Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bibliomaniac15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Bibliomaniac15

Final (79/0/1); Ended 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Bibliomaniac15, to whom I will herein refer as Bibliomaniac. That being said, Bibliomaniac created his account in September of 2005, since then, he has made a variety of contributions across a spectrum of namespaces. He does a lot of vandal-fighting work and warns the appropriately, however, that is not all that he does in the mainspace, he has significantly contributed to Komodo dragon (120 edits, for those infected with editcountitis). He is a prolific10 contributor to MOTD in which he participates virtually every day, but not only that does he do, he also is an active member in ACID, XfDs, and the reference desk. His account is currently 19 months old and, combined with the experience in the main and Wikipedia namespaces, is ready to "wield the mop with equanimity." ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: bibliomaniac15 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (My signet ring, if you will)

Things have changed so much around. I'd really like to thank Magnus animum for requesting me and writing a glowing report on my deeds, as well as Majorly and BuickCenturyDriver, who had asked me before. I've always considered myself a slow learner, but apparently, it wasn't slow enough. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: The job of an admin is to benefit the project and to help others out if they need it. I find that protection and blocking is a good way to achieve both those goals. Having monitored pages such as Hannah Montana (TV series), Miley Cyrus, Vanessa Anne Hudgens, and other pages that receive quite a large amount of puerile vandalism, I feel that I've attained a pretty good feel for what constitutes as vandalism and under what circumstances a page should be protected. Deletion also stands out as another job, but I don't want to scald myself by diving in headfirst into XFD waters. I'd like to start with speedy deletions and get a feel for using the deletion button. As for images, my experience is rudimentary (only 2 or so uploads), so I don't expect to work in that category, although I'll be there if I'm called into action. However, I also trust that experience as an admin will help me find other potential admins.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Magnus Animum mentioned, I've devoted a lot of time to Komodo Dragon, which I rigorously cited and got up to GA status. It's undergoing peer review right now (time to do a little blatant advertising, please stop by and help me improve this article) and is well underway to be an FA by my standards. I'm also pleased with my two DYK's, Golden Conure and Trachodon mummy. Finally, although this isn't in mainspace, I'm very proud for nominating User:Xiner for adminship, who passed just last month or so.
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: For a forgetful and sometimes not-too-lucid person like me, I have definitely screwed up before. The earliest conflict I can remember was back in the newbie years with User:Interrobamf in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aciedactylus mandocaris. He voted delete, and I dissented, unfortunately pointing to his past conflict to back up my statement of bad-faith nom. Mercifully, the mergeists took consensus, and I later apologized to Interrobamf [1]. I admit that I also grappled in the famed first deletion as a stereotypical, green Esperanzian and making a not-so-nice comment to the presently retired User:Elaragirl [2]. I eventually sobered up after the failed overhauls, and went on with my wiki-life. It sometimes makes me wonder what the fate of the Simple English Esperanza will be--will they learn from our mistakes and deletion, or will they succeed where we have not?
Optional question from MacGyverMagic
4. You've told us about your strengths, but I'm wondering if you can identify your weaknesses. If you gained administrator status, which tasks would you need to read up on and which would you stay away from altogether due to lack of experience in that field or something else? - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I've always considered myself as an indecisive person. I suppose that the task hardest for me would be to make a difficult block or deletion closing. I would really want to stay away from 3RR, when full-protection is a better intermediate step. As I said also, I don't expect to be working with images, but I suppose I could read up on it and perform duties there just in case someone asks me. As for templates, don't even bother. Excessive code makes my head spin. To clarify, it pretty much means anything more than a userbox. bibliomaniac15 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A question from bainer (talk)
5. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: I just knew someone would ask me this. As I said on question 4, I consider one of my faults to be that I can be indecisive and ineloquent. From my experience at looking at places where IAR has been applied, I can only say that the person has to be prepared to argue themselves out. An example where one can exercise IAR, in my opinion, is in censoring. Normally, WP:CENSOR prevents people from removing pornography or graphic images where used appropriately (tagging random talk pages would be analogous to shouting fire in a crowded theater). However, edits like Jimbo's removal of an image from Fellatio do demonstrate, however subjective, a standard where a picture is just "too much." From my thoughts, outside image has a great deal to play with this. What would the media and the general public say if people saw these images and used them for immoral purposes? It's obvious that every policy must be weighed contextually to find if this is really the best choice for the project.
If I may, I'd like to extend this question into a specific example. What would you do about the picture on Gangrene? Obviously it's a terrible condition, but when does a picture "cross the line"? Would you agree that people who insert such images in articles are merely testing WP:Censor? ALTON .ıl 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe so. In WP:NOT#CENSOR, it says that pretty much any image, provided it is relevant to the subject, not violating any policy, and not violating the law of the State of Florida, is acceptable. Also, positioning is important too. Notice how the pictures on the Gangrene article are towards the center instead of towards the top like images often are, so there's time to read the intro and notice that it's a gruesome subject. However, I do suggest, like you have in the talk page, put a disclaimer in the article. As for when a picture crosses the line, that's pretty subjective, but my thinking is that objectionable content should be more limited to drawn illustrations instead of photos. No one wants, for example, to see a real-life picture of a decapitated head, but people are better able to look at a black and white drawing of someone's severed head. bibliomaniac15 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)
6. Do you agree that biting the newcomers or anyone else, even, is a bad thing, and what would be your approarch in avoid this if you did?(Even with people who blatantly vandalise Wikipedia or troll)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A: As someone who's been vandal-fighting and welcoming newcomers before, I totally agree that biting is a very bad thing to do. The first two weeks is an integral time that will decide whether a new user will be a valuable contributor, leave in disgust, reform, or turn vandal. That is why adoption and welcoming newcomers is a good idea. To avoid biting is a different matter. I wrote an essay before on how to tell someone that something they're doing may be wrong, WP:BUTCHER, that can be applied to avoid biting. Basically cut short, be direct but not blunt when telling anyone, newcomer or tech wiz, that they may have made a mistake. When talking to newcomers, be warm and sincere, and be especially sure to watch your connotation, especially when warning trolls or vandals. Avoiding negative connotation when conversing is a good idea when it comes to that. It's a generally good idea to stick with the "subst:" messages (I personally favor the test and bv templates because I've been accustomed to them) if you would like to warn without biting. I acknowledge that vandalism and newcomer questions will be something that I'll have to face as an admin, but it is made so much easier if you just keep patient and answer warmly with a good tone. It works wonders. bibliomaniac15 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Simply south
7. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Why? Simply south 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Yes, I do. I do regret not getting Le Cygne (Saint-Saëns) up to DYK, when it had such potential. I also remember some edits that were reverted on the article Leech that I had made. My lesson was: "Don't use antiquated trivia books as sources," and that leeches do not have group sex by oozing their spermatozoons from their skin. I also had another edit reverted because I failed to provide a source for the Norman Rockwell Code in The Da Vinci Code (film). After these problematic edits, I learned to find reliable sources, and I read the policy of which I had not known before.
8. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I believe that blocking should only be considered as an extreme measure if severe disruption results. First, if they add an unsourced, questionable material, look for a possible source for it. If it can't be found, revert it (don't rollback it) and ask them to cite it. If they add it again without a citation, ask them again and ask for some discussion on the talk page. If they keep adding it, an RFC or a third opinion may be needed. Finally, if it is added again, a request for community ban may have to be endorsed to stop them. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments

You can view Bibliomaniac15's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. My "1st Support"...ever! --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per my positive encounters and constructive interactions. —210physicq (c) 03:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Nothing but good from this user; should have been promoted long ago. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - It's all good--$UIT 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support, no question. Pascal.Tesson 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Excellent candidate; very trustworthy. Xoloz 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Does great work with AID and from what I've seen will make an excellent admin. Amphy 03:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Using the word "Conure" over "Parakeet" is a big plus....Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Meets all of my criteria and then some. NeoFreak 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support because, dammit, anyone who maintains an alternate account styled as User:Grammar-check, even if such account is largely unused, absolutely rocks. That, and, you know, what everyone else said, especially relative to the overdue nature of this RfA. Joe 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I've seen this user around, and I'm surprised he's not already an admin. He has shown himself to be a competent editor and trustworthy member of the Wikipedia community, and that's good enough for me! The Transhumanist 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - everything seems to check out. No problems here :) - Alison☺ 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Good user; I have seen him around and have no concerns about promoting him. WODUP 05:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support:Oh boy, one of the people in my "people to nominate for adminship backlog", so of course I support.--Wizardman 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Sure...more than enough experience, and a good, all-around editor. Jmlk17 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I actually, thought this user was an admin already. happy to support --Selket Talk 06:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support due to excellent contributions. Seems to be generally good all around. I also support due to lack of an endorsement by a WikiProject. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - Good Contributor and well experienced :)...--Cometstyles 08:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support — excellent editor, will make a fine admin. — Feezo (Talk) 08:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Good god no! yes :), since I offered... good luck! Majorly (hot!) 08:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Strong support Good input throughout the EA debacle. Civil, polite and prolific. I endorse this candidate. – Riana ऋ 09:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - a great editor, always very thorough with his actions - he knows his stuff. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - no question at all Khukri 09:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support: As nominator (man, I was late). ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Eh? I could have sworn I had supported you for adminship about three months back! · AndonicO Talk 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - Bibliomaniac have done a lot especially in adopting new users and i am sure they would never get tired in helping w/ the admin tasks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. I have see his work, he will make a good admin. -Mschel 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support this here is a great user. He does some good work in Wikipedia and I am absolutely confident he will make an excellent admin. —Anas talk? 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - the candidate has the full support of wikiproject endorsements and is therefore entirely qualified. Addhoc 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Strong Support - Sorry I didnt see this before. Great editor, taken an interest in helping me with my History of poisons article. Good luck, and I hope you are promoted! —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong Support. I normally don't comment on votes that are going to be landslides, but this candidate's worth it; I've most noticed his excellent vandal-fighting work, as that's the project in which I am most involved -- however, I'm also very pleased with his project and namespace edits; Komodo dragon is an excellent example. Madman bum and angel 13:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Rather thought he already was one. Not perfect, and makes mistakes, but then so does everyone. Willingness to admit errors is a must, so thumbs up on that count. Seems like a user we can trust to use the mop with due care and attention. No reason as of yet given as to why not, so not-a-big-deal. Moreschi Talk 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. PeaceNT 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support I've seen him contribute at AFD. Anything else I would say has probably been said already. YechielMan 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Strong support Another one of those users who you think is already an administrator and you get a shock when you find out they're not one at all. :) Acalamari 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support; definitely looks like a good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. What Acalamari said ... I really should check the list of admins more often. :) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Why not?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Yes. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Per RfA info, Bibliomaniac15 has been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether Bibliomaniac15 is trustworthy. Also, I think Bibliomaniac15 is trustworthy. -- Jreferee 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I have seen this user in many places around Wikipedia, and I think that this user has a definate use for the tools. Captain panda 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Reliable, Responsible, Hard-working. Good luck mate, Dfrg.msc 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Trustworthy, mature and responsible. Rockpocket 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I've only ever seen positive things from this editor and I can't think of a good reason why a few extra tools wouldn't be in order. Keep up the good work! — Scientizzle 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Great guy, glad I didn't miss this RfA. Dar-Ape 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support: Plenty of experience and looks to be a very civil person. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support per above. --Shirahadasha 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support (edit conflicted) A fine candidate.--Húsönd 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support: User is consistently helpful and well versed in Wikipedia-related stuff (yeah, probably not the most eloquent way to put it). Heimstern Läufer 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support: Biblio will clearly be careful with the tools when in doubt. I do recommend him to read up on template coding. There's no need to go into parser functions, but depending on what he means by complex coding, be might need to do some reading up on template coding. - Mgm|(talk) 08:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Strong Support: Has a great variety of edits on different articles. QuasyBoy 9:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Great user. Dina 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support My mentor, who welcomed me to Wikipedia in the first place. Clio the Muse 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support For a good answer. I think you understand that biting the newcomers is not acceptable, and that you will be one of the administrators that I don't have to worry about that happing for;one of the good-faith administrators. Speaking of good, good luck!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support seen his work around the wiki. Why not promote him?Shindo9Hikaru 01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support per good answers to questions and the candidates overall record. The lack of any expressed opposition to date is noteworthy. The neutral commenter's stated rationale for "withholding support" remains completely unpersuasive to me. RfA candidates should not be placed in the middle of larger arguments about RfA reform and related issues. Newyorkbrad 03:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support John254 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 06:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support - Nothing concerns me, I believe bibliomaniac15 will make a fine administrator. I do not believe bibliomaniac15 would abuse an administrative position. Matthew 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support - got courage, seen loads of places, believe they know policy etc. Good contributor. Too late to co-nom. Simply south 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support per Newyorkbrad. Hojimachongtalk 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support Seems to be a great user; also, not even one single oppose yet! ♠Tom@sBat 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Geez, did I come upon this late. Anyway, this is a completely reliable editor whom I'd have nominated myself - had he not nominated me last month. Xiner (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support - His answers are nice, albeit interesting. ALTON .ıl 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support per nom and above. VegaDark 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Seems solid, with decent XfD and article review experience. Gimmetrow 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support seen him round, looks good. James086Talk | Email 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Running-around-with-my-pants-down support. Virtual Cowboy 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support, great contribs, positive attitude, good experience, thoughtful replies to questions... brand new mop over here, please! And dear Bibliomaniac, one of these days, I'll teach you to pronounce my name if you wish! ;) - Phaedriel - 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    Parodying songs is surprisingly hard, but I'll welcome your teaching, as long it isn't in IPA. :) bibliomaniac15 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  71. Not that you need it at this point, but support nonetheless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support with my pants on. - Richard Cavell 14:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support with my pants off. The Rambling Man 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, by now I would have bet that someone would have put "Support ... On Wheels!!" ;-) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    WP:DENY. bibliomaniac15 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with that statement, however, Willy On Wheels was blocked some time ago and has no surviving sockpuppets or impersonators (the latter were probably blocked as {{Blockedimpersonator}}). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  75. Yes I support - good steady contributor - lots of pre-admin skills.--VS talk 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  76. --dario vet (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support. Seen him around. Like what I've seen. WjBscribe 18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support alphachimp 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  79. support -- Good answer about disturbing images: placement is the trick, and selection. DGG 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Candidate has no obvious problems; support withheld pending endorsement from a WikiProject per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    How do you suggest I attain such endorsement? bibliomaniac15 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Why, by supporting Kelly Martin's campaign to change the canvassing guidelines so that this endorsement becomes possible of course. Pascal.Tesson 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Too bad Wikiproject Endorsements is "red crossed." bibliomaniac15 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Red crossed does not mean inactive. – Riana ऋ 09:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps the membership of the Disney or Nintendo project would care to do so? Of course, I'm not sure you can ask, but if they happen by and see this and then start a discussion on the WP.... --After Midnight 0001 04:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    If they come here and see this then I sure hope they have enough common sense to understand that this would be considered against our current guidelines about canvassing. They should also realize that there is considerable opposition to this sort of thing. Pascal.Tesson 04:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    I mean in the manner which was done for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer, which I don't think violated the canvass guideline. --After Midnight 0001 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Or, for that matter, those who partake frequently of ACID (amongst which group I can't, unfortunately, count myself); whilst it is neither topic-specific nor titularly a WikiProject, it is probably properly a Wikipedia maintenance WP. Of course, I agree with Pascal on this issue, but, if we are to apply the Kelly Martin test strictly, Biblio might genuinely, despite the policy's inherent unworkability, be able to pass, principally because the "membership" of ACID is so nebulous and broad as likely to comprise many editors who otherwise participate at RfA. Joe 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    I can ask some other prolific contributors (meaning anyone but myself) at MOTD and gather consensus on whether or not the WikiProject will support you. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 22:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. Kelly's entitled to her request, but I think it really seems like a possible violation of WP:CANVASS to me. bibliomaniac15 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't speak on behalf of Wikipedia:Motto of the day, but I'd like to point out that in my experience, bibliomaniac15 has been an active voter as well as nominator of mottos at WP:MOTD since the project recently took off (just scan for his name among the archives) I can't find evidence of edits to the project itself, but I do know that all of his votes came with valid reasons, and that several of his nominations have been approved. So whether WP:MOTD is a good example of a WikiProject or not, I can say that his contributions to it have had a positive influence. --Tewy 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps we (Tewy and I) should alert the other prolific contributors to MOTD and see what consensus favors per a WT:MOTD discussion. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
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.