Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bgwhite

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Bgwhite[edit]

Final (111/13/2); Closed as successful by The Rambling Man (talk) at 10:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Bgwhite (talk · contribs) – Bgwhite has been editing since 2005, actively editing since March 2010. He is a very friendly and helpful editor. I believe he'll be a great admin, I am nominating his name! Tito Dutta --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination I know Bgwhite quite a long time now. Bgwhite is one of the most active editors in Wikipedia. He is mainly working with biographies and he is doing very well in categorising them and sending pages in AfD. He makes a well use of Prod/Afd in general. He has contributed in making concrete rules for the categorisation of difficult cases such as Icelandic, Korean, Arabic names etc. The great thing with Bgwhite is that he discusses a lot with other editors (he got a lot of barnstars due to that) and he never had big conflicts because he is capable of explaining his actions which are always well balanced. He certainly needs the tools so he can resolve moves, delete pages, be able to check deleted content, edit protected pages such as templates etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination Bgwhite (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I generally work with biographies. Part of my daily routine is to look at a database report and a few other sources for new biographies. I do copy-edits and add appropriate tags. On the talk pages, I add appropriate banners and parameters. I then check if an AfD, PROD, or speedy deletion is warranted. So, currently I'm familiar and comfortable with AfDs, PRODs and CSDs. Those would be the areas I would initially work in. I do keep a log of AfD's I start at User:Bgwhite/XFD log. I did this so I could track my progress and see where I needed improvement. One reason for requesting admin tools is to look at previously deleted articles. Anomie's bot adds {{old AfD multi}} to the talk pages of new articles that have been deleted before via AfD. The majority of cases are athletes that were deleted but have since met notablity guidelines. The majority of my declined CSDs are G4 (db-repost). Being able to see the deleted versions would help. I don't know if this is good or bad, but one place I want to steer clear of is ANI.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of helping an article achieve GA status and another article achieve FA status. I'm dyslexic and a horrible writer, so I'd love to see the look my English teachers would give. My most rewarding was Herlinatiens. Rescuing it from AfD, doing a DYK and being able to have some great conservations with the article's creator and Herlinatiens was very rewarding. But in the end, I'm a gnome. There are no best contributions, just alot of little contributions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes and there are some instances where I'm not proud. My first rule is: If stressed, upset or agitated, walk away until I'm settled down. The times when I get into trouble are when I violate this rule. I learned this in my previous life when dealing with professor's email IT requests. I would get called every name in the book, be told of the bodily harm that would fall upon me and let it be known I wouldn't be working for anybody, anywhere. If I wasn't anywhere near calm, I wouldn't responded right away. Having a calm, level head prevented me from responding back in a hostile manner. I've carried this experience onto Wikipedia.
Additional question from Begoon
4. First of all - wow, 216,000 edits - kudos. I've seen you around doing good stuff. I took a look at your talk page, and saw this discussion. I realise that you are discussing a particular scenario there, and I can see the humour in what you say, but the question I wanted to ask was: if you become an admin, will you be a "good" cop or a "bad" cop (or both)? I should say that I think we probably need both, but I'm interested in your thoughts, so I suppose I'm using that discussion to try and get a general feel for your views in that area. Thanks.
A: First off, this was a conversation with PamD. PamD has to be one of the nicest editors I've come across and is always helping out new editors. I don't think it is in PamD's nature to be a "bad cop". I'll end up being both a bad cop and good cop. There are instances where an editor is really trying to do what is right and a good cop is better suited. At the other end of the spectrum, a bad cop is required. For the editors in between, you should always start out being courteous and helpful. After that, it is dependent on the situation. I really wish I knew what to do in what situation. No matter what, sometimes I will get it wrong and be the wrong cop. In the end, I try to be helpful, but if an editor will not listen or just doesn't get it, a more firm voice is needed. As my mom always said to me, sometimes I have to slap some sense into you. Bgwhite (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from TParis
5. You come up on a WP:BLPPROD. It has been tagged for over 10 days. The subject seems marginally notable just by reading the text. They are an actor and you can recall two minor named roles they've played in big films. The content is well written, it contains an infobox with a link to the subject's website, and there is a quality freely license photograph available. There are no citations/references of any kind. A Google search reveals next to nothing except trivial or routine coverage. However, you are unable to check magazine or newspaper sources at this time. What do you do?
A:Oi. BLPPROD's trip up alot of people, especially on when to apply the tag. How well the article is written doesn't matter. The two keys in removing the tag is "reliable" and "supports one statement".
  1. If one of the trivial/routine references is reliable and supports one of the statements in the article, then the BLPPPROD is to be removed.
  2. If one of these same refs does not support any statement in the article, but does make mention of film roles. I personally would add the ref and remove the BLPPROD. I try to err on the side of caution when it comes to deleting an article. However, I would seriously consider if a regular PROD or AfD should be used.
  3. If I'm not in a position where I can check all the sources that are normally at my disposal, I would do nothing. I'd let another admin check out the article. There is no rush to take care of the BLPPROD, even if it has been tagged for over 10 days. It is better to do it right.
Additional question from Dennis Brown
6 Being a content focused editor, I would imagine you might drift into working at WP:RFPP some. Share with us your impressions of when semi or full protection is a good idea, and in particular, how to determine when to choose from "block" or "full protect".
A I can only recall requesting articles for semi-protection. In these cases, various IPs were involved in edit wars.
When IPs are involved, a semi-protection should be used. A short protection period (2-5 days) should be used at first. If the edit war continues after the protection is lifted, a longer protection period (ie a month) should be used. Full protection should be used when an edit war has broken out among registered uses.
Additional questions from Carrite
7. Your contributions record shows a pattern of registration, followed by long inactivity, followed by a sudden eruption of many thousands of edits per month. Have you ever edited under another user name at WP? If so, what names have you edited under?
A: No, I have never edited under another user name, but I do have a bot account, User:BG19bot.
8. What form of automation have you used to generate more than 200,000 edits in less than two years?
A: I use AWB. Generally, if I'm editing manually, I still use AWB.
9. I've never seen a count approaching 108,000 edits to talk pages before. What's the answer to this mystery?
A: I initially started out working on the tracking category Category:Biography articles without living parameter and then moved to Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. This initiated me into the seedy underbelly of Wikipedia, AWB. This was also my reason for doing my first bot request. After both categories were cleaned out, I moved my attention to newly created biography articles. Every day I look at a database report and a few other sources for new biographies. One of the things I do is fill out the talk page with appropriate banners and parameters. This is an example. There are also a few other tracking categories I keep cleaned out.
Thank you. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Paul Erik
10. In reviewing some of your deleted contributions, I came across your deletion nomination of DJ Nasty Naz and it brought to mind some of the complexities about identifying reliable sources. During that AfD discussion, you note that you "removed the "references" as blogs and interviews are not reliable references". The citations you removed included citations to university student newspapers [1], a blog reprint of an article from The Daily Gleaner [2], and an interview with the subject in the magazine Caribbean Belle. [3] How do you go about determining whether a citation to a particular source warrants removal from a Wikipedia article? Please feel free either to refer to those examples, or to discuss in general, or a combination of both.
A: I don't recall what the particular refs you mention were trying to cite. However, the blog reprint was an interview from the local paper. Caribbean Belle was an interview done by a PR person not affiliated with the magazine. An interview is considered a primary source, but after that interviews get way more complicated.
  1. There are references that are easy to recognize as unreliable and should be removed. Most common examples I find are IMDb references and blog posts published by the subject of the article (with exceptions).
  2. The more contentious the fact being sourced, the more reliable a source needs to be. An interview of Paul Erik done by a fanzine or a PR person would be good to cite basic facts, such as a birth date. The same sources citing that Paul Erik was the main person behind Wikipedia could not be used.
  3. Is there a better source? If there are two acceptable sources, one being marginal or less reliable (an interview) and another being more reliable, it may be a good idea to remove the less reliable source.
  4. Context. I find this most often with iTunes or Amazon being used as a reference. If iTunes/Amazon is being used to cite a specific item, such as a release date, then they can be used as a reference. If they are being used to not cite anything specifically, iTunes/Amazon can be viewed as being promotional only and then be removed.
Additional questions from Cyberpower678
11. I thoroughly reviewed the past 6 months of your CSD log. If an admin, you will have access to deleted versions of articles. Will you use them to analyze to see if a G4 applies?
A: Oh yes. This is one of my primary reasons for requesting nomination as evidenced in question #1. I can pretty much tell that an athlete had become notable since the previous AfD (except for a brain fart I had on a track athlete). Athletes are 70%-80% of re-created articles. The non-athletes are the trouble spot for me now.
12. Is your set threshold for deleting set higher than your set threshold for nominating for deletion?
A: Interesting question...
  1. My initial plan is to only delete the most obvious cases and work my way from there.
  2. The right answer should be, "No, the threshold for both should be equally set just as high". But in reality, there is a difference. When you nominate an article for a speedy, you know there will be somebody else to review you and actually do the deleting. But if you are the person pressing 'delete', it is final with nobody looking over your shoulder. You become more conservative about actually deleting the speedy. You see it in life and Wikipedia all the time. So, while I'd like to say the "right answer", I will end up being even more conservative about deleting an article.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. support - checking deleted content, and logs looks like speedy delete and prod nominations are suitable. Heaps of gnome type work is evident. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - as co-nominator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Seems like just the sort of good egg to deserve a mop Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've seen Bgwhite's name pop up frequently enough at AfD, and he seems sensible. He'll do good work as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I dislike to support as nom. In another RFA too I mentioned this. Noms' and con-noms' votes should be automatically counted (unless otherwise indicated by them). My nomination comment clearly indicates that I am supporting the candidate. So, writing a support statement again is unnecessary. But, I need to keep doing this until the rule is changed.. and as those TParis etc counters count supports in this section only). --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question @Tito Dutta, You wrote in your nomination: "He is a very friendly and helpful editor”. To me this is a contradiction in terms, when the subject is one promoted for his outstanding(?) wp:AFD work. How can one be friendly and helpful and yet spend most of the time deleteing others' work? Just wondering. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Following Wikipedia policy and guidelines should be the primary object of an editor. You have said yet spend most of the time deleteing others' work, from my point of view he is following the Wikipedia guidelines to delete unencyclopedic entries, content etc. It might be incorrect to link these with his "friendliness" or "helpfulness". He had PRODed my article too. I have talked with him many times and found him very helpful and friendly. If I start giving details here, my post will be too long. You have said, he spends most of the time in deleting content, but, he is equally/more active in saving content. Multiple times he has asked in my talk page to check notability or find references or save articles.--Tito Dutta (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - he and I have had some interaction in the past and I've always found him pleasant and easy to work with. I've participated in a few of his AFDs and they have always seemed well-explained and well considered. Happy to support. Stalwart111 12:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I concur with Brookie, Bgwhite looks like a good egg. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support What? You weren't an admin years ago? Bgwhite is trustworthy and unlikely to break the wiki. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Great editor and also believe that he will a great admin as well. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I see massive amounts of good maintenance work, good experience, support from users who I respect (and who can see the deleted stuff), and signs of a good sense of humour (which is always a plus for me). If he was going to wreak havoc, I think that would be apparent after 216,000 edits, so I have to, and am very happy to, support. Begoon talk 13:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support top notch candidate with fine taste in television. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. You've got a really impressive collection of barnstars on your userpage. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Another editor that fits my criteria. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support It's about time. AutomaticStrikeout 14:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Understands the nuts n' bolts of the wiki, is pleasant to work with, and has a good grasp of policy. The Interior (Talk) 15:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak support I have worked with Bgwhite before and while this was a little frustrating occasionally, I have no reason to believe they won't make a fine administrator. Rcsprinter (message) @ 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support no reason why not. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - nothing screams problem to me at this time. --Nouniquenames 16:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support A constructive editor, should be a constructive admin. --– Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oh hell yes Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support well clued up editor with no red flags, very surprised that they are not already an admin. Valenciano (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Thought he was already an admin. ‑Scottywong| express _ 17:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes, Bgwhite "gets it" and will be an asset as an admin. LadyofShalott 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. - filelakeshoe 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Absolutely Yes, nothing but collegial, clueful and constructive contributions in my experience. I run into this editor everywhere, and it's left a very positive impression. (I found this RfA by accident, I was recommending him elsewiki and wondered why he wasn't already an admin, pulled up an RfA page, briefly thought it might be very old (only 25 votes on an RfA? That must be ancient!), and only a few moments later realized the RfA was live.) --j⚛e deckertalk 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Bgwhite is a very helpful geek with enough content knowledge to know what it's like to create. I have no reason to believe they'll abuse the tools--not everyone always gets his sense of humor (I'm sure Mrs. Bgwhite doesn't) and he can be a bit rough around the edges, so I assume he'll polish it up some when acting as an admin. And while adminship is not a reward, maybe this will help him overcome...well, let her rest in peace. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support- I've seen this user quite a bit and have never noticed anything untoward. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Definately deserves the tools and will use them wisely. Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support He obviously has a need for the tools, and I trust him not to misuse them, therefore I would support giving said tools to said editor. Go Phightins! 20:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support no significant reason to oppose at this point. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - my interactions with this editor have been nothing but positive, and he does a loot of good work here. The mop will allow him to do more. GiantSnowman 20:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - agree with what is stated above, a "top notch candidate". Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support seems well qualified. Rotten regard Softnow 21:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support seems like a good candidate. Answers seems okay. I tried to skim the contributions as well but with the number of them was a bit hard to get a good feel. Is there a way to look at only non-AWB edits? PaleAqua (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support rock solid editor that knows his limits and isn't likely to blow up the wiki. Unquestionably, the mop will make him more effective in his daily duties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC) - Moved to neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support How many different ways can "thought he already was" be said? (And because he meets my criteria). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Seen him around for a while, left a positive impression on me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. His edits are done thoughtfully, carefully, and knowledgeably. He makes very few errors, but when he's informed of a mistake, he readily admits it and fixes it and/or takes steps to prevent it from happening again. Giving Bgwhite the tools may allow Drmies to be more productive in content creation, as he will no longer have to spend so much time processing Bgwhite's administrative requests. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I have some slight concerns about a few of his CSD nominations, but overall his work seems to be good enough for me to feel confident in his abilities.--Slon02 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Stephen 23:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. - Looks good to me. We need all the help we can get. Good luck! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Yup. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Definetely deserves the mop. A great editor and the opposes aren't convincing. Vacationnine 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Very good. TBrandley 02:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support A sense of humor is a good indicator of perspective. Miniapolis (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support for many reasons. First (but in no particular order), almost any friend of Drmies's is a friend of mine. Second, I don't see the Lady too often at RfAs; her support is telling. Third, I like the way Bgwhite expresses himself and answers the questions (although he didn't answer all of Dennis's). Fourth, I like his understated sense of humor. Fifth, every interaction I've had with him has been positive. Sixth, he's smart. Finally, anyone who wants to stay away from ANI clearly has good judgment (yeah, yeah, I understand the converse).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support No problems here. --Webclient101talk 03:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Absolutely no issues. I, like Scottywong, thought you already were an admin. And share the same sentiment as AutomaticStrikeout. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)
  51. Support, great user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I think yes. Swarm X 07:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I was going to support anyway, but I'm satisfied with the answer to my question as well.--v/r - TP 15:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support No problems for me. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Time for some more admins! ;) —stay (sic)! 18:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. User has lots of experience. --J36miles (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. STRONG SUPPORT My interractions with this candidate have shown that he is not afraid to delete questionable content. We need more wikipedians like this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Good contributions. Helpful in AfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Solid article contributions, shows good experience with administrative related tasks as well. Secret account 02:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support User has made substantial contributions, and based on my limited interaction with them as well as the above answers, is both knowledgeable and helpful, especially in the BLP arena. - MrX 02:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - No qualms here. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support This is a bit of a no-brainer. Bgwhite's contributions are excellent, and their answers to the above questions are good. Nick-D (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support (a) sheer volume of edits and time spent here indicate more than likely net positive (b) has voted keep in some AfDs Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC) switched to oppose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Seems trusty, would be helpful with the mop. SpencerT♦C 04:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Right temperament, many, many gnomish clean-up edits, strong command of Wikipedia technical policies. I have a very high degree of confidence that he won't break the wiki. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Great editor. →Bmusician 09:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Great contributor to the project, can't see any reason why the candidate will make anything other than a sensible addition to the admin corps. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 10:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, great work in the area of the WP:Persondata. mabdul 10:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. This is a good sign - we all make mistakes; what matters is how we deal with them. Some people cover up, some people ignore, and others correct the mistake. I have faith in people who correct there their mistakes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Trusted user. No concerns. We need more admins like this this user. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Would make a great addition to the admin corps. --Lord Roem (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, seems to meet my criteria. --Nouniquenames 16:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote.--v/r - TP 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support – Everything seems OK. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Seems to be a backstage worker. No concerns. Carrite (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - looks good.  Roger Davies talk 20:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support and add me to the "thought he already was an admin" category. Since he isn't it is high time to correct that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Good experience, and I like the spirit embodied in candidate's user talk page instructions, which seem well-designed to avoid pointless drama. Townlake (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per the users [sic] longstanding opposition to country wikiprojects and underhanded way of removing project tags contributions, loyalty, and dedication to the project. Sædontalk 08:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Either Bgwhite was lying through their teeth this post to me (2nd paragraph), or they are honest enough to be a good admin. I'll AGF. Doc talk 09:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support definitely--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, not yet? --MakecatTalk 12:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Trustworthy, clueful, and will make a find admin.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Great user, and interested in administrative tasks. What better? --Mark91it's my world 21:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I see no reason why you shouldn't be one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - I could've sworn this guy was an admin. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 02:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Opposes very far from convincing. Wizardman 02:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Should have been an admin ages ago. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support I've always been impressed. Royalbroil 14:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Lots of great work, and I liked our interaction on a sockpuppet issue: [4]. —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - I'm not the biggest fan of users who use AWB for most of their content edits (well at least recently, 4.5k out of 5k edits are with AWB) but I am going to hold my peace on that one. Good user. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - I think Bgwhite would be a good, effective admin. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - you are not admin yet! -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support- Made some mistakes, but an overall positive editor and will be a net gain as an admin. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Rzuwig► 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 02:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Trusted user has been around for a while .The Project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support A great, trusted, tireless contributor, well competent and a nice user. Gosh! :) Mediran talk to me! 13:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support no problems, looks good.--В и к и T 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support . It's about time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support: Looks good! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. I thought the answers to questions were excellent and all the previous comments in this RfA were pointing me to support, when I crashed up against Were's oppose. I have a lot of respect for Were, and that brought me up short, so I spent some time looking at the candidate's talk page, and deciding for myself how well they communicate with other users. Long story short, I end up here in support. Yes, I agree that one should try to work with another editor asking for advice about how to avoid deletion, so I hope the candidate takes that advice on board, but the overall pattern is one that I can trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Satisfactory answers to my questions and passes the remainder of my criteria.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per Mandarax --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - No problems here! Michael (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - A dedicated and trusted user who would be an asset to project. Salih (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Trusted and experienced editor. INeverCry 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support See no real reason not to. Good candidate. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - I see him on new patrol a lot, his prods/csd's are mostly accurate and he would be a fair and valuable addition to the project. Dengero (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per the users longstanding opposition to country wikiprojects and underhanded way of removing project tags. Agathoclea (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs please. GiantSnowman 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a case of me removing {{WikiProject Germany}} from talk pages where {{WikiProject Football|class=stub|Germany=yes}} was added. There are two cases where this happens, WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Australia. In Australia's case, I will remove the banner for a sport. The Template:WikiProject Australia covers alot of sports and doesn't need a redundant sports banner. In Germany's case, I removed the country's banner and added Germany to the football banner. Magioladitis and I had a discussion with Agathoclea were Agathoclea thought this was wrong and where we thought we were following WikiProject Germany's rules. Bgwhite (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The case involving WP:GERMANY was particular interesting as that involved editwaring against a member of the project while at the same time due to the removal of the banner the AFD that got started on that article did not make it into the article alerts for the project. As far as WP:Australia is concerned it is not on my watchlist so it must have been someone else noticing his edits and complaining. Chances are there are even more projects involved which could be established by someone with tolserver access going his AWB edits and checking for banner removals. I have noticed the pattern of project tag deletion early this year, but I looked for some recent cases which happened after I informed the editor that I consider these edits in breach of AWB rules, which were [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Sadly my search method is flawed due to the fact that it depends on the article to be picked up by the WP1.0 bot first so that its removal can be registered. So I suspect a lot more that fall through that net as he gets to the articles before the bot does. Removing sportspeople representing the USA from WP:USA is at least controversial if not worse. It is against AWB rules to make controversial edits with AWB as the shear volume and in this case a misleading editsummary makes it impossible to check back on the editors edits. So if the editor is already misusing the tools he is given he is in my mind not fit to be given extended tools. Agathoclea (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Like Ottawahitech, I would be concerned about an editor who, as the nominator states, does a lot of prodding, including the nominator's own articles. A lot of WP content disappears simply because people aren't around to contest the PRODs. Giving this person deletion rights would mean that one less pair of eyes sees these articles before they go "poof". So a "no" from me unless more details can be provided of these PRODs - what were they, and how many were successfully contested? Samsara (FA • FP) 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    as the nominator states, does a lot of prodding, including the nominator's own articles...

    He had PRODed my article too.− "article", 1 article, not "articles" (thankfully). But there his points were logical and he did not hurry to delete the article or discard my points and replied to all my questions, that's why discussion became too long. And finally he removed the template himself. Please have a look at the discussion here Talk:Riddhi Sen, it'll show his patience, IMO. --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Samsara: The candidate has a PROD/BLP PROD log at User:Bgwhite/PROD log, FYI. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are actually two PROD logs. User:Bgwhite/PROD log contains the most recent. Every so often I review the PRODS that were done... should an AfD be done, see if I'm doing anything wrong, should I change the way I'm doing them, etc. This is the same reason I keep a log of AfDs I submit. After I review the PRODS, I archive them into User:Bgwhite/PROD. Bgwhite (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to worry about on a PROD since anyone can reverse it, but I hope Bgwhite won't be too trigger happy on speedies except for maybe those amatueish one liners. (e.g. John Doe Born on January 1, 2000 is a resident of Anytown, USA) –BuickCenturyDriver 03:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Samsara is correct. There is something to worry about on a PROD. I've seen several times people say to the effect, "PROD an old article. Nobody is looking at an old article and it is easier to delete this way." There are also way too many "non-reasons" given on why the article should be prodded, such as only saying "non-notable" or "doesn't meet nobility guidelines". To the person who wrote the article, what does "non-notable' mean? To the admin looking to delete the article based upon the PROD, why is the article "non-notable"? So, Samsara concerns are valid, but for some odd reason I don't agree with the oppose. Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasoning for this oppose strikes me as "Oppose because the candidate does too much work." I have never heard of an oppose like this. Surely, if the candidate prodded a lot of articles, and a much larger percentage than normal were contested and/or not deleted, then that would be indicative of a problem. However, to oppose simply because the candidate has proposed too many articles for deletion is nonsensical, in my opinion. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 15:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what percentage you would consider normal, but 50% strikes me as rather high. Samsara (FA • FP) 22:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that looking at a simple percentage is meaningful in this case. PRODs get declined all the time. Anyone can decline a PROD (including the editor who created the article), regardless of whether or not it ought to be deleted. Considering that the bar for declining a PROD is so low, I don't think it's a meaningful measure of the candidate's knowledge or expertise. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 01:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, if the candidate prodded a lot of articles, and a much larger percentage than normal were contested and/or not deleted, then that would be indicative of a problem. - your words. WilyD below says that when the candidate is confronted with articles that should be kept, [they]'re doing no better than a coin flip. Strikingly, the same image re-emerges when analysing his PRODs. Samsara (FA • FP) 05:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, given that anyone (including the article's creator) can decline a PROD, I haven't seen any evidence that 50% isn't a normal percentage. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 15:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that comment is even relevant, since the candidate has stated that he regularly reviews all his PROD actions. Therefore the occasions where the article still exists must represent cases where he agreed with the decliner and knowingly did not pursue an AfD nomination, i.e. he conceded that the PROD was in error. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Literally half the time at AfD, when confronted with an article where the consensus will be it should be kept, they've argued for deletion. My last interactions with this user where to have to decline this invalid G4, which they took to AfD - where it was kept, and to decline this invalid G4 (both from the last month). They don't have good judgement with respect to deletion, but are clearly enthusiastic about it; I fear given a hammer they will see everything as a nail. We don't need admins who'll delete first and not ask whether or not it should be deleted. WilyD 08:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above in Question #1, "One reason for requesting admin tools is to look at previously deleted articles. Anomie's bot adds {{old AfD multi}} to the talk pages of new articles that have been deleted before via AfD. The majority of cases are athletes that were deleted but have since met notablity guidelines. The majority of my declined CSDs are G4 (db-repost). Being able to see the deleted versions would help. " Both of the instances you point out are G4. If you care to look at the log of AfDs I submited (User:Bgwhite/XFD log), 90% of my AfD submissions are deleted. If you care to look at my CSD log (User:Bgwhite/XFD log), except for G4, less than 5% are declined. Take a look at my AfD stats via snottywang's tool. Please tell me how I am anywhere near wrong 1/2 the time. Bgwhite (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You've commented in 30 AfDs that were ultimately kept, where you argued "delete" for 13, plus one merge, one redirect. 15/30 = a half. When confronted with articles that should be deleted, you seem to almost always get it right; but when confronted with articles that should be kept, you're doing no better than a coin flip. That's bad. WilyD 09:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are comparing apples with oranges. I'm assuming you are looking at this as it matches up to the numbers you mention. My "13 delete votes" includes the articles I also submitted for AfD, but were kept. I submitted over 110 articles during that period. If you count the numbers manually, I did a total of 4 non-AfD delete votes where the article was ultimately kept and 9 AdD submissions that were kept (adding upto your 13 delete votes). Subtract the 9 AfDs from the 30 keeps and use the 4 non-AfD delete votes, it comes out to be 4/21. This does not equal half. Bgwhite (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it's just a model, but I remain convinced the way I'm combining the data is a sensible one; whether it's articles you submitted to AfD that shouldn't have been submitted there, or !votes on someone else's submission, you're still doing a very poor job of assessing the articles that should be kept, something that I believe would likely be the case if you were CSD patrolling, for instance. WilyD 10:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really just a case of presenting statistics in a way that favors your argument. As the creator of the AfD stats tool, I have a super-secret way of extending the search beyond 250 AfD's, and I have used the tool to analyze all of Bgwhite's AfD votes. The following statistics are all true:
    1. 87% of Bgwhite's AfD votes matched the eventual consensus of the AfD. 8% did not match. The remaining 5% were "No consensus".
    2. In AfD's where Bgwhite voted Keep, he was right 68% of the time, wrong 24% of the time, and the remaining 9% were "No consensus".
    3. In AfD's that eventually closed as Keep, he was right 50% of the time, and wrong 50% of the time.
    4. In AfD's where Bgwhite voted Delete, he was right 88% of the time, wrong 7% of the time, and the remaining 5% were "No consensus".
    5. In AfD's that eventually closed as Delete, he was right 98% of the time, and wrong 2% of the time.
    This oppose rationale seems to focus solely on statistic #3, without considering all of the other statistics. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add something which I believe we all agree but I want to underline it: Participating in an XfD is not the same with closing in XfD. In the first case the editor expresses an opinion based on policies, etc. In the second case the closing administrator summarises the discussion and closes by consensus. This means that any administrator may disagree with the consensus but this doesn't mean they will close the discussion against it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And any admin who repeatedly closes XfD's against consensus probably won't be an admin for very long. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a minor point (although I'm trying to be polite, I think it is a bit more than minor), I suggest we try to avoid the designation of "right" and "wrong" as used here. If the consensus is "keep", and Bgwhite weighed in with "delete' then Bgwhite did not match the consensus, but it is a bit presumptuous to call the position "wrong". We have consensus decision making for a reason, but let's not pretend that the results of the consensus are always right, and a differing position is always wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good point (@ SPhilbrick)! I second it and accept the "suggestion"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I often use the term "right" and "wrong" in this context just because it is easier to type than "matched the eventual consensus" or "didn't match the eventual consensus"; not because I believe that someone's vote can actually be right or wrong. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 01:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And alot of this will boil down to how problematic or beneficial any individual editor views the disappearance of content from wikipedia, eg.g so that would differ significantly between me and, say, Scottywong. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, AfD is a better place to estimate how good they are at deletion, but problems are more likely to arise at CSD (where it's much easier to make sloppy errors - forget to check histories, skim and miss assertions of significance, whatever); from the numbers, the best guess I can make is that when encountering a valid CSD tag, they'll correctly delete it (98% of the time, say), and if they encounter an invalid CSD tag, they'll often (~50% of the time) incorrectly delete it. That seems like "not ready to be doing this" to me. If I'm off base - well, they'll be successful with scores of supports and a handful of opposes. But as far as I can tell, they're likely to screw up a lot of deletions. In the chart, I think points three and five are the correct metric to use (and anyone who's going to be working in deletion should be able to hit both pretty well). WilyD 10:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I don't like this prod. Warden (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really care much for the "article," but you're right, this is an auto-keep. Is that really sufficient for an oppose recommendation? Carrite (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The candidate's SOP is to load up AWB with a big stack of articles and then perform some repetitive action on them. In this case, the subject was the Foreign Minister of Thailand, someone who had recently been in talks with Hillary Clinton. To blithely propose this for deletion indicates that the candidate either was not checking what he was doing or he just didn't care. The statistical analysis by others above further indicates that this is not an isolated example. I therefore do not consider that the candidate can be trusted with more powerful tools as his actions need review by others. Warden (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that one was a legitimate BLPprod, it would have been better to see the candidate reference it, but the prod was legit. The subject is clearly notable, but that is irrelevant to a BLPprod - if it is a new unreferenced biography of a living person then it needs a source of some sort, even a link to the subject’s home page on the Foreign ministry's site would prevent a BLPprod being applied. It is a little more troubling that from the questions the candidate seems to think that a reliable source is need to prevent a BLPprod, rather than just to remove a legitimate BLPprod. Admittedly that is one of our more awkward compromises on policy and a common mistake, but someone who is active at prodding should be aware of that before they come to RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 12:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is a little more troubling that from the questions the candidate seems to think that a reliable source is need to prevent a BLPprod". Take a look at the edit history of WP:BLPPROD and Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Any source prevents a Prod Bgwhite (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's a fair answer. ϢereSpielChequers 10:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There are lots of positives about this candidate, a huge number of contributions to this project and I believe they have the potential to be a good admin. But I believe they need to work on some issues first. There have been a number of threads above which highlight a potential over-enthusiasm for deletion. But this thread User_talk:Bgwhite#Deleting_James_Bate.2C_Grant_Boone.2C_and_Adam_Zucker gives me pause for concern. Bgwhite prodded a number of articles, the editor who'd written them then came to his talkpage for advice on how to save those articles and I don't see any subsequent interaction on either of their talkpages. We need admins, but we need admins who communicate, and that is especially true when you get rid of goodfaith contributions (apologies if that communication took place on some other page) ϢereSpielChequers 12:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Within the past month, I had previous contact with the user at my talk page at: User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 11#Preventing Drew Bontadelli from being deleted help and User talk:Bgwhite#Deletion of Allison Williams (reporter) about the exact same thing for the same type of article. 00:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that history between you and that editor does put it into a bit more context. But on this occasion they were saying that "I have been trying to find reliable sources by using google and I found a few good websites on google. What should I do to prevent deletions?" Compared to the previous threads that looks to me like you were making progress, now said Google sites may or may not have been relevant for biographies on the subject. But this looks to me like a goodfaith editor who was trying to learn our ways, I'm not keen on deletionist admins who ignore such editors. ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The user had asked a similar question about a previous article – WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 49#Deleting of Drew Bontadelli – and got an answer about what would be required to avoid deletion, with an explanation about reliable sources and instructions on how to add refs. A few hours after receiving a Talkback that his question had been answered, the user asked the same question of Bgwhite, who patiently and helpfully answered. The user said he was going to remove the AfD notice from the article, and Bgwhite instructed him not to, explaining that that's not how the procedure works. The user replied, then subsequently said that he did remove it, and received a warning; then he asked again how to prevent the article from being deleted. Then he asked the same thing again in the post mentioned above. How many times should a user who doesn't appear to pay any attention to what he's told be given an answer to the same question? I don't think a failure to say "please refer to one of the previous times this question was answered for you" to one user is sufficient cause to deny adminship. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per WereSpielChequers. --John (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose also per WereSpielChequers, who makes a convincing argument. Jusdafax 12:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as per WereSpielChequers. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose BGWhite, you can't ignore requests like that - this sort of behaviour could drive away potential editors Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: I find that the points raised by WereSpielChequers and WilyD are sufficient cause for concern. Julia\talk 20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I can find nothing in the candidates contributions that demonstrates the application of any thought about how to develop an encyclopedia, rather than a robotic application of rules. The edit linked in Colonel Warden's first comment seems typical. Yes, the rules allow the application of a BLPPROD tag to an article about a government minister, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Anyone who was here to build an encyclopedia rather than to enforce rules would take a few seconds to find and add a source to such an article rather than propose it for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. WereSpielChequers and Casliber make a lot of good points that can't be easily overlooked. While I have far more deletionist tendencies than I do inclusionist, I feel that an administrator needs to be a light hand rather than a blunt weapon. Though this candidate will probably succeed in his bid, I strongly suggest he take the above comments to heart. Trusilver 04:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Regretful oppose, per WereSpielChequers - that incident is just too recent for me to ignore. Great contributor though, good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklism (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Moved from Support Based on WereSpielChequers's observations. I really hate to do this, but I believe that helping someone keep an article that you have nominated to AFD is more important that any other use of the tools. Whether we want it or not, we admin are looked upon as the first source for help. We are willing servants of the community. This means we must help others before working on our own projects, particularly when it is time sensitive and affects the content of the encyclopedia, as well as the morale of fellow editors. I won't stand in the way of your RfA, but I am obligated to not support either. I'm very sorry and still think very highly of you, but I have no choice here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've had a difficult time deciding. I do appreciate your comprehensive answer to Q10. Concerns I had about being overly focused on deletion are balanced with an impression of you generally being sensible, including with regard to not acting outside of consensus. In the end, though, I can't quite put myself in the support column, as I agree with Dennis Brown's comments. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bgwhite&oldid=1151043037"