www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bilby

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Riana (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 26 May 2013 (→‎Support: yep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bilby

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (53/1/1); Scheduled to end 00:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Bilby (talk · contribs) – There are people who are out there that I'm surprised are not an admin, and am more surprised are not as well-known as they are with all the work they do. Bilby is one of those people.

Bilby has been around for over six years, and has become a well-established user. He has contributed a great deal in fighting copyright, and I see him plenty at WP:CCI. He has written his fair share of articles as well, which include the GA Belldandy and AWU affair.

More recently, he has contributed to the Teahouse. Beyond that, he's a sensible user, one that I cannot see any drawbacks to giving him the admin tools. The sooner we give this guy the mop, the better. Wizardman 02:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. - Bilby (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I haven't been to RfA before, because my focus has always been on writing and referencing - I was worried that admin work would mean I would have less time to work on articles. However, I've been finding that my background means that I can help out with copyright violations, and it is an area which is both much needed and always in need of assistance. So my main area will be at CCI. That said, there are other jobs where I hope I can assist, especially in areas where a quick response is needed, so I'll turn up here and there if I can be of use.
In regard to CCI, (which I should have linked to: WP:Contributor copyright investigations), the main role for the bit is to delete unsalvageable articles that contain significant copyright violations under G12, or to delete revisions containing copyright violations where those revisions can be removed without losing other content. Once a CCI is opened the issue is simply cleaning up the articles where needed, where the first choice is to salvage content if you can, but permanently remove it if you can't. Non-admins can do a lot of this, but in the end we have to delete pages or revisions where they can't be fixed.
Just to clarify, because it was raised below, there are two stages in a CCI. The first is the investigation, when we determine if there is a problem to pursue. While I guess tools could be handy, it isn't an area with a major backlog. The second, which is where the huge backlog sits, is in cleaning up through the CCIs and articles raised on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. While the term CCI sounds like it is an investigation of the contributor, once open it is better seen as investigating and fixing the contributions, and in that process our interest is in live edits.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: A lot of what I do is off wiki, but on wiki, the article I loved working on the most was the Shrine of Remembrance. It was a long time ago, (back when it was at FAR), but it was the first time I'd really experienced how enjoyable online collaboration was, and how different it was from other collaborative work. When I talk about what I most love about Wikipedia, that experience of working with other editors on the Shrine is the one I point to.
Otherwise, again as collaborative work, I liked what we produced on Emu War. National War Memorial (South Australia) could do with a revisit and a copyedit, but I was happy that it ended up being what I think is one of the most complete sources available on the memorial. And I found Wizardman's mention of AWU affair interesting. It was a difficult topic, very politically charged with a risk of all sorts of BLP problems, but I think all of us involved should be pleased. Even though we had very different perspectives and different expectations, so that discussion was hard, we managed to produce an article under difficult circumstances that is a fair account of the issue.
Outside of writing I think I'm getting the hang of product shots, so I'm looking forward to getting my studio set up again so I can photograph what I've been collecting for articles over the last year. I've been very happy with some of the photos, especially when they've appeared in other publications as well.
To be honest, though, a couple of years back I realised that I wasn't interested in pursuing FA or GA, so after my initial flurry at trying my hand at FAR and GAN, I thought I'd be more useful making small or difficult articles work better. So a lot of what I'm probably proud of now is little jobs, where I help out with sourcing a difficult topic, write or develop a short article that warrants more effort, or tackle a particular problem to help an editor.
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: I've been here for a while, so I think it would be surprising if I hadn't - although normally the stress level is fairly low. At times I've dealt with conflicts well, at other times I haven't handled them as well as I might have liked.
I've learnt, though, to try to follow four personal guidelines when I get caught up in a conflict. The first is to remember that everyone involved is here because we wish to help develop the project. If we have a dispute, it is almost always because we differ on how to approach this, not because we differ on what we are trying to achieve. (There are always exceptions, but generally this holds). The second is to remember that I might be wrong, and that's fine. The third is to trust the community - I might disagree with the consensus, but that doesn't mean that the consensus is wrong, and if the consensus is against me then I'm probably the one who erred, even if I can't see it. And finally, I try to remember to step back and give others space. That one is hard, because as an academic (or maybe just because of the type of person I am), I tend to think that if only I can explain something better, the other person will see my point. But that is often not the case, and attempting to do so can drown out other voices. So now if I feel that I've said too much I deliberately step back to leave room for consensus to develop.
Additional question from Go Phightins!
4. A fun scenario: You have one edit left to make to Wikipedia before the ability to edit is eternally obliterated, and what readers see after your one edit is permanently etched in history. How do you use your edit?
A: With all the work I want to do here, I'm not sure I could bring it down to one edit. But I guess I'd make one of two choices. If I had enough time, the article I most wish to finish is Euthanasia, and I'd really want to make that last edit make a difference on that article. Otherwise, I think I'd want to do something innocuous, but on a topic I love, so I'd probably use it to make one last article or edit on one of the Big Things.
Additional questions from Carrite
5. Have you edited Wikipedia under any other user name or names? If so, what were these?
A: No, I've only ever used the one account. As mentioned on my user page, my wife also has an account, but she hasn't really been interested in editing, (unfortunately), and thus only ever made a few edits. We would have edited from the same IP but different machines when she did.
6. What recommendations do you have to improve the work of Contributor Copyright Investigations? Do you feel that cases are accepted there too easily? Why is the backlog growing? What can be done about it?
A: I wish I had a nice neat answer as to how we should fix the backlog. At the moment, it comes down to "need more help". If I was to suggest an approach, it would be to introduce a triage or another method of prioritising work. What I wouldn't want to see is a slash-and-burn on suspected contributions, any more than I think we can ignore known problems when they arise.
The main reason it is probably growing is a combination (I hope) of us becoming more aware of the issue, and (unfortunately) not having enough people working through cases as they arrive. Like many administrative tasks on WP, it is difficult, time consuming, can involve a lot of work for little apparent output, and it can be very frustrating to do. (I'm currently working on an off-wiki project where one of the proposed steps is to look at how the CCI and WP:CP backlogs have changed over time - I don't know if it will be of much help in fixing things, but it might do something towards answering this).
In regard to opening CCIs - the difficulty is that a CCI is only opened when there are at least five cases of clear copyright violations, so by that stage it is known that a problem exists. What isn't known is the extent, so there's a risk, as has happened, that the case is going to sit there for a long time when the majority of the edits were sound. This increases the backlog, pulls people away from potentially worse problems, and is difficult on the editor. There are times when problems can be handled without a full CCI, and I've tried that in the past. But I do think we have to look, because I think as a community we need to be proactive when we identify a risk of problems, rather than only reactive when they are raised.
Thank you for your answers. —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Northamerica1000
7. Do you have any interest in participating in other administrator-related duties on Wikipedia, such as contributing to and responding to requests at administrator noticeboards (e.g. Requests for closure, Administrators' noticeboard, etc.), applying blocks, page protection, etc. or in any other potential areas?
A: My primary focus is in assisting with copyright violations, but that's mostly because I think I can be most helpful there. I'm very happy to help out in other areas where I'm of use - I expect that I'll keep more of an eye on RFPP, if only because it is an area where responding quickly to issues is important, and I think more eyes there would help. I will certainly help out in requests for closure, because we tend to get a bit of a backlog there, although the tools aren't always needed.
Generally I believe that if you see a problem on Wikipedia that you can help with, the nature of the project means that you should at least consider stepping up. If I can do something to help, know what I'm doing, and it needs to be done, then I'll do what I can.
Additional question from Sphilbrick
8. Can you expand on your comment "A lot of what I do is off wiki,"?
A: I was VP of Wikimedia Australia for a year a while back, and I give talks to community groups about using Wikipedia. Nothing official, as it isn't connected to the WMF or WMAU, and the frequency varies a lot, but as I'm fairly open about my involvement here my name seems to crop up as a speaker for local groups. Generally I either do a 2-4 hour introduction to editing Wikipedia talk, which hits the major policies and general editing principles, or I talk about how WP works for people who aren't focused on contributing but want to know more about what it is. I'm pretty happy with the what is Wikipedia talk, but I'm currently revising the editing one, as I think I need to reduce the emphasis on details of policy and simplify it to five rules. And while it is still in early stages, I've been working with another local editor to set up a regular monthly meet-up style event with formal structure, to give new editors or people interested in editing a place to go to get started. That's only just got past the find a venue stage, though, with a long way to go.
I also do research which I hope to feed back into the project to help with discussions. Recently I've done some work studying the impact of paid editing, and I'm currently collecting data as part of a study of potential changing response times on noticeboards over a six year period, in the hope of helping with discussion later on, although the Head of School wants a publication out of it too. :) That one is where I've been focused lately, as writing the code to collect and analyze the raw data was interesting, but now I'm mostly just running it in the background as it does its job. Back when I started my doctorate I had a supervisor who insisted that all research should be aimed at improving what you're researching, so I'm hoping to start applying that here.
There are a lot of people in my position editing, and I suspect a lot of people do this sort of work on and off. But I enjoy it, especially the talks.
Additional question from DGG
8. I see that you have joined relatively few Wikipedia policy discussions. It's clear from your work that you actively support & defend WP policy, and I wouldn't question that in the least. But there are always difference in interpretation. As your main area of interest is copyright, , are there any current questions over the interpretation of them about which you have some position? (or , if you prefer, about any other aspect of WP policy, such as COI, where I see you have made some comments)?
A: Within the area of text copyright violations, I haven't felt that the policies are particularly problematic, especially as they represent a legal requirement. Fundamentally, with text we always have the option of rewriting or quoting, and that doesn't necessarily affect the quality of what we are building. In regards to implementation, the point Axl raises about the need to delete edits from history is a discussion I've had with others, and I agree that the first priority is to remove violations from the text. But, all else being equal, not having the violations in the history is better than leaving them there, so the balance concerns how much non-violating material we are willing to lose in order to clear the history. My reading of this is "not much, if any", but then much of how the editors fixing copyright violations work is based on trying to find a way to retain good content and keep editors, even if that isn't always possible.
COI is an area where I have a particular interest. But it is a messy problem - I think part of the reason why the community has had so much difficulty in formulating a stance on some issues, such as paid editing, is that it is hard to even define the nature and extent of the problem. Part of how you address messy problems is to focus on understanding their nature, so that's where some of my work has been off wiki. But to do that, I need to minimise the impact of personal bias, especially as I tend to use variations of grounded theory. Thus I've avoided forming strong opinions until I can finish looking at the data and I have something to offer. I don't know if what I can offer will help, but I figure it is worth a shot. But the COI guideline isn't one that needs much interpretation at the moment, as the "strongly discouraged" wording means that it doesn't really offer much to interpret as it seems a bit toothless. In the end, COI editing is currently presented as a problem because of other issues it creates, such as disruption and non-neutral edits, and I think we'll need to make a conscious decision as a community as to whether or not we're happy with this approach.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Exceeds the qualifications on every point. Look like an excellent candidate:reasonable, moderate and focused. Good find by the nom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Seen him around. He seems more than fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes - CCI is hugely backlogged and needs every hand it can get. — The Potato Hose 01:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as I trust nom. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  01:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support - Best candidate I have seen in a while: Wizardman is trustworthy, Bilby has the content experience, has his priorities in the right place (e.g., here to build an encyclopedia), and is willing to help in an area where help is desperately needed. Why are we still discussing this? Go Phightins! 01:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as nom. Wizardman 01:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support . Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Fine candidate working in an important area. Will be able to help out even more with the mop. Miniapolis 03:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, excellent candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. The copyvios are calling... (Admin tools are required to remove autopatrolled/reviewer from editors who are subject to a CCI). MER-C 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - CCI volunteer, who needs the tool kit for that work, if nothing else. Sufficient tenure, clean block log, etc. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support – no problems here. I thought he was an admin already. Graham87 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support of course! TCN7JM 04:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support About time.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Never came across this user. But supporting because I trust nom. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - no concerns. Stalwart111 06:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Agree --Rzuwig► 07:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Good candidate. NO concerns, as per nomination. Faizan 07:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Garion96 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Seems reasonable and trustworthy. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, do not see any problem and wants to work in one of the most understaffed areas.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No issues here. Widr (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Good --Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Solid contributor. Gobōnobō + c 12:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. An editor who really cares about the content of the encyclopedia, and does lots of great work in the very under-appreciated area of copyright? Yes please! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - 100 percent, with absolute confidence. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - he deserves the tools. sats 15:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: The editor is a good candidate who is willing to help with one of our largest backlogs! A well-rounded contrubutor. -- Dianna (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support The project will benefit significantly from this grant of tools, the editor seems level-headed, and CCI is a thankless, important task. In reviewing his contributions outside of his primary areas of interest, I saw evidence of WP:CLUE, humility, and putting the encyclopedia and consensus first. I have no concerns. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks good to me. We need more people who know what they're doing in that area. Peridon (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Joe Decker said exactly what I was going to say. --Stfg (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support A trusted, experienced user that won't mess things up. ThemFromSpace 18:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. LlamaAl (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I've been spot checking Bilby's contributions and the worst thing I found were stylistic errors, e.g., "violating" MOS:HEAD at Barry Hannah and other articles. If that's the worst thing ... Otherwise, I agee with Joe Decker's comments and would add that Bilby seems to defuse drama rather than create it, which would be welcome. Actually, he just seems genuinely nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Great work on improving article quality! —User:JennKR | ☎ 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - can't see why not. Deb (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. This is a very easy one for me. I've worked with Bilby numerous times, and I know from direct observation that this is someone with all of the right attributes for the position: intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, courteous, respectful of other editors, unlikely to overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Seems like an extremely qualified and well spoken candidate that's willing to help out in an area that needs the help. CaSJer (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support My only regret is not being higher on this list. As others have pointed out CCI is perhaps one of the most thankless jobs on Wikipedia. It is both extremely time consuming and under the radar for most editors. As one of the most backlogged areas, and even ahead of AFC, CCI also requires a tremendous understand of Wikipolicy due to the nuance in every use rationale that can come along. I have no concerns that this editor is light in other administrative areas; I've always supported the fact that we should trust editors with the tools where they need them, and to assume good faith that if they venture into other areas they will show the same responsibility they have shown up until this point. Mkdwtalk 20:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Extremely well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support experienced, well trusted user, with great communication skills, who wishes to work in an area crying out for help. Begoon talk 02:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per nom. INeverCry 05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per Tryptofish. Jusdafax 06:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support A most worthy candidate.Hughesdarren (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I trust your judgement. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I have learnt so much from this candidate, about editing on Wikipedia; without their help in steering myself in the right direction, through their 'tough love' - I probably wouldn't be where I am today. They have an impeccable reputation on the project, creating quality in articles, and an interest in WP:CCI - I'm quite confident that they'll make a wonderful Administrator. Bilby, good luck, and thank you. —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Reasoned, thoughtful, intelligent, academic, polite. Indications are that Bilby is interested in and supportive of the project as a whole, rather than just working in favoured topic areas. Seems spot on. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Adelaide cabal support. Excellent candidate. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose When I checked his contributions, I noticed a particular interest in Ugg boots. This reminded me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheepskin boots, in which the candidate seemed to prefer that we address the topic in a proprietary way, rather than a generic one. This does not seem sufficiently neutral and so I am concerned that he might use admin tools in a partisan way. It may well be that he is very sensible in other respects but as I am most familiar with that particular incident, I'll put the boot in :). Warden (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. I am unconvinced that revdeletion is an important part of dealing with copyright violations. I am surprised that Bilby hasn't mentioned inspection of deleted content, which would be a legitimate part of investigation of suspected copyright infringement. Toegther with infrequent AfD contributions (only two this year) and an absence of CSD tagging, I am reluctant to endorse use of the deletion tool. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Revdeletion is a very important part of copyright cleaning up copyright violations though. You don't want to keep the violations in the article history. To see deleted content is actually not that important, the biggest goal is to find and remove the "live" copyright violations from the article. Garion96 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For copyright issues introduced midway through the development of an article, revision deletion is the only feasible tool, there's really no other way (save Oversight, which is arguably revdel on steroids) to preserve the original contributions and attribution history. That can be painstaking work to do, and it compounds the difficulty of it when a complicated set of redactions need to be communicated to another party to manage. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Axl, I think it's more probable to assume that an editor with Bilby's experience knows all about AfD and CSD tagging (new page patrol is a thankless task) and their policies, but just donsn't want to work there. Admins can't be, and are not expected to be everywhere at once. If this was a candidacy from a user with less experience, I could understand your concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think AFD and CSD are important in the deletion process, I do not feel they are necessarily a good indication on how CCI deletions are processed. The copyvio deletion cases one faces in CSD and AFD are often either very straight forward and not complex, or we send them to CCI. That includes everything difficult such as complex plagiarism, close paraphrasing, intentional abuse of verifiable in references, synthesis, etc. CSD and AFD are often looked at as the benchmark for the deletion process but only because of sheer volume. If this candidate has shown in your evaluation an effectiveness and comfortable level of trust in CCI, we should allow them the tools to continue their work, while assuming good faith that they will continue that same level of responsibility should they venture into new areas. Mkdwtalk 21:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I am still not convinced that revdeletion is an important part of fixing copyright violation. (I have made this point before at RfA although I didn't receive this much attention over it.) To SPhilbrick (who commented on my talk page): it is irrelevant to me whether this is "established practice". And I am aware of the policy. To Garion96: at WP:CCI, I would have thought that the ability to view deleted content would help editors/admins to spot those rogue editors who put copyrighted text into multiple articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Smarter people than this potato have commented above, but: the only ways to remove copyvios from article histories are 1) Oversight, 2) Revdel. How is this not an important part of fixing copyvios? — The Potato Hose 23:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that the removal of copyright violations from article histories is important. This boils down to a difference of opinion between me and you. I am aware that article histories can be viewed by anonymous readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't take this as badgering, but I am intensely curious as to why you find it unimportant. From a legal perspective, leaving copyvios in articles is no different than leaving them in article histories, I think. And I'd guess that you don't think copyvios should be left in articles? So I struggle to understand the difference. Feel free to respond on my talkpage if you'd rather not continue the derail here. — The Potato Hose 02:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "From a legal perspective, leaving copyvios in articles is no different than leaving them in article histories, I think." I strongly disagree. Historical pages are not easily viewed, and (I would guess) rarely viewed by casual readers. Indeed they are rarely viewed by most editors. While it is plausible that a copyright owner might seek a legal injunction to remove material from an active article, it is unlikely that they would do so for a historical article because Wikipedia has clearly made an effort to remove the material from casual viewing. Indeed such a legal process would ironically lead to more viewing of the copyrighted material, not less. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for jumping in - I had decided before this started not to comment on !votes, as I don't want to badger anyone, and different time zones meant that I've missed most of this anyway. But we're in a difficult position with regard to copyright violations in history. They are technically visible, even if not readily so, and they give the mistaken impression that the text has been released under a CC license. But at the same time the first priority is and should be to remove the text from the live page. So the advice in regard to revdel and copyright violations is only to remove it if we can do so without removing viable content as well. Thus I agree with Axl that revdel isn't the first priority, and it only comes into play in a subset of articles. But there are so many copyvio cases that revdel is more useful than I'd like. - Bilby (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm afraid I land neutral as well. I think Bilby will be a fine administrator and I see nothing that would warrant an oppose. I do think you missed a perfect opportunity to deescalate the pile on commentary directed at Axl. A neutral vote should never garner this much flack and we damn well know that Axl is a clueful contributor participating in good faith. --My76Strat (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the discussion above was reasonably civil. I thought Neutral means "I haven't decided, but might go either way". It doesn't mean "I don't care", or they wouldn't have said anything. Often, discussion in the Support or Oppose sections is a bad idea but a Neutral vote is essentially asking for discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's fair. I may find my way into the support column based on your admonition.--My76Strat (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I might add, @My76Strat, although I can't speak for Bilby, during my RfA, I made it a rule never to comment on votes. If someone wanted to ask me a question, they knew how to do it. Sometimes, though, it was very hard not to comment, but I stuck to it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a valid point as well. I think Dennis was very astute in pointing out that the discussion was civil. In fairness I've stricken the part where I suggested an opportunity was missed as it appears more likely that I have erred in this regard. --My76Strat (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't meant as an admonition though, just an observation, friend to friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Occasionally, some oppose votes are beyond the pale, even deceitful, disingenuous, and even lies, so they need to be addressed by the candidate because other voters who simply pile on might believe it - especially when it comes from an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, however for the most part the user should avoid trying to defend themselves and mostly let the supporters/nominators handle it; which they generally will. I do like to see a candidate exude calm leadership to deescalate tension if it seems appropriate. But that is probably just me. And I'm not suggesting this would be one of those times. I've already said this was more of an error in my thinking. --My76Strat (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "I thought Neutral means "I haven't decided, but might go either way".... A Neutral vote is essentially asking for discussion." I disagree with both statements. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bilby&oldid=556845919"