are admin and non-admin. You seem to want to break us up into polarized camps and stereotype whole groups of contributors. You accuse Anthony of attempting to "quiet the opposition", however you are the one who constantly accuses anyone who questions you of badgering and hectoring. You have been attempting to have your say while also trying to silence anyone who has a contrary point of view. It is transparent. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not an us v. them situation, and if you believe I think so, you're mistaken. The only people I have questioned are those who did not have a reason for supporting Wbm. Anyone who had a reason, even if the reason was BS IMO, I didn't question, because it is not my place to convince them that their criteria is wrong. I don't think that anyone should be questioned on their opinion on an RfA, because it becomes badgering and harassment. On Anthony, I merely pointed out that he was concerned with my edits (16 posts, but 32 edits), while you got a pass (with 30 edits). Why do you think that is? GregJackP   Boomer!   23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that "BS" is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be questioned, and if truly BS then discredited. I think that rather than counting edits you should take content into account. I have taken care to address the points you and others have made, however you have addressed few of the points I have made preferring to attack the act of questioning you itself. Debate about an idea is productive, and when an idea is wrong that debate extra useful. Also I think you are counting typos and such in your total. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 00:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is stating that my position is "unhelpful," "dubious," "counterproductive," and "passive-aggressive," among others, part of a "debate?" You've got people on both sides of the aisle citing to my comments as a legitimate concern, yet you and a few others keep this up? and I agree on almost nothing (including my position here)—but he says that it "unseemly and counterproductive" to continue to go after my position. When all the comments were moved to the talk page, I thought it was great because people's position could be seen without the extraneous BS. Again, if this is all about clarifying why aren't people asking about the "sure" votes? It's fairly clear that it is designed to intimidate.  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said counterproductive I said unproductive in reference to your insistence on some sort of "admin" vs "normal editor" adversarial situation that is just not there. Battleground mentality is not productive, we are on the same team. I said dubious in response to several examples you gave of articles created that later got deleted which after inspection turned out to not represent what you said they did. This is a response to factual claims you have made that are not just dubious but incorrect. I hope you can see hope that constitutes debating you. I never said anything about passive-aggressive(nothing passive about it), perhaps you are conflating me with one of your other critics. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 00:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to accuse me of things at least be creative about it, don't just parrot my criticism towards you back at me. You want to have your opinion protected from criticism because you are unable to defend it. The desire for your opinion not the be scrutinized is self serving and unrealistic. On Wikipedia we use discussion to make decisions. I don't know if you have read the policy that defines RfA but it is at WP:ADMIN and says "A discussion (not a vote) takes place for seven days about whether the candidate should become an administrator.". Notice how it says discussion, not a vote. If you !vote and be left alone then this may not be the place for you. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 04:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC
 * at least be creative about it, why should I make things up, like you are? Just because you are an admin doesn't mean that you get to make false statements. I cannot help that you do not understand the concept here, that not everyone has to think like you, nor bow down to you and your opinion. I've thanked you for your input, and if you want to be mendacious, I certainly can't stop you, nor for posting in that manner as you have here. I've been extremely clear about my criteria, and it is clear that you don't like it. Too f'ing bad. Deal with it, I'm tired of correcting your misstatements. If you don't like content creation as a criteria, then don't use it. I'm not the only one here that has commented on it, you need to man up and realize that others feel the same as I do to differing degrees. Or is this an attempt to goad me so you can block a content creator and silence an opposing voice? GregJackP   Boomer!   04:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no intention in blocking you, I like content creators. Either you are engaging in hyperbole by suggesting that I would or you really do not get how limited the discretion of admins is. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 05:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I've heard this admin song and dance before. GregJackP   Boomer!   07:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) wonders when this shouting contest might stop... Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 07:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the fundamental premise of this issue is false. RfA is a discussion and the overwhelming majority of opposes in RfAs are respected and not even questioned. Most of the ones that are discussed are done so civilly and reasonably on both sides without anyone getting butthurt. Greg isn't upset that opposers are being treated unfairly and they're not. He's upset because his opinion is controversial and yet he doesn't like being questioned nor listening to contrasting opinions. He responds to those who question him with condescension and incivility and then when he starts taking increased heat as a result, complains about how he's a victim and how other people have behavioral problems and how he's being unfairly "badgered" for having an opinion people don't like. Being entitled to an opinion does not mean you don't have to justify it or are immune from having your opinion challenged. As they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you're going to continue pissing people off at RfA, that's fine, but you know what the response is going to be at this point and need to be able to take it like a mature adult, without incivility, self-pity, whining and retaliatory challenging of supporters. Greg's behavior seems to be getting exponentially pointy and I'm starting to question whether he's going to be able to find a modicum of self-control. S warm   ♠  00:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have badgered my position repeatedly because I'm not part of the hivemind that you seem so enamored with. Why don't you either leave me the F alone or block me, but stop with your snide remarks which are inaccurate attempts to read someone else's mind. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You say "badgered" a lot. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Same old response, ignoring any point I've made and just further proving my point. Actually no, it doesn't take a mind-reader to give an honest assessment of the situation. You're not being unfairly "badgered", and it's not only because you're not part of the "hivemind" that you're being challenged, and I'm not the one with the attitude problem this is an open, public discussion in a collaborative, community consensus-based project, and you can't just demand to be 'left alone' when voluntarily joining the discussion. Nobody wants to block you Greg, and you're not going to get blocked for holding to your opinions, no matter how unusual or controversial they are. You can bicker to death with everyone about the merit of your oppose and you're not going to get blocked, no matter how much you try to taunt and bait administrators. However, in all seriousness, I honestly see your behavior trending in the direction of willful disruption and don't want you to think that you're going to be allowed to cause disruption for the sake of proving a point. Things like obviously-retaliatory badgering of other editors and persistent incivility are not going to be tolerated indefinitely. You can dare us to block you all you want with your words and it won't change anything, but your actions will not be merely overlooked. S warm   ♠  01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Location of comments

 * In a bold clerking experiment, I have moved all threaded discussion to the talk page. In case of WP:BRD, permalinks for Main before, Main after and Talk before, Talk after.  If I goofed up your comment, I assure you that it was inadvertent. Hi DrNick ! 14:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Too bold. RFA is supposed to be a discussion. You've even kicked polite requests for clarification, polite replies to those requests, and other short and polite exchanges, into touch. Please undo that and then be much more discriminating as to what is removed. --Stfg (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You also removed at least one vote, and some of the comments never got moved, please fix your change at the very least. Better yet reverse it, RfA is supposed to be a discussion. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed the vanishing vote. Good catch.   Hi DrNick ! 15:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you do something like this (removing context), please move ALL of the discussion to the talk page. That includes the comment made while voting. (keep only the signature). —Kusma (t·c) 15:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for doing this, this is how it should be handled. People should be able to voice their opinion here, without harassment. Again, thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, do you consider all unsolicited inquiries and responses to constitute "harassment"? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but your comments on "trolling" and "non-reasonable" were harassment. Legitimate questions, such as the ones by Someguy1221 and NotDave are fine, but it has been my experience that badgering is far more common. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the experiment but this is a bad idea and should be reverted. You haven't left any indication on the main RfA page which votes have received responses. That leaves factually incorrect assertions with no hint that corrections have been made. I'm somewhat baffled at this idea taking hold that someone who posts criticism of another user should themselves be immune from criticism, particularly with regard to simple errors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion, perhaps wrapping the longer discussions in collapse boxes would be better. This way, thread integrity and existence of discussion remain, and are available for perusal and further expansion by those interested, yet the default appearance of the discussion isn't overwhelmed. -- Avi (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually quite like that suggestion. But I would stress longer discussions. I agree completely with Opabinia regalis that moving comments off the page is a big, big problem because it misleads anyone reading !votes which contain factually incorrect information. For people familiar with RfA, they might think that the fact an opinion has seemingly gone unchallenged (because no-one's replied to it on this page) means that no-one is objecting to it, and that it's a commonly held position etc. – it could sway how they !vote. I think the problem here rests solely with people's attitudes, and bundling discussion off to the talk page doesn't solve the root of the problem; having said that, hatting discussions that get really long is not a bad idea. (I think the response to Aero Slicer's oppose is a good example – just about every comment was part of constructive discussion, but 17 of them really is far too much when unhatted.) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) RfA is a discussion, not a vote, and valuable information is lost when follow-ups, clarifications, and good-faith questions are divorced from their parent comments. This defeats the purpose of holding RfAs in a public forum. I appreciate the sentiment behind this move, but per Stfg and Opabinia regalis, I strongly encourage at least a partial revert. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are all so well served by comments regarding trolling and non-reasonable camp being part of the main discussion, so that others can see how they are expected to !vote by the hivemind. Of course admins will make sure that those who oppose a nomination are not harassed or badgered—oh, wait.... never mind. GregJackP   Boomer!   17:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think it should be reverted. I understand what Nick was trying to do but I don't think it is helpful. It was also done poorly with at least one comment not being moved over and getting lost and 1 vote transferred. The vote has been repaired but at least 1 comment is still only in the history. This sort of action should be discussed on the talk page first I think. I also think that more eyes should check what happened because the I found those issues without looking for them, there may be more. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A truly general comment: I know that RfA is, unlike XfD, very much a vote {pace Juliancolton: when you have percentages and a range of automatic acceptance, etc, what looks like a vote is, in actuality, really a vote), but it's also a discussion, and in the future I believe that stripping all discussion comments from the main page and moving them to the talk page should be avoided. It's a matter of judgment, of course, but it's perfectly legitimate to ask other editors to explain their votes and then respond, and have them respond back.  Those comments are likely to inform the voting of other editors, and hiding them on the talk page is, I believe, counterproductive to the discussive part of the RfA.  It is, of course, much too late to try to move the comments back here now, it would create a gigantic muddle, so for this RfA it's water under the bridge, but I urge all RfA participants in the future to be much more judicious in "cleaning up" the main page. BMK (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, I didn't read far enough down into the comments above, and didn't realize that this was being actively discussed - hence my comment made as if ex nihilo. Color me as agreeing with those that see the Bold edit as being too Bold. I don't mind if discussions that wander way off track get moved, but as long as they're pertinent to the RfA, they should remain here, so new voters can read and consider them.) BMK (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added hidden comments to all three sections above (Support, Oppose, Neutral) which say: PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL THREADED COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION WAS MOVED TO THE TALK PAGE. PLEASE CONSIDER READING IT BEFORE VOTING. BMK (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed these hidden comments as they are no longer necessary. Thanks for adding them, anyway. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is, of course, much too late to try to move the comments back here now" – Challenge accepted. It's pretty clear just about everyone disagrees with what's been done, and I think the only reason no-one's reverted is because it's a tedious manual job that could go horribly wrong. There's four days left of this RfA so this is still something that could potentially have serious consequences. I'll move the comments back to this page and try hatting anything that's too long. Gimme half an hour and several dozen edit conflicts and I'll get the job done. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with hatting the overly-long comments. In fact, I would suggest to do so in general with overly-long threads instead of moving them elsewhere. Having all discussion on the candidate and the !votes on the same page makes it easier for bureaucrats and other !voters to assess the existing arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have enough support here to attempt that, though it will be tricky. Please try not to lose any of the new comments. I see some support and little(no?) objection to the idea of collapse templates being used for longer discussions. Perhaps a link below each vote to a sub-section at the bottom like "=== Discussion of Chillum's !vote ===" would be another compromise(on the talk page it seems to already be sorted by whose !vote is being discussed). <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 19:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd undo the 'hatting' – it's messing up the numbering. I wouldn't restore it unless a way to deal with the misnumbering can be found. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, I did not consider that the numbering would be disrupted by it. I know of no easy technical solution. Are you sure that you got all the new responses when you moved the content back? <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can think of an easy technical solution, and another even easier way that probably won't work. Gimme a second. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  works. It shouldn't be difficult for any future hatters to include that code in the !vote below. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though I've modified the hatting because of concerns raised, this was a stroke of ingenuity. I've been wondering how to put collapses in numbered lists for years. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hatting
A lot of discussion has been going on in this RfA as to where discussion of !votes should be placed. None of it has been helpful to or relevant to whether he should get the mop. There seem to be two types of people here, really: those who don't see a problem ("it's a discussion") and those who feel the current format encourages harassment and badgering. boldly bundled every comment off to the talk page, which was met with a lot of complaints. As a compromise, I followed 's suggestion of "wrapping the longer discussions in collapse boxes". I didn't hat everything that wasn't a vote, but I tried to hat everything off-topic and/or that contained too many comments. Anyone is free to add, remove or adjust hats boldly. I would beg that nobody changes where comments in response to support/oppose/neutrals are placed without consensus here, on the talk page or on WT:RFA. If anyone is willing to check my changes and/or HiDrNick's changes to make sure everyone's comments have been included verbatim somewhere relevant, that would be brilliant. I plan to do some more thorough checking myself, and do some cleanup on the talk page, but I'm rushing to type this to minimise the number of edit conflicts I get. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this is going to affect the bot that does the counting now that all the numbering is off because of the hatting. -- GB fan 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed. Tell me if the bot still isn't working. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing all that work, it is appreciated. BMK (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it too but I wonder how complete the job is. I went to respond to a comment that was just made(the "administrators come second to content creators" comment) and it was hatted on the talk page and I could not find it here. We need to preserve all comments and discussions. I responded there through the hat because the discussion is important and should take place somewhere. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 20:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have responded here. I knew what I was doing, I promise. ;) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * is the kind of admin that thinks that civility comes first and content comes second.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 20:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem content to imagine all sorts of things about me and claim it is reality. The fact is I have made no such claim. The community has made it clear in both policy and custom that both content contribution and civility are important. I agree with the community. You can claim until you are blue in the fact that I feel otherwise but the reality is that I do not feel as you say and nothing I have said or done supports it.


 * I think your repeated attempts to claim I think things that I don't betray your inability to respond to the real points I have made. You are engaging in straw man tactics and ad hominem attacks. Both are logical fallacies and demonstrate a failure on your part to debate in a productive fashion.


 * At this point I am tired of responding to you with reason, it clearly falls on deaf ears. I will refer you to WP:ASPERSIONS and request that any further accusations against me include evidence. If you cannot back up your claims about me with evidence then you are just slinging shit to see what will stick. Accusations of wrongdoing without evidence are both personal attacks and a show of weakness. <b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b> 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Same with you, Chillum. I'm also tired of this wasteful "discussion". Looks like Townlake was right... Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 01:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'm finished messing with stuff, unless anyone finds a problem with my edits. Hatting turned out not to work, according to in his edit summary here. Until we find a better solution, we're back to square one. Kind of. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bilrov: Just as a note, the numbering was not broken once you had finished your work, at least on the page as I viewed it, so perhaps Cyberpower was looking at a slightly older version, or was talking about the 'bot generated numbers on the main page? In any case, thanks again. BMK (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed I was, so I restored the hatting.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 21:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for restoring it. I'm glad to see something I did worked and I hope I haven't caused any bugs anywhere. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , you did a wonderful job there. Thanks a million for shouldering that burden. --Stfg (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh. I basically enjoy that kind of menial, tiresome grunt work. I'd like to thank, , , , , , , the people I've forgotten to mention by name and anyone else who provided an opinion on some meta-aspect of this RfA or edited to help fix formatting issues. I'd also like to apologize to again, and to anyone who's had this page at the top of their watchlist for the last few hours. I've started a section at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship where any further discussion of RfA formats should probably be placed. If anyone discovers a problem I've introduced, or a problem anyone else has introduced, you are free to leave me a message but I won't be online for the next few hours, so here or WT:RFA may get a faster response. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You enjoy menial, tiresome grunt work? RfA is thattaway; when are you scheduling your hazing? [[file:face-grin.svg|28px]] -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it but I fail at the first question: what do I actually want the tools for? F8s are basically the only thing I've ever come across that I'd like to do if I had the mop; I'm not comfortable enough with other CSD stuff to delete without knowing a sysop has double-checked. If someone can point me to a large, simple, repetitive admin backlog I'd consider applying. That's probably a more serious answer than was needed. :) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I propose we move this entire meta-conversation to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058/talk. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a lot just belongs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship as this is mostly discussion about how RfA should talk place. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 02:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Replies section
Good faith concerns were raised about the hatting. I've moved the hatted content, instead, to a "Replies" section; Requests for adminship/Wbm1058, with markers from the comment to the replies, and duplicating the comment at in the replies section for ease-of-use.

With thanks to Wbm1058 for understanding. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think boxing keeps the flow better than having to flip back and forth between the support/oppose and replies sections, but de gustibus non est disputandum. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Same for me; having the comments stay attached to their !vote is preferable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I found the boxes to be distracting; but my real concern is that post-collapse, there was only a single reply made in any of those collapsed discussions - this could mean, of course, that the discussions had come to their natural end, but I fear that the collapsing may deter replies, and potentially stifle consensus building. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)