mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bjweeks Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bjweeks

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Bjweeks 03:13, June 24, 2008

[edit]

Final (94/19/5); ended Rdsmith4 03:13, June 24, 2008 (UTC)

Bjweeks (talk · contribs) - Bjweeks is a user who I've seen around quite a lot on the image front. Let me just be blunt for a minute; we need more image administrators, and here's one that does just that. His bot, User:BJBot has done a lot on the image front to help us out there, and as far as I can tell after looking (pretty hard, may I add) through his contribs I see very little evidence of controversy. To be able to run an imagebot without controversy is great in itself. Of course, images are Bjweeks' specialty, hence why I'm making sure I harp on that subject. If you look through his contribs though, you'll see he's a civil user who knows what he's doing, and really there's no reason not to give him the tools. Of course, he also does a lot of bot-related work, such as at BRFA. I'm not a bot specialist, so I'm sure he can discuss that more if needed. Plus, he knows what he's doing at the AfD front. All in all, a great candidate. Wizardman 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept, thank you. BJTalk 01:38, 17 June 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As a member of the Bot Approvals Group I could use the admin tool the course my duties to blocking malfunctioning or unauthorized bots. I also often get request by the uploaders of images to delete images that they uploaded or undelete images so they can be brought into compliance with the NFCC. I would like to help with the image backlogs at WP:IfD and WP:PUI that often get long backlogs. If needed I would also help at the image deletion categories and article deletions (CSD/prod).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contribution is BJBot which has saved countless man hours of image review allowing the human reviewers to concentrate on images the criteria that need human review. I don't have much in the way of article writing, I do more gnome work, adding cite templates and formatting. (examples here: [1][2][3])
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 have been in a few minor content disputes in the past and resolved them quickly. There was a dispute about BJBot that I feel I could have handled better by better explaining myself and trying to understand the other users concerns.

Optional questions from weburiedoursecretsinthegarden:

4: Can you believe that you are only on your first question other than those provided?
A. I was wondering when I was going to get some questions. :)
5: On a more serious note, do you have any contributions besides those made by a bot that you are proud of? Have you addressed debates (or read them) at WP:ANI or similar noticeboards?
A. Half of my edits are to the mainspace and totally unrelated to bot work. Mostly vandalism patrol, formatting, copy editing and other small fixed. Alone I'm not proud of any one of those edits but as a whole I think I have directly improved the encyclopedia. I read ANI on almost a daily basis but I've participated on ANI only twice, both related to my bot.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Wizardman 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - yes definitely.And Wizardman had to get me into an ec « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support MBisanz talk 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good user. Malinaccier (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Y3S! Al Tally talk 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Wizardman's nomination. We need more Image admins, and BJW seems to be just the person for this. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - A specialist. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. I was surprised that this user wasn't already an admin, actually. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Like the man said, we need more image admins. Anything to stop me getting drawn into it! --Stephen 03:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support responsible bot maker, good editor. Has no malicious intent and would make a good level headed admin. --Nn123645 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absolutely trustworthy. I think BJ will make a fine admin. SQLQuery me! 04:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I am compelled by "we need more image administrators". –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. OK. Dlohcierekim 05:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As candidate has proposed a narrow use for the tools, a specialist operating in a narrow realm, I don't see the lack of experience in other areas as a problem. As the candidate proposes to use the tools in an area some of us avoid, this would certainly be a benefit to the project. There is no certainty that any of us would not run amok. Without evidence to the contrary, the most beneficial choice is to trust the candidate. Dlohcierekim 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, I see no reason to believe user would abuse or misuse the tools (and more admins in image-related areas are always needed). --Rory096 05:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per recent friendly usertalk page interaction as well as strong argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldmember. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Kind of weak in the mainspace, a majority of your last 1000 article edits were via some automated tool. I also think bots are irrelevant at RFAs. But you do have quite a bit of experience and you work with images. It's a go from me. Useight (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Given how arcane Wikipedia's image system and policies can be, another admin who knows what they're doing in that area would certainly help. ~ mazca talk 06:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. support Recongnising that there are some legitimate concerns voice in Neutral and comments above, I am also keenly aware of the need for more image working administrators. On balance "risk / reward" seems to indicate a net positive. Pedro :  Chat  07:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yay! Good BAG work + per Pedro. giggy (:O) 10:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good image and bot work, will do lots of good. Harland1 (t/c) 13:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. User in fact does not tend to run amok. ➪HiDrNick! 13:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. More admin who is skill in this area DKNY89 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Need more specialists. BlueQ99 (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Seems trustworthy and helpful. --Explodicle (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Trustable bot operator, image admins are a great plus. Rudget (logs) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Naerii - Talk 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Talented specialist admins are just as valuable as talented specialist editors. Dppowell (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A bit concerned about the allegations in the oppose, below, I'm also taking on board East718's assessment of the incident. Contribs look good to me, no reason not to trust with the buttons. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Deli nk (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I thought he was one already LegoKontribsTalkM 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Good candidate ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support however in the nom, remember we are not trying to grant admin to BJBot. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I believe that more admins in image-related areas are always needed. --Kaaveh (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Yup, knows his stuff and will certainly be a benefit. I'm not concerned that he might not use the tools as much as others, the point is that when he does use them, I'll trust him to do an effective job. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak support due to bj's lack of understanding about roche copyrights Monobi (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per Ryan Postlethwaite. Vishnava talk 22:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support with pleasure. krimpet✽ 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, per Wizardman's nomination statement; I see no problems here. Anthøny 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I think he'll be fine. So what if he's an image and bot specialist, more power to him. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support This user has the experience, and my trust. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 23:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support From his work in bots I can see he is truly devoted to improving the encyclopedia. His commitment to image issues is another plus. Chimeric Glider (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I would trust this user with the tools, and I anticipate his focus in images will make his use of the tools a great help to the encyclopedia. His botwork only increases my support. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support User has shown he will be a highly capable specialist admin. If approved, keep your focus on what you already do well and you will be just fine.--Finalnight (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Agree w/ Wizardman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - We need more image admins. He'll do fine. LaraLove|Talk 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support but on the strict understanding that this is an RFA for Bjweeks and NOT any of his bots. I would expect a second RFA if you intend to run bot jobs from a sysop account. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support The others said it best...and first. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per all of the above. As the nom said, admins with experience in this sort of thing are needed and appreciated and this user looks like they'll do a good job. Shereth 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No reason not to. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Deletion work, especially in the image arena, is an important part of maintaining Wikipedia. No problems here with user contribs or attitudes. Tan | 39 17:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I fully agree with Wizardman when he states we need more administrators who are willing to use their tools in the image department. WP:IfD has a huge backlog, and so does WP:PUI. I have faith that this user will help in these areas not only because he has stated he will, but also because he works heavily with images. This user has clearly demonstrated a need for the tools, which for me is important. Through his work tagging images for deletion he has proved himself to be pretty accurate, which shows he understands the policies he will be working with as an admin. This user not only has demonstrated a need for the tools, but he has also shown he won't misuse the tools. These two things, in the case of this user, are enough for me to support him. Some of his comments on the bot owners' noticeboard are a little rude, however, overall he has proved himself to be kind.--SJP (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per Wizardman's nomination. --John (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Given the (initial) parameters in which the tools may be used, and the candidates expertise within those areas, I have no qualms in respect of Bjweeks ability to use the tools appropriately. With regard to concerns raised in respect of off-wiki comments, I see no effect on the candidates on-wiki processes and therefore conclude that any unfortunate personal mindset will not prejudice their sysop functions (which are generally related to determining consensus and judging the application of various policies and remedies). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - he meets my standards for RfA, and I can't see the drama per opposes. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Experienced with images: Bjweeks' knowledge in that area will be an even greater asset when he is an administrator. Acalamari 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Seems fine. Opposes aren't really convincing, and we need more admins working with images. GlassCobra 00:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. IFD needs more hands. MrPrada (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, I think he'll do a fine job. Mike H. Fierce! 07:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Grapes. — CharlotteWebb 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Someone who wants to deal with image copyrights? Support. Mr.Z-man 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. There is nothing wrong with specializing, images in particular can be very complicated and I think Bjweeks can do a good job in this area. I trust this user and the opposing comments have done nothing to dissuade me. Rje (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rje, I 100% agree with you when you say "There is nothing wrong with specializing..." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with many tasks that must be done, for an example, article writing, fighting vandalism, etc. If these two tasks, and many others that I didn't name, weren't done then it would not only be impossible for us to build up a high quality encyclopedia, but it would be impossible for us to even exist. For each task to be done is a high quality manner, we must have numerous people devoted to each task. Also, some users may only really enjoy doing one task. They shouldn't have to do a task they really hate.--SJP (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. OMG I FORGOT SUPPORT...yeah these supports aren't going to get me adminship.... CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. CWii really needs to calm down support - User would be a net benefit with the tools. Soxred 93 05:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Desu. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 06:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Guy has experience Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support times sixty seven. No need to elaborate, since experience speaks for itself. -iaNLOPEZ1115 12:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Hardly matters for me that the nom plays up only the bot functions (..and the bot IS good!) and AfD participations. A look at the editor's contributions says that he is experienced and can be trusted with the tools. Prashanthns (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, meets my criteria. Good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - I always trust Wizardman to come up with good noms, and this one doesn't fail my expectations. As he says, there aren't many admins in the image category. Lradrama 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Sounds good to me.Wikimaster97 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Looks both knowledgeable and trustworthy to me. And I've witnessed mature, responsible interactions on the project space. Plus, being able to lend a hand in images is also a plus. hmwithτ 23:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Yep. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - No opposer has given a legitimate reason. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my humblest of opinions, no opposer has given a reason which satisfies my personal moral compass in order to oppose this candidate, and therefore I support. This is to be considered at most a single Wikipedian's judgement of other Wikipedians' good-faith opposes, and certainly not as a blanket rejection of the legitimacy of the opinions of other Wikipedians. This qualification shall continue in perpetuity. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked but cannot find how and why my reasons for not supporting this RfA is "illegitimate." Possibly you can quote the policy and articulate the situation to me so I can learn to do better next time. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I read your oppose carefully and I personally disagree with it. In the absence of a good enough reason to oppose, I must support. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your disagreeing does not mean that I am not allowed to voice my opinion here, so please don't say that I'm not legitimately allowed the opinion I voiced. I stand by it. It's tiresome as all get out how many Wikipedians tell others they are not allowed on the site for whatever reason. --Blechnic (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me like you're taking a general comment personally, and unless there's some history I'm not aware of - always possible - it wasn't directed at you in particular.  Frank  |  talk  22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Frank's general comment is an assertion that my reason (and everyone else's) for opposing this candidate is illegitimate. I understand that he disagrees with me, but in what way is my reason illegitimate? I generally only take part in these when I have something to say, so to tell me that what I've said lacks legitimacy doesn't make sense to me. Such an assertion needs to be supported or withdrawn. --SSBohio 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he says his saying "no opposer has given a legitimate reason," should not be taken seriously by the opposers he accused of being illegitimate. However, this is not really a Bjweeks issue, but rather a FrankTobia issue, and probably should be addressed on his talk page, rather than allowing it to consume Bjweeks' RfA. Yes, I realize that FrankTobia is saying you and I and anyone opposing doesn't have a right to do so, but it's not Bjweeks saying that, and Bjweeks is only answerable for his own actions, which is what this RfA is about:Bjweeks. And, yes, the assertion should be withdrawn, I agree with you, but please take it to Frank's talk page. I'll meet you there. --Blechnic (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just trying to assume good faith. Again, unless there's some particular past interaction between the originator and one or more of the opposers, my interpretation is that he meant "I'm not convinced by the opposes" rather than anything more complicated. Possibly I shouldn't even be involved but I just thought tempers were flaring a bit when I jumped in. As far as I know, I've not had any interaction with either the other Frank or any of the opposers below.  Frank  |  talk  01:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: I didn't (and, out of respect for both sides, won't) express an opinion on this candidate. In the future, I'll remember to !vote first, and comment after.  Frank  |  talk  01:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified (I hope). And now for some tea... -FrankTobia (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Per LessHeard vanU. Vocal opposition of WP:BADSITES is a clear indication of clue. I'm not a huge fan of image work, but willing to think critically is important. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Seems like a good guy. A little mis-guided, maybe, but still a good guy. What's that phrase people always use...? "net positive"? Yeah, that's the one.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Knows his image policy. Always a boon. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support --Chris 12:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per nom. M1N (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Godwin's support. I was on the fence about BJ until someone used the word "Nazis" in their oppose. In case people haven't noticed, thousands of things get deleted from Wikipedia every day ... and that's a very good thing. We need people to decrapify the encyclopedia and excise copyright violations to keep it from a) becoming bloated with detritus and b) facing legal charges. BJ is eager to help do the latter, and that is a good thing. - Revolving Bugbear 15:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. user:Dorftrottel  17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support →Christian.И 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Looks good enough. America69 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Reading through the oppose section, I see some stuff about ED, but that doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, it makes me want to support this user even more than I would have otherwise. We need more admins who can have a laugh and aren't liable to have these kinds of knee-jerk reactions at having some people on teh internets linking to their mistakes and laughing at the wikidrama. Celarnor Talk to me 21:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I see this user's intentions on Wikipedia great. Deleting content, he knows Wikipedia Policy. A great editor.--LAAFan 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Seems like a really strong person! Both on the inside and out! Schunska Solid (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Brand new account, first RfA edit and has been warned for vandalism. BJTalk 04:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    !vote struck, account indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong Support - Not only because I find you unbelievably qualified for adminship, but also to counteract the opposes based solely on your sense of humor. It appears that Wikipedia has become serious business. --SharkfaceT/C 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, knowledgable and helpful editor. Will not abuse the tools. Kelly hi! 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - we definitely need more admins that can help with images.   jj137 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I am not swayed by the opposers. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. --Maxim(talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support a good, well-reasoned candidate whose adminship will be a net positive to the project. The candidate's work with images will also be of benefit, as noted above. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ZOMG, I almost forgot to support![reply]
  93. --Cremepuff222 (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Appears to be a fair and dedicated editor. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Strong Oppose. I don't see where this candidate needs the admin tool just to run a bot and participate in AFD. Also, it would be nice to see more contributions from the candidate in terms of creating content rather than deleting it. We already have enough self-appointed image copyright cops armed with bots. We don't need another Betacommander running amok.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA isn't about whether a candidate needs the tools, it's about whether the community trusts the user with the tools. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, and this user has done nothing in the way of content creation to show he is worthy of that trust.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have specific concerns about candidate's knowledge of image policies that would lead you to believe would misuse/abuse the tools? Actually, we need more knowledgeable admins willing to deal with image related issues. We certainly need fewer images with questionable copyright status. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who is more interested in deleting content rather than creating or improving it should not be entrusted with the tools IMO. Also, oppose under 1FA. Let him write a featured article, on a topic other than video games, and then consider giving him a mop and bucket.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose - I cannot support someone who supports what is unquestionably external sexual harassment of Wikipedians. Any interested administrator may email me for proof, but the nature of the evidence is such that I cannot post it on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fairly serious allegation to throw around in a cryptic fashion, I expect you can tell us just about everything without directly quoting the E-mail whatever it was? With such a serious accusation, I would expect at least to hear a little more detail.... SQLQuery me! 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence in question doesn't warrant this spurious accusation, and is pretty comical coming from somebody who has engaged in rather unseemly harassment of female admins in the past. east.718 at 16:03, June 17, 2008
    The incident in my RFA #2 happened over two years ago and I've shown genuine remorse for it. Besides, just because I've done something that I've criticised something for doesn't mean my argument is invalid. Sceptre (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia IRC channel logs. Suffice it to say, he has vouched support, and even finds humorous, several pages on the internet dedicated to harassing female members of Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tuesday? 6 months ago? 3 years ago? So... What you're getting at, is that the cantidate has a poor sense of humor, that they keep off-wiki? SQLQuery me! 16:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Five months ago. And I'm pretty sure Wikipedia channel logs are actionable. But at the same time, I see no evidence of him wishing to retract his support. Sceptre (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I trusted third party chatlogs, and didn't have to pull teeth to get even basic information information on this incident, the portion I believe you're referring to (about someone or another not fitting a stereotype), doesn't seem "actionable" at all to me, nor relevant to this RFA. Honestly, I don't see that even being mildly bad. I would encourage Bj to paste the relevant portions of the logs somewhere, just so everyone can see exactly what the "problem" is. SQLQuery me! 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, he finds harassment of other Wikipedians amusing, because he thinks that the libellious statements are truthful. That, for me, is a no-brainer reason for opposing, without even getting into sexual harassment. Sceptre (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ED is a wiki that contains profiles of some Wikipedia editors, among other things. Some of these profiles "cross the line" and start including personal information, other just have an (often poor) picture and some diff links. I think that there is nothing we can do to affect ED and the WP:BADSITES drama was very silly. The paranoia that was built up against everything surrounding the site was disruptive. I'd like to clarify that I was not trying to convey that I supported ED, more that I opposed BADSITES and paranioa around any of the "bad sites" (ED, WR, et al.). Regarding the libel comment, I was trying to say that ED's profiles are so absurd that nobody takes them seriously. BJTalk 16:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did you say, and I quote, "the wikipedia section is [on ED] funny for me because so much of it is true"? Sceptre (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ED has many parody pages about our processes that often leads to (over the top) drama. Am I not allowed to find those funny? BJTalk 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "ED" stand for? –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopedia Dramatica. BJ, given the comment you made moments later, I'm not buying that you find just the parody of process funny. Sceptre (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooh, Encyclopedia Dramatica. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just explaining the joke how I saw it intended, the editor in question is the "anti-stereotype" of Wikipedia editors. I understand why you have a strong dislike for the site, you and editors you work with have been at the brunt of most of their attacks. I respect your oppose but I'm not here to argue about my sense of humour and will let it stand without further comment. BJTalk 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine there are lots of admins whose off-wiki activity I'd find weird, distasteful, or even immoral; I'm inclined to take such "evidence" under advisement and let the on-wiki actions remain the primary barometer. Dppowell (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Nom is just about a bot and per first oppose comment. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bot? (confused) Wizardman 22:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just about, apparently. Do you have stairs in your house? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey now AGF...Wizardbot is here to protect us from the terrible secrets of space!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stewie, sweety, we're not giving the tools to the bot, this is a real person. Did you get confused? ScarianCall me Pat! 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That generally happens when he tries to analyse something. Daniel (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, i'm not stupid! I mean, the version of the nom I read, it seems like they only want the tools for thier bot work. Plus, I don't think the nom is that good. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1)The nominator is not the one pursuing adminship. Wizardman is merely presenting his view of why Bjweeks would be a good admin. 2)A "not good" nom is not a reason to oppose. Judge the candidate, not the nomination. Explain why or why not Bjweeks would be a suitable administrator for the project. Enigma message 05:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose User has not done enough to prove dedication to the project/understanding of procedure. Juppiter (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How much is enough? Do you have any specific suggestions for the cantidate? SQLQuery me! 18:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While we've previously adhered (collectively) to the "not harmful = promote" paradigm, the project has grown in maturity since those days. I have been unable to locate substantial engagement with article space, and the candidate has not made a convincing argument w.r.t. How the project will benefit from their possessing a few extra buttons. - brenneman 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Brenneman. Hiding T 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose OMG! FU! Delete! -- We don't need another example of the "it's better to delete than to create" philosophy in the ranks of admins. Their overrepresentation is excessive. Candidate makes no representation about content addition or about fixing problem images instead of nuking them. --SSBohio 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, as far as I can tell, this amount of content that the candidate has contributed has been minimal. His bot certainly does some useful work, but you don't need to be an admin to run a bot. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose while I think his bot has done some good, I too am not very keen on photo nazis. Sf46 (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose to the use of "nazis" to describe image deletion workers. To compare Wikipedians to mass murderers is to trivialize mass murder. I recommend in the strongest possible terms that you (Sf46) remove that word. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose
    [4]
    I have a problem with bot owners who act as if community approval of their bots gives them the right to not notice problem interactions between the bot and human beings. Bots will never write all of Wikipedia, not an infinite number of bots, not even armed with that infinite troupe of Shakespeare writing chimpanzees. When a user, especially a new editor trying to work on an article, has a problem with a bot, go talk to them, don't dismiss them as if they're unwanted dirt compared to your bot. It just makes new editors resent coming to Wikipedia, and there is already too much for new editors to content with, without editors letting them know that human beings come in second after bots.
    [5]
    AfD has a set of guidelines for what to nominate for deletion and why. There are templates that indicate that an article needs sources--if an article is poorly sourced, apply one of these, please don't AfD it. Warren Faidley is so well known that it's hard to imagine how it could be concluded that his article should be deleted. He has books, he gets over 10,000 google hits, he has news articles, he has patents. AfDs that waste other editors' time, by requiring them to "save" an article that truly belong in an encyclopedia are inconsiderate of the contributions of other editors and the value of their time. An administrator should not have this type of inconsideration. This may be only a single instance of this, yet why couldn't you have simply looked for yourself to see if Faidley was notable? "From what the article says he might very well be notable but none of the claims are backed up by any sources." If it's not sourced, {{verify}}, under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I am tired of the bully philosophy at AfD, if you nominate an unsourced article for AfD, even if you know it's about an encyclopedic topic, you can force another editor to source it. Tag it unsourced, or source it yourself.
    I do think that administrators should have some burden and responsibility for not only knowing Wikipedia policies and guidelines but showing that they routinely follow them, not just follow them when it's to their advantage.
    Bots are not more important than human editors. A simple note discussing the issue with the editor and working to help him/her find a solution would have humanized the encounter for one Wikipedia editor. Don't nominate articles for deletion if you don't know and haven't bothered to check whether the topic is encyclopedic. Either follow the existing policies, or work to get them changed, but don't interpret them according to what you want to do or an attempt to force other editors to source articles. --Blechnic (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the AN/I thread I'd just like to say the reply was to the user calling for the bot to be blocked, others users already explained the problem to the new user. It is my duty as a bot operator to defend or fix the bot when people claim it is operating in error. BJTalk 01:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that it is the duty of every Wikipedia editor who really believes anyone can edit to see that it's more important to treat the human being as if they matter, even if you are the owner of a bot. But, that's just my opinion. However, please provide a link to this bot policy/guideline that says it is your duty to fix or defend the bot, so I can see precisely what it says for myself. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Bot policy "Good communication" and "Dealing with issues". It is said implicitly, when editors call for a block the bot operator should a) stop the bot, reply saying the bot is stopped and fix the problem before restarting it or b) explain why the bot shouldn't be blocked. BJTalk 01:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first policy is about the messages left on user pages by the bot, and the second says that the user should contact the bot owner or post on WP:AN, contrary to what you tell the irritated victim of the bot. You've blasted the newbie with Wiki alphabet soup. As an alternative, consider how User:Jaysweet attempted to communicate with the newbie.[6][7][8][9] Most of my problems on Wikipedia have been associated with people brusquely unwilling to communicate with users they considered new. This is what I see in your response to this user, dismissal. Thankfully another user did not just dismiss them. I have a problem with administrators dismissing supposedly new editors. Right now, one of your supporters has added his support on the basis that the opposes are invalid. Dismissal--it doesn't build a community or an encyclopedia, and, when it comes to bots, humans and communicating with them should come first. So what if you had to stop your bot for a while to communicate? Whether you get this adminship or not, I sincerely hope you consider taking the human path first, and reconsider whether the human was attacking your bot in a way that required you to defend it. This encyclopedia is being created by human beings, not bots. --Blechnic (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I wasn't replying to the new user, which as you pointed out Jaysweet had already explained the problem to. I was replying to Dragon695, who is not a new user and explicitly said the bot should be blocked. BJTalk 02:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've outdented beyond Dragon695's comment to make it appear specifically as if you are not addressing him. I agree with some of his comments, though, and think they needed appropriately addressed, namely the assumption of bad faith, and I remain concerned about not just the incident but your current refusal to see any harm in ignoring the human being at the receiving end of your bot's actions. This last is very bad for Wikipedia, and, imo, adding administrators with this inability to see how bots come across to editors, especially new editors, would further the bad. I think my concerns here are valid. --Blechnic (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will support BJ only because he stood up to the BADSITES crowd. Opposition to BADSITES is prima facie evidence of clue in my book. As I said above in my support, my concerns over the image work are still there. My points still stand, differentiating namespaces is fucking wankery invented by the anti-fairuse crowd to make working with fairuse harder. There are zero, I repeat, zero legal problems (even with the possiblity of userspace decoration) the more I look into this. I did, however, take the advice to not get into a ideological war on AN/I and am now working hard to remove the namespace restriction from NFCC. If your concerns are with that policy, I encourage you not to take it out on the candidate, but rather help me build a bulwark of supporters of fair-use to fight these freedom trolls (who misappropriate the word freedom, by the way). You can start by going to the NFCC talk page and help rebutt some of the wikilawyering that is going on in this on-going discussion. The more people who stop the WP:OWN problems of the NFCC guideline page, the better. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose do to lack of understanding of deletion policy, insensitivity, and lack of reason why the tools are necessary to run bots. DGG (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize the bot isn't going to have tools, right? --Nn123645 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any supporting evidence towards "do to lack of understanding of deletion policy"? Also, "does not need the tools" is an extremely weak argument... (In fact, it's an argument to avoid...) SQLQuery me! 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Sceptre and DGG. Also, I read through the incident with BJbot and I didn't like how Bjweeks handled himself in that situation. Replies such as: "k?" aren't really the best way to respond to an apparently legimate concern. Despite admitting he could've improved from it, I can't really let that go. My apologies. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, that was over three months ago, he aplogized for the way he handled it, and I think he's even learned from it, and, I hope you've seen Scepter's "evidence" as well... (Also, "Does not need the tools is an extremely weak argument...) SQLQuery me!
    I was referring to the first part of DGG's oppose. Also, I trust Will, if he had a problem with someone he wouldn't fabricate or exaggerate anything. And I still wouldn't be able to trust Bjweeks' maturity in such situations even with your assurances. It's a known tactic at RfA to admit to the times when you've been naughty with the hope that people will say: "Aww, at least they've been honest." - Thanks for trying though SQL. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Has no need of tools. Not sure he can be trust him with them. Giano (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only registered users may participate in RfAs. Please log in with your account and re-sign this statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right, but you conflicted me trying to rectify too quickly! Giano (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally read that as "EVula is too awesome." ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. You don't have to be a sysop in order to run a bot. You have to know how to talk to people and to address their concerns if you want to be an admin. There are serious doubts that the nominee possesses these qualities. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you perhaps specify why you are opposing so Bjweeks can act on some constructive criticism? Maxim(talk) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose mainly over the lack of empathy that I perceive for those attacked on ED. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose due to comprehension concerns regarding deletion policy and other issues cited above. RFerreira (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Aaron and scribe. Mainly I think you do a pretty good job on wiki, but I'd like to see additional contributions outside bot related and image. — MaggotSyn 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. No evidence of commitment to building content and no evidence the candidate possesses the necessary communication skills to resolve issues effectively. --Irpen 21:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral.I'm at a fence here. Bjbot is awesome. He is great and is up there with the top bots on Wikipedia. You are are very good with images, almost professional. But after studying your contributions I have found that you almost ignore articles. And the edits you have made to articles aren't all that. Before you can get my support, I think you should be better with editing articles. You've only had one biggish conflct but you handled that perfectly compared to me. Keep up the great work but right now I'm not ready to support you.Gears Of War 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Not sure here. On the one hand, I agree with the nominator that we could use more admins to work specifically with images and Bjweeks is certainly qualified. On the other, users who focus largely on image work without much in the way of other contributions often seem to rub people the wrong way. I worry that the lack of communication in responding to complaints about his bot in this thread bodes ill for when he has to field a lot of questions about why he has deleted various images. That said, his early work since joining BAG seems to be going well and I am aware of no complaints. WjBscribe 03:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral while the candidate has shown himself trustworthy with a tool almost as powerful as admin buttons (the bot) the failure to understand why oppose #2 saw a serious issue means I have to withhold my support. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - per the first three opposes. --Cameron (T|C) 18:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral — per WJBscribe. macytalk 18:22, 19 June 2008 (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.