Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Bibliomaniac15: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (talk page) (113/1/0); Scheduled to end 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I've decided to give RFB a go, partly because I'm curious to see how this will turn out, and partly because I think Wikipedia can benefit with another bureaucrat. I'm not a Dweller or a WJBscribe; I don't think I'll ever match the editing potential that these two have reached. I am simply someone who has been around for some time and observed how this encyclopedia works. So who am I? You all know me as bibliomaniac15, biblio for short. I have edited for 3 years since my first anonymous edits around May 2005, and I have served as an administrator for more than a year. I've sought to do a little of everything around here, whether it be writing an FA or helping to clear a backlog at CAT:CSD.

Since this is an RFB, I expect people will be most interested in why I am submitting this nomination, and about my experience with usernames and RFA. I have much experience with RFA, having participated on both the talk page and on candidate subpages. I have been an admin coach for more than half a year now. I am proud to have coached ten fine users, five of which have passed RFA, as well as having nominated or co-nominated eight other users. I am not ashamed of my admin coaching, rather I wear it as a badge of pride. The fact that I have helped these editors mature in their outlook on Wikipedia, that I have helped them learn new things, and that I have helped them attain the confidence they wanted to pass RFA is something that I am very proud. I expect criticism on my admin coaching, so I will make it clear that I have never taught my coachees to game the system, nor have I done so myself. On the subject of usernames, I have been active in WP:UAA ever since its inception (I happened to have been sysopped a day before the page was created). I've done some clerking around CHU, but the other clerks around there do such a good job that I don't have much to do.

Why, then, am I submitting, of all things, a self-nomination to WP:RFB? No, it has nothing to do with suicidal/masochistic feelings; rather, I feel that with only 27 active crats, only around half of whom are active in actual crat tasks, one more couldn't hurt. I also feel that the more crats we have, the more diverse views we can have in a crat chat or on the noticeboard. Lastly, I feel that I have the time and the energy to handle the extra tasks bureaucratship would give me. With these words, I humbly submit my request and hope that the community will carefully and fairly judge my contributions. bibliomaniac15 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I don't like to think in RFA passing or failing in terms of a simple percentage. Rather, I feel that RFA measures how much trust the community places in a candidate. As such, the opposition must be carefully read to find why a candidate might not be trusted to gain the tools, whether it be incivility or inexperience. Are the points that the opposition give fair? Are they grounded in past behavior for the user, or are they simply cut and pasted? Do a significant number of users echo these concerns? All these must be taken into account when analyzing an RFA for its consensus: Do a significant number of users feel that the user would or would not make an able administrator after considering opposing views? If so, that is a consensus. It is not so much as how many people supported or opposed as it is how the community feels a user would be able to act both as a technical system operator and as a role model. Do numbers factor in? They certainly do.

Lately RFA reform has been sort of a hot topic, so I'll make my position clear. I believe that RFA as a process is not doomed, although it certainly isn't perfect or even excellent. I feel that the true problem lies in actions of !voters: the nitpicking of opposers that seems to be so prevalent, as well as the hostile questioning of opposes that is just as common. I feel that before we can address the problem of RFA reform, we need to curb this tendency for Wikidrama. I'm not a Luddite, or an anti-reformist in anyway, I am simply but strongly anti-drama. I also do not believe in auto-opposing; I believe that every candidate deserves to be looked at as a whole, although there might be aspects of their behavior that affect the whole.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. There is strength in numbers. I feel that the simplest and fairest way to deal with this is to initiate discussion, in other words, a crat chat. I can see how people could try to use a crat chat to increase t3h dramaz, but I believe that the more views and input we have to close, the better. If the RFA really is getting heated even until the end, I would probably extend for 2-3 days to hopefully achieve more of a consensus. I don't really like to close anything as a "No consensus," but I always keep it in my pool of possibilities because there are those times when there truly is no real consensus. I feel that each !voter should make sure that they are not turning the RFA atmosphere hostile, but since I have seen RFAs degenerate quite a few times, I'd say that I support a crat intervention when things get really contentious and Godwin's Law-esque in the form of a polite but firm "Okay, guys, this is going too far, let's break the fight up."

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I have always remembered Essjay's words: "Everytime you click 'save this page,' be completely convinced that what you are saving will make Wikipedia a better, more friendly, and more successful project, and if what you've typed won't do that, don't click save." It is the single maxim that I edit by; if I have nothing nice or meaningful to say, I won't say it. I readily admit my mistakes, and I am willing to listen, teach, and learn from others. I hope that my contributions have evidenced these qualities.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes, I do. I already visit RFA and CHU very regularly, and while I have not had much experience with bots or programming, I hope to eventually be able to participate in BRFA.

• Optional questions from MBisanz

5. One of of the crats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the crat position should have a minimum level of activity? Would you trust a crat who hasn't looked at RFA in four years to close one?

A. I'm not one to oppose on grounds of "desire for the tools," but I think that being given the crat tools and not using them at all isn't exactly putting to good use what you've been entrusted with by the community. I don't think that crats should have their tools yanked from them just because others are taking on what they've been doing just fine. On the other hand, I think that crats ought to be fairly active in what they've been entrusted with. I'd say that the best point of action is a little nudge on the talk page, saying something like: "Hey, there's a backlog on WP:CHU and we could use some help." As for the RFA closure, it would depend on the circumstance. As long as they have fairly and impartially reviewed the consensus, then there's not much to worry about. Does it set me on edge? I admit it does if the RFA is a borderline one, especially since RFA attitudes have changed so much in the past four years.

6. Not too long ago the first Bot-RFC was filed. How do you reconcile this process with the WT:BRFA process? How would you as a crat interpret a Bot-RFC in deciding whether or not to involuntarily deflag a bot?

A. I am not an expert with bots, but according to our five pillars, Wikipedia has a code of conduct that applies everywhere. This must definitely be considered in the BRFA process, in the case of automated newbie reversion. I believe that anything that violates this must not be taken lightly and must be raised as a concern. In the case of a bot RFC, I feel that if there is a consensus that a feature is not in line with Wikipedian policy, it should be taken out, but that the bot shouldn't be deflagged unless that is its sole function. In the case of VoABot, I wouldn't deflag the bot just because it reverted newbies in a single article.

7. Currently, no editor has ever passed RfB with a % less than 85%. At the same time, four of the six Arbcommers elected in December 2007 had support %s below 80%. Do you see any potential role for crats, with their high level of community trust, in the Dispute Resolution processes? Would you accept or feel it appropriate to ask the crats as a group to assist in DR?

A. This is one of the best questions I've seen in a long time. I definitely see crats as a definite role model in the community, seeing the high standards needed to promote them. However, I don't feel that they are necessarily better than administrators in dispute resolution. A crat is simply an admin with three more functionalities that have little to do with dispute resolution, so I think that dispute resolution should focus more on admins rather than crats. I wouldn't really single out crats in particular for dispute resolution, partly because they have more on their hands to do, and partly because there are so many more admins to approach. As for Arbcom, I am willing to vouch that if all the crats ran for Arbcom, a good deal of them would have support below 80% because the standards are just so high and because crat jobs are so different from dispute resolution. Currently, we only have Deskana and UninvitedCompany who are both crats and arbitrators.

• Optional questions from Giggy

8. "while I have not had much experience with bots or programming, I hope to eventually be able to participate in BRFA." (you, Q3) Somewhat of an odd response, IMO. Describe in your own words what 'crats do in relation to bots. —Giggy 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. I can see why you would find that response odd. Before I was an admin, I looked at that shithole that was fair use tagging (no offense to those who work in this field) and I thought no sirree. Eventually, though, I opened up, read the policies thoroughly, and started speedy deleting images. As I understand it, the bot requests are first looked over by the BAG, then given a test run. If all goes well, it is approved and a crat comes over to flag it.

Optional question from CharlotteWebb

9. Please rank the following types of support/oppose comments according to the amount of weight you would give them, assuming that they each have basis in fact. You may list some of them as being tied, i.e. having the same amount of weight, or omit any of them from the list.

A. Arguments based on a candidate's age

I'm not too fond of this argument, but I can definitely see the point that proponents of this drive at. I think that users should be analyzed regardless of their age and instead looked at in terms of their ability and maturity. I would consider this but not give it a lot of weight.

B. Arguments based on a candidate's "edit count"

From my experience, it takes about 2000-2500 edits for a user to realize what Wikipedia's all about. Some people learn faster than others, but I wouldn't want to supporting someone with less than a thousand edits. I'd give this a fair amount of weight.

C. Arguments based on the namespace distribution of a candidate's edits

We all have different strengths. Some are prose masters while others are good at finding and bringing to attention material that should be deleted. Unless there truly is a disproportionately large or small number of edits in a single namespace, I'm not likely to consider this much. MediaWiki edit count opposes will of course be thrown out. :)

D. Arguments based on a candidate being self-nominated

No weight. Unless there is proof that the user in question is power hungry, we will assume good faith and assume that they are being bold, not power hungry.

E. Arguments related in any way, shape, or form to "cool-down blocks"

If you have been involved with dispute resolution, you would probably know that cool-down blocks are a fine way to the depths of hell. I would give this no weight.

F. Arguments based on private checkuser data

This is a land mine over here. Checkuser isn't for fishing, so there is no reason to checkuser an admin candidate per AGF. On the other hand, if evidence came out that a candidate was using a TOR node, I would say that it is grounds for opposal. Let's hope that this debacle doesn't repeat itself.

Eh? Why is using Tor a grounds for opposition? —Giggy 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that things have changed on WP:NOP since I last read it. It changed to say that established users can edit from open proxies until they are blocked, rather than an outright "no editing from open proxies at all." I believe, though, that the practice is dangerous because of its potential for abuse and insecurity. Now that I realize the policy has been changed, I think I would be giving this argument less weight. Still, an admin should value security as one of their top priorities and I don't think that editing on an open proxy when more secure alternatives are available is in the best interests of the user and of the encyclopedia.

G. Arguments related to "featured"/"good" content

High. There is really no substitute for article writing. I also highly value vandal fighting, though, so if it's like a Huggle-robot protest, I wouldn't give such an argument much weight.

H. Arguments based on a candidate's use of edit summaries

I can see how this might be a concern, but it's not particularly major. Unless they use no edit summaries whatsoever, I wouldn't give this much weight.

I. Arguments based on the number of previous nominations

Unless the nomination is less than two to three months after the last nom, I would give not very much weight to this.

J. Arguments based on a candidate's areas of interest

Very little weight. One cannot dictate who is to work where, that is firmly within the interests of the user themselves. As long as the user is not a SPA, this argument is not particularly constructive.

K. Arguments based on a candidate's spelling, grammar, or overall level of English fluency

I would give a fair amount of weight. Everyone makes typos, but if a user is not particularly fluent and might have trouble communicating their point, I can see how that would be a problem.

L. Arguments based on conflicting Wikipedia philosophies

Unless there is clear evidence that the user might use the tools to push a certain philosophy (e.g. inclusionism, deletionism), I am unlikely to give this much weight.

M. Arguments based on what so-and-so had for breakfast

I hope no one opposes me on the grounds that I had wifecakes for breakfast.

N. Arguments based on the likelihood of the candidate misusing the tools

High. All valid arguments against a user are based on this cardinal rule. A good oppose addresses why a candidate might not be trusted with the tools, not because they do not fulfill certain arbitrary criteria.

O. Arguments containing no actual argument at all

This argument has no answer, and no weight.

P. At least one other type of argument not listed above (your choice)

I find that opposition over desire for the tools is rather arbitrary. Who governs the line between "wants the tools too much" and "doesn't have enough desire for the tools"? If a user states that their desire is to fix articles rather than to actively participate in admin affairs, that is their call. Unless it's like the crat who came and never returned, I don't see how not giving an able user the tools is constructive to the encyclopedia at all.

— CharlotteWebb 02:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Arguments in RFA will heavily depend on the context of which the opposition is in. I don't feel that there is a special "priority list" of what gets more weight and what doesn't; I don't feel that this is exactly a rankable thing. Rather, I see what the argument is saying first. If it is something that would definitely cast doubt on one's ability to carry out admin duties, I give it more weight. If it just ends up being a "just because" oppose, I give it less to no weight. Since you've listed practically every argument, I've commented under each letter my thoughts on the argument. bibliomaniac15 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I'm probably not even scratching the surface. I added the last one "your choice" so for the next would-be bureaucrat to answer. This way the list will continue to grow. — CharlotteWebb 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I balked at first when I saw how big the list was, but now I feel sorry for the poor bugger who has to answer these in RFBs after. :) I agree that there's more arguments to go over; I just don't want to spend too much time on a single question when there are others to be answered. bibliomaniac15 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional question from Apoc2400

10. Is there any case where you would not flag a bot that has been approved by the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group, or de-flag a bot except on their request?

A. I do not think that I have the experience or the expertise with bots to do so without their request. If I have a doubt, I would certainly voice it and discuss with them, but I don't want to vigilante with bots and have the whole BAG on my case. Discussion first is the key.

• Questions from east718

11. You didn't think you'd get away without having to answer a Danny question, did you? Please explain how you would have closed this RFA at this point - and no, you're not allowed to answer "extension" or "'crat chat."

A. I certainly didn't, and I hope an RFA of this magnitude never, ever happens again, for the sake of this drama-wracked community. I still would have extended the closing date by a day or two, but eventually it must be closed, so here goes. I would close as a no consensus. The levels of support and opposition varied so greatly in this RFA from Uber-support to Uber-oppose that there was no clear consensus to promote or not to promote. Instead, we ended up having a jumble of people who supported, people who opposed, people who couldn't decide (that was me), and people who were just there for drama's sake. I do not call that a consensus, and I cannot with any good conscience apply IAR to such an RFA and go the Danny route (I wouldn't have promoted Danny either if I could then). Do I feel Giggy would make a capable admin? Yes, I do. But if I were a crat looking over the discussion, I would not promote, because that was not what the community decided (if the discussion did decide anything in the first place).

12. Let's say you're the poor sap who ends up promoting the next Archtransit and realized this was a mistake as soon as they flew off the rails. Would you make any attempt to correct the problem yourself? I am aware that this is currently beyond the scope of the b'crat position, but what are your thoughts on this possibly changing?

A. Everyone seems to point out Archtransit in their "Woe is RFA" speeches, but he's an anomaly. Something like this was bound to happen, where a vandal plays with the system to get the tools. I feel that the fact that we basically forced him write articles to get there to a first place is a testament to our standards. Now to the question. If I realized that someone I promoted was starting something fishy, I would first talk with them. If they became evasive or hostile, I would probably move to a discussion on WP:ANI. The chances are, though, that I wouldn't come to this realization first. All this would happen under my power as an editor, not a crat. The crat is not a dispute resolver or a mediator or an arbitrator; unless the duty comes to me by my own will, I wouldn't use my standing as a crat to try to act as a judge. That is the most important thing to understand. I would take an active role because it is my duty as a Wikipedian, not a crat.

• Optional question from Whipmaster

13. Do you think that before nominating an article for AfD, you should know enough about the subject area to form your own opinion about its notability?

A. I believe it depends on the subject area. For pop culture, I think that knowledge in notability is enough, rather than knowledge in a genre of music or fiction. For articles that smack of pseudoscience or "academics" (notice the quotes) though, I would prefer someone with knowledge in that particular area to analyze it for original research or nonnotability or fakery first before nominating.

• Additional questions from Nichalp

14' Could you go through the CHU archives over the past three months and let me know which is the best CHU decision made and your reasons why. Also, mention a CHU where you think you might have handled it differently and why.

I honestly don't see any truly exceptional CHU decisions. The question is akin to asking for the best RFPP decision within the past month; neither of them are particularly controversial or trying like RFA or AFD. I imagine I'll get some flak for this, but I really couldn't find anything particularly outstanding. However, for Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive49#MartinBosley → InfernoSonic, I would have questioned the user first before renaming. First of all, the user's reason looked like they just wanted to retire instead of having actually having much use for renaming. Secondly, on May 14th the user had changed from InfernoSonic to MartinBosley. In effect, they were switching back and forth, with little reason to do so. Therefore, I would have asked the user to clarify the past incidents and why they were renaming again when a retirement tag would do better.

15 How do you plan to tackle renames where one editor from another encyclopedia has requested an usurp to implement a SUL, but the en account exists. The en account was created in 2003, has made about 100 GFDL-significant edits, and but is inactive for a year.

A: If the en account has 100 GFDL significant edits to mainspace, then usurpation cannot be done without violating the GFDL. I would first leave a note on the target user's talk page and e-mail them if it was given in hopes of getting the user back to give their consent for usurpation. Otherwise, I would have to decline it, because the GFDL and attribution come first in the encyclopedia.

• Optional question from Keepscases

16. Do you believe that "QuestionTheHolocaust" is an appropriate username? Why or why not?

A: No, I do not. I believe that it is potentially disruptive and that it will cause strife with other editors. In other words, having a username like that would be more trouble than it is worth. It would be most likely that such a user would be an SPA, but if they are actually contributive, I would strongly suggest them get another name for the sake of harmonious editing. After all, there are some particularly fine examples of names here that are ripe for the taking.

• Questions from Chris

17. When would you be willing to flag an admin bot without an RFA? What would you like to see before you flag it?

A: The RFA system was tailored specially for human editors, not automated processes, and a look at old bot requests for adminship clearly demonstrates this. I do not believe that an admin bot should undergo RFA unless the task it does is of the magnitude that it would need much more consensus than just the BAG. I believe that BRFA does the job well enough, but I would like to see approval from more than one BAG member to make sure there is a consensus to flag and to give sysop tools. It is not stated in the proposed policy, but that's what I'd like to see.

18. What do you think of the BRFA/BAG approval system? Do you think it could be improved? How?

A: As I've mentioned, I think that BRFA does the job well, and that the BAG does an adequate job making sure bots stay up to guidelines. I think it could do better with added participation from the rest of the community though. Doing this could be as simple as a heads-up on WT:RFA, saying "We've got an admin bot request here, you guys might want to take a look at it." I think one of the reason bot operators often get an overly large amount of stress placed on them is because the community tends to regard automated editing with a leery eye. As a result, discussion on bots run amok tends to explode on ANI, and bot ops tend to stay away from these noticeboards. If both sides can open up, I think that we can avoid some of the snags we've come across in the past.

• Question from VasileGaburici

19. Do you think that an admin's real-life persona has any significance on their RfA? If a candidate chooses to participate to Wikipedia under a seemingly real name, would you do anything differently? If so, what steps would you take?

A: One of the reasons we get accounts is for anonymity. Therefore, if someone chooses to use their real name instead of an alias as their username, it's their choice. They must realize the possibilities of identity theft, and if they do reveal private information, I hope they keep their information truthful so that we can avoid something like the Essjay controversy. Unless the RFA candidate in question is a celebrity or something where the media are sure to comment on it, I do not think an admin candidate's real-life persona has much significance on the outcome of an RFA. (If they are in fact a celebrity, it would not affect my view of the consensus, it would just make me more careful about explaining my rationale for the closure, just like blocking a sensitive IP address). If there's evidence that they did something in real life to canvass though, that may be another possible scenario where it would affect their RFA. Again, it depends on the circumstances. If you were looking for age comments, read question 9A for more details. Generally though, I think that real-life personas have little to do with their RFAs.

• Questions from Tim Smith

20a. As an administrator, you are to be commended for making yourself open to recall. If promoted, would you join Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats open to recall?

A: I would join the category; I am open to being recalled by the community and affirm accountability over all actions under my control. After all, recalling admins or (hopefully this will never happen) crats should be a given right to the community. My preference for recall method is an RFC examining my behavior. However, I am ashamed that recall is not a universal process. The reason we are having so much drama with recall is because the recall process is not stable; there is no set criteria for all to follow, not just for admins or crats in the category, but all of them. Different admins also have different criteria, which adds to the confusion/drama. I think that the category implies that anyone who isn't in it isn't accountable for what they do and are resistant to getting their mop taken from them. Nevertheless, while this option exists, I will take it; as it is the best going at the moment.

20b. As a bureaucrat, would you close or participate in closing a discussion in which you had commented?

A: I would not close an RFA in which I am a nominator or a !voter. That is common sense, really. If I commented on the discussion section or on a support/oppose/neutral, though, I think I can close without any conflict of interest. Basically, if I feel that the discussion will give me a possible conflict of interest, I will not close it and leave it to another crat to close.

• See Bibliomaniac15's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Bibliomaniac15: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

• I'm bemused by the habit of asking questions that seem designed to force a bureaucrat candidate into making a statement likely to be unpopular with a significant proportion of the community. East718's question 11 is one of the most extreme examples I have seen. By ruling out two perfectly sensible options - "extending" and "bureaucrat discussion", he forces Bibliomaniac to choose either successful or unsuccessful on a particularly controversial RfA. Either option risks displeasing enough people to make his RfB unsuccessful. I have to advise him not to answer a question that is phrased in such a manner. In my opinion, if the RfA was due to have closed at that moment, an extension would have been needed. That should be the approach where a new piece of information comes to light at the last minute which has yet to be considered by earlier participants. To close it at that stage means a bureaucrat determining the weight of this new evidence and it's likely effect on consensus, rather than keeping the decision on the merits of the candidate with the community. WJBscribe (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's irrational to proffer a difficult and divisive question towards a 'crat candidate. During his duties, biblio will have to dispense deliberate, operose judgments in potentially acrimonious situations; if he cannot even do so here, how can I expect him to do it on real RFAs? Hobson's choice is no choice at all here because I personally don't care how he chooses, as long as his decision is something a reasonable person would find just and sensible - I prefer the "reasonable person" test because my own judgment is admittedly colored. Whether or not the community at large can examine a hypothetical question through the same lens is a discussion for somewhere else. My hopes remain high though. east718 // talk // email // 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Dweller's good answers to my rather difficult question at Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Dweller#Questions_for_the_candidate kept me from opposing him and didn't hurt his outcome in any fashion I could imagine. He even indicated they helped him at my talk page User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_3#Hey_there. I would say though that dredging up the answer to a question at an RfB at a future close RfA would be poor form (although I don't think that has ever been done). MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there should be some record of Rudget's original oppose, I don't like deleting the thread, even if he changes his position.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - I don't see any problems here. Bibliomaniac has been a great administrator, and I'm sure he'll be able to help Wikipedia further as a bureaucrat. He can certainly accomplish the duties as one. Good luck, RyRy (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - I agree, we need more active crats, and Biblio can fulfill the role with aplomb. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Being one of Biblio's coachees, I assure you that his admin coaching process is very effected. With my admin coaching, I learned a lot from Biblio. He is a fantastic editor and would do the community proud. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I no longer share the view by Wisdom89 that we need more active crats (sorry buddy!) - the current ones seem to be doing a good job and the backlogs are next to nothing. That said, a few extra hands don't hurt do they? Bibliomaniac is a fantastic contributor, and has undertaken great work at RFA and CHU (not to mention numerous contributions at UAA) - his experience there shows he has the right attitude for a potential bureaucrat. He's a jolly nice chap as well, and makes careful considerations before commenting in these areas. More than anything, I trust Biblio 100%. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Regardless of whether or not there is a current need for more bureaucrats, Bibliomaniac15 is an exemplary administrator. No reason not to support. Valtoras (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Beat the nom- oh, wait-Support exceedingly humble, courteous, an all-around great editor and admin, and on top of it all is active at RfA and ChU. I'd definitely give this user the 'crat bit, as it would help him take his Wiki-awesomeness to the next level. Cheers, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support – Nothing you've done would make me hesitant to trust you, says the one who nominated you for adminship. —Animum (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - We do need more bureaucrats and Biblio is an excellent candidate for the extra bit. —Travis^talk 01:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Absolutely - If there is one wikipedian I trust ot be a crat, it's biblio. Xclamation point 01:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support; can only recall ever seeing good things from Bibliomaniac, and his answers to the questions make me confident that he would be a trustworthy bureaucrat. -- Natalya 02:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. For those who are not familiar with the candidate, a good read through his nominating statement should show that he is a discerning and thorough administrator who would do well as a Bureaucrat. His taste in candidates for adminship is also above reproach. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. I strongly support this nomination: I've known of Bibliomaniac15 since nearly my entire time here, and he has always been sensible, experienced, knowledgeable, kind, and generally good to interact with. He is definitely someone who can be looked up to. I trust Bibliomaniac15, and I think that he will make an excellent bureaucrat. Acalamari 02:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I have had only positive interactions with Bibliomaniac and nothing that would lead me to question his/her judgement. Therefore, no reason not to support. TravellingCari 02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support I really really like his answers to my questions, very well thought out. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support If y'all had decided to run earlier, I wouldn't have had to be publicly excoriated on multiple occasions . Good luck! -- Avi (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Safety in numbers, huh? :) bibliomaniac15 04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, now my flaws would likely show up in even starker relief compared to y'all -- Avi (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No need to bash yourself, Avi. As they say, third time's the charm! :) bibliomaniac15 04:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I forgot my standard response: trust, judgment, blah, blah, blah -- Avi (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support I trust this user's judgement. He'll be a fine crat. GlassCobra 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support no problems here --Stephen 05:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Good answers to the questions and good contributions. Does a great job as an admin and will probably do as well as a crat. And, even if that's in no way a reason for this support, we do need more crats, as we need more admins. And I am glad we have such good candidates for that :-) SoWhy 06:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - a trustworthy and active admin, should make an excellent bureaucrat. Warofdreams talk 09:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strong Support - I have never known Bibliomaniac to be anything but fair in all of his dealings with myself and other editors. I think it would be a wonderful addition to have him as a bureaucrat! He has never misused any of his administrative powers for his own gain and I feel he would be a fair candidate that would work on behalf of other editors. Therefore, he has my strong support! Canyouhearmenow 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong Support, a true asset to the project, Biblio has always shown impeccable judgement before and I don't see any reason why he wouldn't continue to do so if we gave him the bureaucrat tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
22. Support This user strode a long path. He's ready for the crat tools. Húsönd 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Is trusted, has clue, has good judgement and is thoughtful. Will be a good bureaucrat. Anthøny ✉ 16:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support My word, yes. I have never seen Biblio make a bad decision or be anything other than civil on WP. Adherence to the core principles of WP appear central to his actions here. Pigman☿ 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Certainly. A decent civil guy who has good judgment and a good understanding of "being sensible". Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Has demonstrated experience and trust to the community. Deli nk (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Weather we need crats or not should be irrelevant in view of the obvious qualification and trust shown by the community. Agathoclea (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong support. A user and an experienced admin coach I would definitely trust with the tools. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strong Support. A great RfA contributor, and my former admin coach. Good luck biblio! Malinaccier (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Working with Biblio on the Qin article was a very pleasant experience (though unfortunately I've postponed that project due to time restrictions); I trust his judgement. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and because Mariss Jansons is one of his favourite conductors. ;) Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh...thankfully I SUL'd my Youtube account as well... bibliomaniac15 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33. Support rootology (C)(T) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - great admin, I see no issues or concerns. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. I don't see any issues here - I don't see a problem with supporting most people, or offering helpful neutral advice. If anything, we should be following his example. If you think they're good, you think they're good. Biblio's entitled to his opinion, and I believe he can close an RfA without his opinion affecting it. Majorly ^talk 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support (See talkpage, east can't load this page on his phone, added by Maxim) east718 // talk // email // 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
37. Support, per above. Maxim (☎) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. An excellent admin. Besides, with all the crat noms lately, why not? --Lord₪Sunday 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - I think he would do a good job.   jj137 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Track record appears to be very good.--MONGO 03:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Weak Support per my guideline on how I vote when I don't fully vet the candidates. Nah, I have a very positive impression of him that I don't need to do any more research. I think he will do fine as a crat. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support of course. - Icewedge (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Epbr123 (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, one of the most trustable, best-behaved and effective admins around.  Marlith (Talk)  04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong support Bibliomaniac15 is an excellent admin and I trust him. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - a prime candidate for bureaucratship. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - The candidate's responses to the various questions are strongly encouraging, particularly the breakdown of how they would weigh various arguments. No heasitation here. Gazimoff 09:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support has clue. Horologium (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support, need more bureaucrats. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support per answer to my question (#13).--Whipmaster (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Hell yes —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support, no reason not to. An excellent editor and administrator. Neıl ☄ 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support I think this candidate is well suited for the position of a bureaucratship for many reason not the least of which is that he has earned and, so far, kept the community's trust. Good luck. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. A very level-headed editor and admin. The answers to the questions are very good, I have every confidence that Bibliomaniac15 will be a fine bureaucrat. Rje (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. I disagree with much of it but I'm pleasantly surprised by the amount of effort the candidate put into answering my question (one which others might consider too absurd to take seriously). On the other hand I'm not aware of anyone other than Ed Poor abusing bureaucrat-specific tools, ergo weak guinea-pig support. — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Dlohcierekim 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Keepscases (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support would make a fine 'crat —— RyanLupin • (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support -- Per RyanLupin. Best of luck! :) --Cameron* 15:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Balanced, thoughtful candidate, with no alarm bells. --Rodhullandemu 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support, looks good, trusted editor, excellent admin. Will serve the community well with the extras. Keeper ǀ 76 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support for a trusted, helpful admin. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - Trusted administrator with the right amount of experience and helpfulness for bureaucratship. The answers to the questions and opening statement are also very strong. I see no reason not to support. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support I am satisfied that this user would be fair based on the answers to CW's questions. Further, this editor has done yeomen's work in the area of WP:RSN and similar areas, which are often contentious and require the kind of judgement that a 'crat would need. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. We could always use more 'crats, and BM15 is a good candidate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support, looks quite level headed from his answers to the questions. krimpet✽ 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Will benefit from the tools. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Not really sure we want Bibliomaniac to spend time on bcrat work but he's certainly competent. It's not clear that we currently need more crats but I'd rather appoint good people whenever they want the job than appoint so-so candidates in time of need. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Very well-considered answers. Given the number of tedious "optional" questions, I'm surprised that anyone would voluntarily undergo RFB. Axl (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. support The opposes are very uncompelling. The notion that we don't need more crats therefore we shouldn't give another the crat tools is a bit hard for me to understand. His answers to the questions and his general work make me confident that he will do a good job. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - per the answers to the questions, Bibliomaniac15 is ready for the bureaucrat flag ;-). Macy 22:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, the issues I had with Dweller aren't evident here, and I trust this user's judgment. Wizardman 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support In the absence of any significant issues and in the presence of clear evidence of necessary experience, I support. Steven Walling (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support I that Bibliomaniac would have no problem handling the extra responsibilities and trust that come with being a 'crat. All the Best and Good Luck, --Mifter (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support question 9. Protonk (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. I find the arguments presented by the opposition to be rather lame. Therefore, I must support. Justice America/(5:15) 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Biblio's a great admin; we need someone like him as a 'crat. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support --Chris 09:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. I was particularly impressed how you answered 1, 12, and 13. VasileGaburici (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support per answers to Q9. --Kbdank71 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support I trust Biblio as a bureaucrat. Cenarium ^Talk 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Hell, yeah! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. The candidate has been a better-than-average admin and great editor. Biblio has made good suggestions at RfA talk, demonstrating a solid comprehension of the RfA process. Majoreditor (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Strong Support - We need more active crats and I trust you man ! I have always watched his activities in WP with admiration...Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Why not? Hiding T 09:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Disagree with his stance on open proxies but I trust his judgement, in general. —Giggy 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think someone's vote should be affected by technical issues often out of their scope of knowledge, as is often the case when someone goes "zomg Tor". IMO you've done the above. That's OK. Hopefully you learn from it.[reply]

    I most certainly have. Thanks for alerting me to the change. I admit I am a bit leery about TOR editing, but I don't condone condemn it if people use it constructively and/or when they can't use a non-tor network otherwise (e.g. Mainland Chinese editors). Thanks also for reminding me to purge my mental cache when it comes to these policies and guidelines. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you mean condemn :) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

87. Hello, I have a date tonight with Tila Tequila and I need a penicillin shot...oh, wrong queue. Support Ecoleetage (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support; when I see a candidate this good here, it reminds me to check RFA/RFB more often. Good work in lots of areas; I trust his judgment; I see no problem in promoting him to bureaucrat. Antandrus (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - Complete confidence. KnightLago (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Great user and admin, has my complete trust. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Thought I had already. NO reservation at all about the user's qualifications. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Trustworthy pilot. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. I could pick a bone or two with some of the answers to the Qs, but overall an excellent admin record, excellent mainspace contribution record and very solid judgement. Plus I do think that we need more crats. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Great answers to Q9. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

95. Support. I'm not persuaded by the "we don't need any more bureaucrats" argument. We don't need any more administrators either. Bibliomaniac15 is trustworthy, which should be the only criterion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support (Damn, Tangobot doesn't do RfBs... almost missed it.) Trustworthy admin, would benefit from the tools. LittleMountain5 ^review! 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. competent and can be trusted, More crats means more of a cushion and more folks can diversify and write as well as bureaucratize. all good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hooray for anthimeria! bibliomaniac15 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

98. Support Fantastic editor.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. Yes, I trust Bibliomaniac. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support See nothing to make me believe Bibliomaniac will not make a good crat. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support A very good admin coach and would make a very good bureaucrat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102. Conditional support - If this very trustworthy and respectable admin puts the green 1 back in his sig, then he has my full support. ;) Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Actually, the '5' was the green one, not the '1', for a good reason. E is the fifth letter of the alphabet. Okay, maybe not THAT good of a reason. :) bibliomaniac15 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

103. Support. Synergy 14:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support: Sound judgment, excellent answers to RfB questions, and perhaps the most convincing self-nom I've ever seen (for anything). Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support no problems, answers to Q9 demonstrate good judgement. Hut 8.5 16:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support this candidate. I was impressed by his answers. Andre (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support My experiences with this user have always been positive. Spencer^T♦C 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Beyond Support—deserves it and has a good sense of humour. As well as what everybody else already said. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:01 7 September, 2008 (UTC) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109. —Dark ^talk 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support — definitely. Very trustworthy user. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support — One of the REAL GOOD GUYS!!!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support - wonderful answers to the questions, I fully trust his judgment. And question 9M couldn't have been referring to me could it? --Coffee // talk // ark // 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Don't ask me. Also, wifecakes FTW. bibliomaniac15 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

113. Support Always good to have more crats, and I don't see any problems with this one. SpecialK 11:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. Holy crap, first time I come to WP:RFA in months, and just caught this! · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support - I view self-nomsI mean, seen him around, seems trustworthy, 99% support for an RfB so far, and solid answers to questions. Can't see why not - CL — 14:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support....<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]