Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2

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.


Bwilkins[edit]

Final: (106/8/2) Closed as successful by Useight at 22:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Bwilkins (talk · contribs) – I first noticed Bwilkins during the recent troubles with User:Wiki Greek Basketball at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball. Bwilkins took the initiative to help out an editor who most of the community had already (perhaps prematurely) deemed hopeless; in particular, I found this intervention of his to be a real embodiment of WP:AGF. Bwilkins acted as a mediator and problem-solver for much of the several iterations of the dispute, and even when things turned out poorly for Wiki Greek Basketball at the ending I was still very impressed with his civility, cool-headedness, and helpful nature. After perusing Bwilkins' contributions I saw no red flags, and I think an admin who is helpful and has good communication skills would be an absolute benefit to the project. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changed end -> ending, because SoxBot was getting confused updating the Rfa status. Contacting bot owner. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conomination: I've been aware of Bwilkins' editing for the last year and a half, and I have no hesitation recommending him for adminship. He has done yeoman service at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and continues to be a voice of reason at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have been impressed with his level-headed approach to issues, and his willingness to intervene as a problem solver. Having paid attention to his editing since the middle of 2008, I'm certain Bwilkins won't misuse the tools. Beyond that, I feel confident that he will use them wisely, in a way that brings real benefit to the project. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another co-nomination The other noms covered it pretty well actually. This is an easy one, a user with B's incredible patience and willingness to try and resolve difficult disputes would obviously be an asset as an admin, and he has demonstrated that he has the judgement needed to handle the extra buttons. I have long been impressed by his abilities in dispute resolution and communicating with new or problematic users. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and sincerely thank current admins User:Rjanag, User:Guettarda, and User:Beeblebrox for the nominations and faith in me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to think that I have been exposed to a fairly wide range of administrator activities through my regular participation in WP:ANI. That said, I intend to start in the following areas:
  • I will continue to monitor ANI, and assist/deal with the range of issues that are raised there, no matter what the topic
  • WP:UAA - I'm no prude, but copycats, promoters, and overly offensive usernames need to be dealt with through blocks or WP:CHU if they do plan on actually contributing
  • the full deletion process: everything from WP:AfD closures; looking into articles that have been tagged under WP:CSD; WP:DRV discussions; WP:REFUND requests (keeping WP:SOFIXIT in mind throughout)
  • As I learned the importance of bio's of living persons, I will keep an eye out on WP:BLPN when I can, and respond to requests for page protetction as they arise.
  • We can all fight vandalism without tools, and I currently do. However, WP:AIV exists for a reason, and I will of course fight damage to the project wherever I can.
  • As I'm thick-skinned when needed, I'm not afraid of WP:AN3, even though I usually try to solve conflict before edit-warring begins. However, nobody can be watching every article at the same time, so it happens, and I'll be there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My favourite "best contribution" is the article Buffalo 461. I had heard about this topic, started the article, enlisted the military history project and an editor who I knew was an awesome copyeditor. Within a few hours of starting it, we all had an article that made DYK, and expanded Wikipedia's coverage - a true testament to the community effort that is involved in Wikipedia.
I am also proud of a number of stubs/short articles that I created to expand both Music of Newfoundland and Labrador and Trinidad and Tobago knowledge. I would like to suggest that my past work in WP:WQA was beneficial in preventing escalation of issues, and my encouragement/guidance of new editors helped to create the kind of editors we're looking for overall.
I also made the {{WQA-notice}} template, and have been in the process of creating userbox versions of barnstars for those who love UBX's.
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: It has been a long, long time now since I can honestly say that any conflict caused "stress" for me. My way of handling situations is to try and help, and if they really don't get it, then it's time to properly end it and/or escalate it and disengage. Indeed, the recent WGB issue was a perfect example: I tried to help, and came up with a positive solution for all. When it was broken, I tried to help again, was attacked, so I escalated to someone else and disengaged. I cannot say I became "stressed" - a short moment of frustration perhaps, but there's often only so much that any single person can do.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. What are your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A: As you will know from this essay, I believe in transparency - not only as an editor, but I would say even moreso as an admin. My actions must be explainable at any time. There are some tremendously beneficial ideas in WP:AOR, but I am not fully certain that it covers all of the issues. It may be as close to a community-based de-sysop process, but I am concerned that it might rely on the emotions surrounding whatever issue it is that triggered the call for recall. To be honest, I have never considered that I could ever find myself in a situation where I would be called to be impeached. As such, I'm not trying to be wishy-washy, but if you do not mind, I would like to further consider the concept.
5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: The short version: a block is a technical restriction, designed to prevent disruption, whereas a ban is a community-determined restriction on editing, often in specific areas. A block may be used to enforce a ban. As an example, User:Wiki Greek Basketball was banned by community discussion. After violating the ban, he was unfortunately subsequently blocked.
6. What contributions are you least proud of, and in what way may they (in your opinion) have affected your judgment?
A: I made a comment last March (already noted elsewhere) that although stated on many TV talkshows, and heard in many newsrooms such as where I work, it was a WP:BLP violation. I am not at all proud of it. After a number of discussions (including with User:Risker - who rightly called me to the carpet on it - the entire issue improved my judgement regarding BLP, and its importance on Wikipedia. It was a harsh and sharp learning experience.

Question from Ray

7 What are the conditions under which you would block an editor for civility issues or failing to adhere to consensus?
A: This is clearly two different responses, and I'll address the second half first: we do not typically block for a mere failure to adhere to consensus. Instead, the results of such failure to adhere are often edit-warring and tendentious editing, and plain old disruption - it is these that may lead to blocks. In terms of civility, I would have to state that blocks would be based on some combination of severity and consistency. For example, a flat out racist comment (or indeed, incivility/personal attacks that meet any of the "hate crime" definitions) are typically immediate blocks. On the other hand, we have a series of escalating civility/NPA warnings. Someone who is consistently uncivil and cannot be convinced to act otherwise may unfortunately need that kind of disruption temporarily prevented. Incivility drives away editors, and honestly can make Wikipedia look bad. Editors who are uncivil need to be guided to act differently.

Question from Robofish

8. How do you feel you have changed since your last RFA?
A: If nothing else, my knowledge and understanding of WP:BLP and how closely I have monitored potential BLP violations by other editors over the last 6 months has been a huge change - what's said in a newsroom is not always worth repeating outside of that same newsroom. I am also far more willing to disengage when the situation calls for it: we have scores of admins, and thousands of good editors: if I cannot "fix" something, it may just be my style - it's never bad to back away and let someone else try.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9 Is mass linking of non spam External Links allowed and what is the policy on them ?
A: Ok, I have to admit: I love the phrase "Wikipedia is not a link farm" (from WP:SPAM). You see, I grew up in a rural setting, and I love the idea of fish farms too. Anyway, even if an external link is not specifically spam, it does not mean that it actually belongs in an article. Relevance to the article(s) in question is key: does the link really add to it? WP:NOTLINK also reminds us that Wikipedia is not simply a collection of external links: yes, reliable sourcing and WP:CITE are vital, but not to the point of mass external (and often unrelated) links. Now, let's not start on the topic as to whether someone was abusing WP:AWB in order to add those links...
Additional optional questions from Materialscientist
10. (A story based on real events) You're closing an AFD on some mathematical theory. The content looks ample, neat and well referenced to old peer-reviewed journals, all behind the paywall, and even abstracts are barely accessible. The article title doesn't show up much on Google (and in titles of the provided refs). There are 3 votes delete because of lacking notability, but the voters admit they don't understand the subject, vote because of Google hits, and can't tell whether the problem is in the wrong title or wrong content (the author is not a native speaker and might have mistranslated the terms). A message was posted at the corresponding WP project, but no help arrived. How would you close that?
A: I think that I would go with a two-pronged approach on this one: due-diligence and proceed with caution. I am not, nor can I ever be an expert at everything (there's a reason I'm in journalism and not math!). If it's 5AM on the last "day" of the AfD discussion, I might leave this one for someone who better understands the topic (heck, I might even relist it based on the amount of discussion). If by later in the day, it's still unclosed, I'm going to poke around more. What language does the original editor speak? Are there ways of looking up the original texts in that language, run it through Babelfish, then use my trusty thesaurus to try and find more appropriate English search terms to see if I can actually find more information? The short version just might be that I may not close the AfD myself - but if I have found enough additional info, I may actually vote and include my findings. (Note: I noticed that you did not specify how many Keep votes were in the AfD...if all you have specified are Delete votes, and no keepers arguments...again, possibly a reason to relist, or maybe userfy it and work with the original editor?)
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
11. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: I hate to use the word "rights" due to the legal ramifications, First Amendment and all that stuff. From that perspective Wikipedia is a private web service, and nobody has any such legal protections. That said, any editor who chooses to operate under the 5 pillars may require some protection from those who choose to not follow those procedures. We of course have an escalating series of warnings, blocks and bans to deal with such hopefully minor transgressions. However, issues such as true cases of stalking, inappropriate off-wiki contact, threats, outright racism and harassment bring additional problems that may enter into the legal realm. We have blocks specifically to deal with this kind of chilling disruption. In short, editors who are here to be productive need to be assured that they can edit productively free from actual harassment, and I will get involved at the level that the transgression requires - sometimes it's mere guidance, sometimes it's a block.
Additional, optional questions from User:IP69.226.103.13
12. You link to an essay User:Bwilkins/Essays/SMART above saying your actions should be "explainable at all times." The essay seems to be about weighing sanctions for misbehavior on wikipedia. I'm curious, though, whether you think "Specific, Measurable, Appropriate, Relevant, and Timely and Timed," or SMART, behavior might be something considered in all actions on wikipedia, not just when weighing sanctions. Maybe you could tie your answer in, if you choose to answer, with how the following statement of yours, posted a few days ago on AN/I is "appropriate" and "relevant" to the conversation at AN/I and the work of creating wikipedia.:

"Yup, if Guy put that exact message on my talkpage, I'd laugh about it. Maybe he should have used the word "fuckface" - after all, as Russell Peters says, "it cannot be an insult: it's simply the face you make when you fuck"

A: Thanks for bringing your concern into a question, and I would expect that everyone who has read the original has also read the context in which is was made. Without that context, the phrase itself as you quoted above could appear rather negative to some, but would also be easily mistaken as to its meaning and intent. The SMART essay of mine that you link to is of course specifically related to sanctions - but I see your point, and I believe the same concept of "explainable at all times" is linked to here as well. The situation at ANI (in its context) had escalated, and appeared to be finally cooling down. Although I did not agree with Guy's use of the word "fuckwit" on someone's talkpage, I specified that I would prefer that if he felt the need to call me a crude name that I would prefer to be called something that at least accidentally made me look good. I used (with the definition specifically in quotations - as it is a direct quote) a word that he could call me at will if he felt the need to vent at someone - after all, if I have that specific face, then that means I am involved in that specific activity (perhaps more often than I currently am). Thanks for bringing a little piece of my personal life onto Wikipedia!
Let's see if I got this. We're writing an encyclopedia here. There's a problem at AN/I. It's been escalating. Someone brings up that Guy called someone a fuckwit on their talk page. Guy defends it because that someone called him a vandal a couple of times. It eventually escalates into a discussion of Guy's calling someone a fuckwit, and a couple of editors express the concern that calling someone a fuckwit is never appropriate. You add a remark about your facial expressions while having intercourse. That's not what I thought the remark was, but that's your claim here. I thought it was just grossly inappropriate; you now seem to be proudly claiming it's far worse than that. So, just before your nomination for adminship you add a comment about your face during intercourse to an already heated situation that was cooling down. You want to be an administrator. We're writing an encyclopedia. How did your remark about your personal life have anything to do with what was going on at AN/I. I ask a question about what I think is an inappropriate comment by you, and you turn it into something far more inappropriate, claiming that you were discussing yourself during the act of intercourse. Was that SMART?
Why would you think it would be appropriate for the encyclopedia-writing community at wikipedia for you to bring up anything about you during intercourse, at AN/I, or at your RfA? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Again, you misread. I never discussed my private life at WP:ANI. I gave another editor - one whom I respect - the opportunity that if he felt the need to use the word "fuck" on someone's talkpage as a method of venting, then he could use mine as long as it was a nice way of using the word that would not (at least on my page) violate WP:NPA.
You specifically asked me to explain the meaning of the phrase that I used - so in the spirit of honestly I did, and therefore you cannot reasonably expect to attack me for explaining the meaning here on WP:RFA when you asked.
No, I did not ask you to explain the meaning of the phrase. I asked whether, in light of your essay SMART, you thought your post at AN/I was "appropriate" and "relevant" to the conversation at AN/I and the work of creating wikipedia.
You simply assumed I was asking what it meant, without reading what I said. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word Fuck exists on Wikipedia. We have userboxes that state "This user does not give a fuck". I am not going to use a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I can guarantee that I was not the first person to use the word "fuck" on ANI, and I certainly will not be the last, and it clearly was not being used in an unprofessional manner in this case. My role as an editor and colleague includes diffusing tension, and if necessary that means redirecting. Reading between the lines (when no such lines exist) get none of us anywhere as context is important.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bwilkins before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Edit stats posted in Talk Page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. As nominator. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. Trustworthy, has his head screwed on the right way; an excellent candidate. Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One of the strongest candidates I have ever seen. ceranthor 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strongest possible support Absolutely, he would make a great administrator. The Thing Vandalize me 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support, an excellent candidate, does excellent work at WQA and ANI. All the best, --Taelus (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Thoughtful, independent thinker. All is well here. Antandrus (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support as co-nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I know this is a cliche at RfA, but in all honesty I thought Bwilkins was an admin already. I could have sworn he was. Anyway, with no doubts I support him, he's one of the most clueful and level-headed people I see on the project (and I second Taelus's comment about WQA and ANI). -- Atama頭 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - it's way past time! Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support - was considering nominating him myself, and in fact found this RfA when starting to look through his contribs earlier today. Bwilkins puts a great deal of effort into drama reduction and problem resolution at ANI, which is where I first saw him. If existing admins did as well as he does, we'd be much better off. -- Pakaran 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No issues here.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Trustworthy with much experience. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, per my conom. Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - have seen them around a lot and they're typically clueful... Hate to use the tired old cliche but "thought they already were one". –xenotalk 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I was very impressed with how the candidate dealt with the WGB issue. In other areas, I haven't seen anything that cause me to be concerned. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I opposed last time, but have since come to regret it, and Bwilkins' answers here confirm that he has the attitude and policy knowledge required to be an admin. His answer to Q8 is exactly what I wanted to see, and matches the impression I've gained of him. Robofish (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Very impressed with this user's approach to conflict resolution. ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Impressed with the answer to my question. Spot-checking his contribs shows no issues that concern me. RayTalk 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support Good Track and Thank you for your answer to Q9 and the user has clearly overcame all issues raised during previous RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I don't think this has ever happened to me before, but I've genuinely paused for a second and gone "huh? Is this a reconfirmation RfA or what?" Balanced, sane, sound and clueful. No reservations. MLauba (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per all of the above. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A definite improvement since your last RfA (which I believe I opposed). You are a net positive to the ANI discussions you participate in and I trust your grasp of consensus in closing AfD's. Also, spot-on answer to the EL question! ThemFromSpace 01:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Trustworthy from what i've seen of him. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - thought you were..... smithers - talk 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Impressive record, happy to support. MurfleMan (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Surprised to see that BWilkins isn't an admin, but happy to support. Also, good answers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Absolutely trust Bwilkins. All the recent edits have been respectable, well-thought out, and helpful around this place. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Honestly, I already thought that you had the tools already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support with nothing else to add. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I consider him trustworthy and sensible. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Sure. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I knew Bwilkins wasn't already an administrator, but I always thought he'd do very good were he ever promoted. On a more trivial note, I have a feeling this RfA is going to have a very large number of supporters; this particular editor is one of the project's most prolific and uncontroversial non-admins. It's just a neat thing to point out. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support No issues. GlassCobra 05:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support The diff brought up in the nom pretty much demonstrates everything I appreciate in an admin. Liquidluck✽talk 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support. Bwilkins isn't an admin already? Coulda fooled me. Astoundingly levelheaded. Şłџğģő 06:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I already thought he was an admin! Genuinely surprised he isn't. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support good chance he'll be fine with the tools and a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 'Support Always visible in places of responsibility, interacting with excellence and grace. Open to innovation while honoring community standards. Proofreader77 (interact) 09:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No problems Polargeo (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support As past nominator I have supported this for quite some time. I only wish I had known early enough to nominate again. One of the few I turn to for actual answers. Padillah (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Candidate will; make a good admin. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support. Absolutely. Tan | 39 15:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Wow, I honestly thought he was. Certainly. GedUK  15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Hmmm, I remain unconvinced of the opposition below. Should be ok. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support and throw in another cliched 'You mean he's not already?!' Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support - excellent candidate, mature enough in outlook to be willing to look at his own behaviour as well as that of others should events escalate, does not feel he has a personal mission to 'clean up' or whatever (which makes quite a refreshing change from some recent candidates) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support – sensible, able, helpful and well experienced. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Bwwilkins has said his main area of activity will be in WP:ANI, and I see a lot of activity there. He knows what he's doing. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Absolutely. Bwilkins' contributions to ANI are often well considered and helpful and show a sound understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines and a willingness to assume good faith rather than just bounding an acronym around. Having a few extra buttons to push is not that big a deal and I see no reason why Bwilkins cannot be trusted with them. Speaking from my knowledge of him from ANI, I have every confidence that Bwilkins will be of even greater help there if he is able to act, rather than waiting for an admin to act on his suggestion. HJMitchell You rang? 20:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support very comfortably after the answers to questions, especially question 10. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Dedicated editor, with a good recent record - concerns raised in the previous request have not been repeated. Looks good to me. ~ mazca talk 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support the opposes are unconvincing, and largely bring up actions prior to the previous RfA. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Will make a good admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support This falls under the "always thought he was one" category. My experience with BWilkins on AN/I has always been positive. He has shown remarkable civility, patience, and good judgement. A welcome addition to the admin corps. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support My impression of Bwilkins is a solidly positive one. His efforts at defusing conflicts at WP:WQA, WP:ANI, and elsewhere are commendable. As an admin, he would surely be an asset at such boards; I expect he would be helpful with the ability to block, both in instances of disruption and in instances of username violations at WP:UAA. I normally would balk at supporting a candidate with 1375 edits to ANI, but such users are typically rubberneckers, and Bwilkins is not a rubbernecker. Kudos to him for his laudable approach to the WGB affair, and for his work on Trinidad and Tobago and related articles. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Although I disagree with the nom's hearty praise of Bwilkin's AGF willingness to handhold such a screamingly obvious troll as Hellenic Hoops Boy, whose antics may not have bust anything but certainly were a time-wasting piss-off. And such a visible example of extreme forebearance was rather timely, so it seems. But not all wrong judgments are bad ones, so give him the extras and let him get on with doing his stuff where and with whom it actually matters. Which he does admirably well. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - This candidate's patience with dispute resolution will be useful on Wikipedia. I also liked his answers to the questions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I have an overall positive impression of Bwilkins, although at this moment I can't tell what that impression is based on (wikistalk is denying me access). Regardless, adminship is appropriate because it will make his valiant efforts at WP:ANI and other venues even more effective. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - per candidate's answers to questions, attitude, experience and per my intuition - same as Orlady, I have good recollections about this user name, but don't remember from where and when. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Weak support. Reasonable participation in the areas in which he intends to work. No real concerns, even though the humor could be less acid (grammar jokes and allusions to mental illness). Pcap ping 05:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Per Ed's rationale. Please also take into account Pcap's support. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Acknowledged. Friendly riposte about grammar may be appropriate in a newsroom (and I get my share) is not always received the same here. As has been seen on other RfA's, I take mental illness seriously and will keep this in mind (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Should be fine. Tim Song (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support has clue, should be an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Opposes are rather unconvincing. Aditya Ex Machina 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support From what I've seen, candidate will make an excellent admin. —DoRD (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --NotedGrant Talk 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strongest Support, although admittedly biased. One of my favorite wikipeople, I would trust him with the tools and with the drama policing. --Smashvilletalk 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Weak support - clearly meets my standards, but I am not a fan of his sarcasm. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: Escalating in admin areas, working hard. No major objections, but minor concern about how you 'get to the point'. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Oberonfitch (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support – I'd pretty much support any candidate who puts up and tries to deal with the endless river of crap that goes on at WQA day after day. –MuZemike 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I believe he will make a great admin, and the Oppose votes haven't been able to convince me otherwise. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Still dont agree with your handling of editor Wiki Greek BasketBall, and will offer some feedback on your talk. Even so you easily seem a net positive overall, and I like how you AGF. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. What I've seen of the candidate indicates level-headedness and responsibility. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I have absolutely no concerns that Bwilkins will be anything but a fair, insightful, and helpful admin. Hand him the mop! --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support User:Mobile Suit Gundam —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  80. Support - didn't realize you weren't an admin already. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - per cliched argument above. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support All my interactions and observations of Bwilkins have been positive. By the way, I did realize you were not an admin, and am here to help rectify that. Abecedare (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Seen him around, only positive recollections. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Malinaccier (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I have trust in Bwilkins that he will do a good job. Camw (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support -SpacemanSpiff 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Wikireader41 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support: No reason to oppose. And may I say, regarding your liberal manner of expression: Honi soit qui mal y pense Booksworm Do you speak Wiki? 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, merci! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong Support: I believe he will make a great Admin, and the Oppose votes convinced me he has a sense of humour. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Seems like a good candidate...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, good work. Everyking (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Looks good enough for me. Aiken ♫ 13:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, even though the candidate can't distinguish between "diffusing" and "defusing". Ready by now, just a few rough edges. The "fuckface" comment was ill-advised though well-intentioned. Net benefit to the project, probably. --John (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I both "spread around" and "de-ignited" the issue :-) Point taken on the comment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Does a great job dealing with issues on ANI, and is a bit more independent in thought and action than the usual cookie-cutter admin candidates, which is always nice to see.Yzak Jule (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, Good candidate for the mop. Keeps a level head need more of those people Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support per UnitAnode. Nick (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strong Support; we need more users with the mop like Bwilkins! Very level-headed and a great asset to the community. Acps110 (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, looking forward to having Bwilkins on the team. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - Josette (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. I'm impressed how Bwilkins so civilly tried to handle the WGB situation. His response to question 8 also indicates to me that he will not charge blindly into battle. An administrator must often have pause, not to have to be the first one in admin guns blazing. Sometimes it's indeed best to just back away. Valley2city‽ 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - show that he's learned from past mistakes and is ready to be an admin. Dincher (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. moved from oppose support - Despite a few misgivings, I have a generally good feeling about this user and think he will make a good admin. He's responsible, civil, unlikely to delete the mainpage, break the wiki, or block Jimbo. While I feel that he has the tendency to gravitate toward politics a little more than I would like to see, I do note that he does a good job of not wading into the drama therein. That combined with his strong article contributions really tips the scales for me. I normally oppose people who spend too much time at WP:ANI or seem to enjoy participating in requests for drama too much, but despite that, there's too much to like with this candidate. Trusilver 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support —Terrence and Phillip 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Everything looks in order for now. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose WP:WQA is a bad joke, anyone involved in that nonsense shouldn't be an admin. Garibaldi Baconfat 23:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been reported to WQA for that comment. (Okay, I admit, that was a bad joke.) -- Atama頭 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Garibaldi - you're right, WQA is challenged, which is probably one of the reasons I spent months not watchlisting it. I was recently asked to step in to help with a few issues, and cleared a few things up and have stepped out again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Garibaldi Baconfat (User:RMHED) has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean this vote gets struck or removed, per this? We're done with this guy, right? Şłџğģő 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just commented it in so that it doesn't get counted. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am a bit unsettled at the candidate's past comments in BLP-related issues. See here for an example. I realise this diff was actually brought up at his last RfA and was made quite a while ago, and while I imagine the candidate would certainly do some good work with the extra buttons, I am a bit leery of the candidate's slanderous comments. Such comments, while not inserted into an article (thankfully), reflect extremely poorly on both the candidate and the project as a whole. Apologies, but I am strongly opposed to this request at this time oceeConas tá tú? 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ocee, you will note a) that was March 2009 - 10 months ago - and a lot has changed; b) User:Risker - who raised the BLP concern - and I have discussed, and clarified by knowledge of WP:BLP; and, c) I am certain that you have read this that more than covers the issue as well. Let me know if I can clarify further. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally pretty poor form to oppose someone for something that happened before their previous RFA that isn't part of a pattern of problematic behavior. Do you have any other "examples" of a newer vintage, or is this one of those "one mistake=a pattern and I will now perpetually oppose this person" things? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Candidate is being described as civil and level-headed, yet his previous RfA garnered a throng of opposes based on concerns over temperament and gross incivility. Sorry, but I cannot support. decltype (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to seem like I'm badgering opposers, but c'mon, that's pretty weak. The whole reason we even allow a person to submit a second RFA is because of the idea that they might actually have learned from their own mistakes, which is a quality we want in an admin. I was strongly opposed at my first RFA for a recent mistake I had made, and since I didn't repeat that mistake or make any other egregious errors in the intervening time, folks were willing to believe I had learned my lesson, and I only waited three months. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Decltype, could you provide some diffs showing that in the 9 months since the candidate's previous RfA, they have demonstrated ongoing temperament and gross civility problems? If you can demonstrate this, I will think about my !vote in light of those, but I didn't see any evidence of this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Beeblebrox: I think the situation was a bit different, since you were pretty much opposed based on a single diff. To me, the concerns brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins were indicative of a pattern. As for more recent diffs, I found a few comments in User talk that, while not grossly incivil, demonstrates a communication style that I would prefer not to see in an admin [1][2][3][4]. Examining his user talk contributions also revealed several declined speedy deletion nominations [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] which show that Bwilkins was at the time insufficiently familiar with WP:CSD (he has since made few nominations). I therefore remain opposed. decltype (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing those diffs, Decltype. I notice that all the declined CSDs are from last July (6 months ago) and the User talk diffs were from July or August (5-6 months ago). I note (just from messages left on User talk pages, as I can't see deleted contributions) that since then, there are these results: deleted, declined, deleted, deleted,deleted. Although I respect your opinion, Decltype, I don't feel that the problems are recent enough to warrant changing my support. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would not normally give weight to mistakes from so far back, but like I said, there's little recent activity that demonstrates the understanding I would expect. User talk contributions are normally a good indicator, as all nominations should be found there (with the exception of db-moves and self requests). But my main concern is the "behavioral" diffs, even if they are a few months old. decltype (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining your thoughts in more detail - I understand your !vote more now, thanks -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose I think he is a friendly and likable guy and net positive to Wikipedia as his contribution to Wikispaces is generally helpful. However his language sometimes losses me such as this[12][13] In my observation, he seems very generous to inappropriate languages used by people when he deals with WQA complaints, which does not look to me a good sign for "communication skills" required for admins. --Caspian blue 13:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow Caspian, thanks for adding the second link there. It's good that you showed that we had a lingustic-based misunderstanding, and that we had worked through our percieved differences through communication and moved on. I appreciate that - which is why I'm surprised to find you in the "opposed" category. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After our latest conversation[14][15], I decided to move to neutral.--Caspian blue 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: he has made some ridiculous statements in the past that tell me he should not be an admin.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 13:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose. Never. Didn't have to get very far in reviewing the editors' contributions, for which I thank Bwilkins. I also want to thank Bwilkins for letting me know what a "fuckface" is,[16] and for bringing it up at AN/I. There's so much that's unimportant and dramatic going on at AN/I, that's it's always nice to get in that extra little conversational edge on the truly important matters. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand what a joke is? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand that not all jokes should be spoken aloud in all company? He could have posted it on Guy's user talk page. He could have not posted it at all. There are always so many choices at AN/I, just shutting up being the one least taken when often the most appropriate. Calling people fuckwits, fuckfaces, and dicks is not as funny as you may think it is. Most people outgrow fart humor in PG-13 movies after a while. A lot of people voice an opinion against administrators and bureaucrats because of their technical age; I choose to voice a strong opinion against this administrator based on his joke age. See also Q 12, above. Administrators should read before they jump with glee at the opportunity to use fuck again.[17] --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think anyone who can laugh with Russell Peters should be an Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What an absolutely bizarre reason to oppose an adminship. I think his comment may have helped to further defuse the situation. Humor has the ability to do that sometimes. Administrators shouldn't feel censored, and should be able to use the word "fuck" if they feel fit. DigitalC (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I was going to leave this one alone, even though I'm not nearly so impressed with Bwilkins' work at WQA, but after this tacit support for not deleting unreferenced BLPs, I've decided to go ahead and follow my gut and oppose. UnitAnode 12:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the diff that Unitanode has included clearly does not give any type of tacit approval to keeping unref'd BLP's (it says "let's try to find a ref, if not, then let's delete"), I have asked for some clarification. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the issue that admins administer according to policy, whilst the whole community makes policy - so an editors views as to how policy should change are not relevant in RFA; I read "It takes a marginal amount of time to find a single reliable source. If you find one in Google in 2 minutes, add it. If you can't, PROD it." as support for deleting unreferenced BLPs with only two minutes salvage time and a week for others to object/rescue. OK that isn't the extreme deletionist view of speedy delete all unreferenced BLPs yesterday, but it's a very long way from "tacit support for not deleting unreferenced BLPs". Perhaps Unitode meant to oppose for "tacit support for deleting unreferenced BLPs" as that would be a more accurate summary of the candidate's position. ϢereSpielChequers 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Moving back to neutral from oppose. IP69's diff, Decltype's diffs, and the realization that BWilkins was the one who wanted to strike and remove good faith RfA !votes that he found "offensive" recently [18], combined with an unsatisfying explanation of the interaction at User:Bwilkins/WGB have pushed me to oppose. Gigs (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never in my life suggested the removal of any !vote from WP:RFA - even the very first oppose in this section from a banned user. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I totally misread that comment. Striking. Gigs (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my misinterpretation and discussion on my talk, I'm going back to neutral. Sorry to flip flop so much here. Gigs (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to talk page. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 16:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per User:Ret.Prof; I want a shrubbery. WFCforLife (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're opposing because...he has a sense of humor? This Monty Python reference needs better context. NW (Talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure the closing crat will give this due weight. As far as Monty Python goes, I consider Bwilkins to be neither the Messiah, nor a very naughty boy. On a serious note, the holy grail of RfA is to pass as many trustworthy candidates as possible, because more good admins means a more efficient wikipedia. We should never lose sight of that aim, even where we do find small or moderate faults with a candidate. WFCforLife (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be talking more about why we should promote Bwilkins, not why we shouldn't. Am I misunderstanding something? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. WFCforLife (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what are we doing in this section? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, the greatest Python bit comes from Live at the Hollywood Bowl - the Michelangelo bit. I also consider Life of Brian to be both a Christmas and an Easter film. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Massively Weak Oppose. Moved to support. I like a lot of what this user does, but he (please excuse the masculine pronoun if you are female) has a tendency to get too engrossed in politics and bureaucracy. Going through many of his posts to WP:ANI, more than a few seem to serve no purpose whatsoever other than letting the community know "Hi! I'm BWilkins and I have AN OPINION!" While I understand the need for such places as WP:ANI (despite my general disdain for it), I find WP:WQA to be a waste of time. It's rarely been anything more than a place for those with very thin skins to run to because someone was mean to them or (worse) disagrees with them. Now, while all the good things about this candidate make this probably the most apathetic oppose I've ever made, I really would like to see this candidate resist the urge to engage in Wikipolitics. If I saw even an inkling of this happening, I would definitely move across the aisle next time around. Trusilver 08:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a male, proudly, but I appreciate the inclusionary nature. As you know, ANI often includes many "opinion" situations ("I did X, please comment"; "Do you think that we should do Y"), and since I cannot often act, I make suggestions. In terms of Wikipolitics, I've often considered myself having avoided most of that stuff - the encyclepdia is the lead entity here, and "politics" itself has a low role. In terms of WQA I ask this: a forum like that needs to exist - how do we all make it better? Other than than, I'm BWilkins, and I have no additional opinions :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to support, see above. Trusilver 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose ANI is a place people should be able to ask for a serious answer when they have concerns. To make a joke about a civility issue (thus condoning the behavior) is completely inappropriate. If this thinks that it is funny to throw around terms like dick, fool, idiot, and fuckwit during a content discussion, this person clearly places no value on WP:CIVIL, on of Wikipedia's five pillars, and has no business being an administrator. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Unlike my oppose against Everyking's Rfa just now, this is a !vote that is not even close, and will only have the effect of a protest. However, I agree with those that have concerns about your judgement in the use of language and civility. I think in dealing with members of the public you have to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Joke or not, I could wish for better judgement and urge you to consider your future words with greater care when you are handed the tools today. Admins really need to lead by example, as I see it, and civility is important to many of us here when it comes to working together. Thanks for your consideration of the concerns expressed about this point, my congratulations on the trust you have earned from this community and good luck, always. Jusdafax 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral while most of what Bwilkins does is helpful, something doesn't sit quite right. There's a line between "dispute resolution work" and "participating in ongoing drama" and I'm not sure that BWilkins is always on the correct side of that line. Some specific concerns:
    • [19] - Just because WP:DICK is a valid shortcut doesn't mean you can call people dicks. This is a little more troubling because dealings with Wiki Greek were pointed to in the nomination as an example of Bwilkins' best work.
    • [20] - Edit summaries are definitely not required, and I don't like a prospective admin misrepresenting consensus like this instead of admitting that they were wrong when challenged on a supposed policy matter.
    • User:Bwilkins/WGB - I'm unsure of the purpose of this page. It reads as a long-winded attempt to defend Coffee's actions on Wiki Greek's RfA, some of which did cross the line (though not in any serious way). To be honest this page just seems like a big long essay to rub Wiki Greek's face in all the reasons why he was wrong. Misguided at best. Gigs (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, Gigs. I will try to clarify some things. As for User:Bwilkins/WGB, you can understand its purpose more if you look at older revisions of it (here is the original version, and here is the now-deleted section of WGB's talk page where Bwilkins invited WGB to be mentored). It was actually originally intended as a mentoring for WGB, to give him a place to explain what was upsetting him and discuss it with Bwilkins. Bwilkins' responses there look to me more like they're about explaining what happened in the first RfA, and from an outsiders' perspective, than about "defending" anyone's actions (in fact, I think he does acknowledge somewhere that Coffee crossed a line). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did Bwilkins call anybody a dick? Şłџğģő 22:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in the first diff that Gigs provided by then showing some rather WP:DICK-ish tendencies afterwards -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rjanag, I don't think you can call it mentoring. Bwilkins himself calls it "vetting" ([21]) of Wiki Greek's complaints, and suggests that mentoring on policy should ensue. It's pretty clear to me that it's more of a rebuttal/apologia than any serious attempt at mentoring itself. Gigs (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. In that diff, nobody called anybody anything. So to answer my question...? Şłџğģő 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent last night teaching my kids how to skate, so I apologize not addressing this earlier. If I recall correctly, WGB had launched not one but two reports at ANI against a specific editor claiming admin abuse. He was never able to clearly spell out what his actual concerns were, and as more and more people said "nothing actionable", he got more frustrated and angry. I volunteered to look at his concerns as a neutral third party. I created a separate page, and asked him to write clearly his 5 main concerns. I told him that I would investigate all of his concerns and reply, plus give him an idea of what the community would say if he decided to open an WP:RFC/U. He made his responses, I made mine as promised. The page identified is the results of that vetting process. Nothing sinister here, indeed, it's a combination mediation/problem clarification/problem resolution page. It allowed him to clearly state his issues, and hopefully avoid further issues across the board. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral move from weak oppose. From what I've experience, getting an oppose vote from unexpected person could be upsetting, but he behaved civilly, and tried to improve himself. Decltype's concerns that affected my vote are matters of some times ago, so I'm switching my vote for now. Good luck.--Caspian blue 02:14, 20 January 2010 (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/Bwilkins_2&oldid=1146517528"