Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bigtimepeace: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (talk page) (40/0/0); Scheduled to end 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs) - Bigtimepeace has had an account since June 2006 and has been editing reasonably frequently since March 2007. For those statistics-junkies out there he has made just under 5000 edits to Wikipedia, with a couple of thousand of those being to articles (more stats on the talkpage as usual). He is a competent content writer who has contributed new articles to Wikipedia and has been credited at Did You Know on several occasions.

Bigtimepeace reverts vandalism and follows up appropriately with warnings. His reports to AIV all seem to have been in order. He makes sensible contributions to deletion discussions, showing a good knowledge of the relevant policies. Likewise, his deleted contributions suggest a decent grasp of the speedy deletion criteria. Aside from an apparent need to use his username to boast about the size of his clock, he seems pretty reasonable in his dealings with other users. He has even participated in discussions around Arbitration cases whilst maintaining a cool that is uncharacteristic in that area of Wikipedia.

In brief, a good contributor who is willing to help out with administrative tasks and who will make decent use of the tools. WjBscribe 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, with thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: I've been a regular participant in AfD's and find that to be one of the more interesting and important areas in project space, so I would expect to spend time closing out AfD discussions with which I am not involved. I've nominated a number of articles for deletion and believe all of them were ultimately deleted, so I think I have good judgment when it comes to our core policies as they relate to deletion. I also will definitely help out at CSD since we can always use help there. As WJBscribe notes I've done a lot of work reverting vandalism and would expect to continue with that, obviously blocking persistent vandals I come across after their final warning but also helping out at AIV. I'm also willing to step in and help with page protections and page moves. I don't anticipate myself getting that involved with image work (at least at first) since I'm on less firm ground with respect to our image policies. In general I'm fairly open to helping where I'm needed.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Ultimately I hope we are all here to put some work into writing the encyclopedia, and I think I have made some fairly good contributions in that regard (though not as much as I would like). PHASE 2 and Thomas Latimer were articles I wrote which were up on DYK and which I think are decent (if not of burning importance, but the PHASE 2 thing is cool). One of the things I've always liked about the AfD process is that it can improve articles, and I was glad to improve The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie (which I'd not heard of before) enough via detailed sourcing to help it survive AfD (though that thing still needs some real work...someday). In general I think I do good work sourcing articles with material not freely available online (as a grad student I have access to a lot of good stuff that doesn't come up on Google). More recently, I have written much of the content at A More Perfect Union, which I think is coming along nicely. Finally, aside from article writing and counter-vandalism work, I think I generally keep a cool head in difficult situations and have often helped to move discussions forward by engaging with all parties involved in a civil manner.

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: Yes, I've certainly been involved with conflicts. I always find it interesting in RfA's when editors seek to give the appearance, while answering this third question, that they almost never get in conflicts. I think it's important to be honest and admit that conflict is inevitable for any long-time editor on Wikipedia (even more so if one is an admin), and the real question is not whether you run into conflict but rather how you handle it. I think conflict should be approached as something which could ultimately lead to improvement of the encyclopedia, but the only way to do that is to talk, talk, talk with whomever it is you have disagreement. Many conflicts are rooted in misunderstandings, and it might take a bit of discussion to figure out where the real disagreement is.

I've been involved with some extremely contentious articles, most notably the rightfully notorious Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. I think I was one of a handful of editors who was able to work with some editors on both sides of that wildly contentious article (particularly last summer). A couple of months ago I got a bit frustrated with the article and took it off my watchlist, which points to the importance of walking away from conflicts when they become too much to deal with. Another example of editing conflict had to do with the article Mao: The Unknown Story. Here I was working with two editors who were opposed to one another in an ArbCom case to add new and improved content, which was obviously difficult. After much discussion, some of it heated, we came to an agreement and both users were happy with the changes we made (which were significant). It was very satisfying to be able to make good content improvements to an article with two users who were at the same time fighting in an ArbCom, and I think it speaks to at least some ability on my part to manage conflict effectively. I could give other examples and am happy to field questions about specific conflicts I've been involved with if folks who comment here would find that helpful.

My general strategy in conflict situations (in the past and for the future) is to try to understand where the other editor(s) is/are coming from and meet them somewhere between their position and mine. It's extremely important to maintain civil discourse in these situations and to comment on the content and the arguments being made rather than the contributor. I think I keep in line with these principles the vast majority of the time, and as an admin would hope to model good conflict resolution behavior (otherwise, why would I brag about the "size of my clock" in my username?).

Optional questions from John Smith's (talk)

4. You say that you will help block vandals and look out at CSD - which is great. Which other admin-related pages/activities will you monitor and be involved with? Are there any which you will want to avoid? Please explain why.

Comment: The candidate has already answered question 1. Please do not ask duplicate questions. Consider the crazy number of questions you are asking in total, and whether the burden you are imposing is absolutely critical to whether you trust the candidate or not. Splash - tk 13:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a duplicate question. I'd like to know whether those are the only duties he wants to focus on. And I'd say it's hardly a crazy number of questions. I know the editor reasonably well already, but I'd like to know more. But I've removed two as they're not that important. John Smith's (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind answering for clarification purposes. As I said above I do expect to help close out AfD's and with page protections and page moves. I'm sure there are other ways in which I will lend a hand with admin tools but those seem reasonable for a start. I don't plan to jump into image work right away as I noted because I don't feel fully familiar with those complex policies (which is not to say that that won't change later). I also don't imagine I'll spend much time at WP:SSP to begin with as sock puppet reports can be quite complex and I don't feel I have enough experience evaluating them as yet. Also, don't expect me to do a large range block of IP's anytime soon. These are all areas I need more experience with, and if I'm granted adminship I intend to proceed cautiously when it comes to admin-related issues with which I don't have significant familiarity.

5. How would you deal with edit-warring (if you did at all)? Do you believe in allowing a violator of the 3RR to self-revert to avoid a block - if so, after a report has been filed or only after a warning has been issued? Furthermore, can reverting three times within 24 hours be grounds for a block? If so, in what scenario.

I think edit warring/3RR issues are best dealt with on a case by case basis since there is often some ambiguity when it comes to reversions (incidentally, dealing with 3RR violations is another aspect of adminship I'd expect to work on a bit, though not as much as what I mentioned above). I personally tend to hold myself to a maximum 2RR standard (I find the second revert can sometimes be useful for coaxing another editor to the talk page, but there's really never a reason to revert a third time other than dealing with vandalism, BLP violations, or personal attacks), and per policy I view 3RR as a bright line rather than an entitlement. If an editor is consistently stepping up to, but not crossing, the 3RR line than a block for edit warring might well be warranted. As a general rule, though there may be exceptions, if an editor self-reverts to avoid crossing 3RR that would suggest it is not worthwhile to block them. The purpose of a 3RR block, as with any block, is to prevent further disruption, not to be punitive. If an editor reverts her or himself it suggests that they realize they have erred by edit warring and will leave off that activity for the time being (though again, there may be exceptions). Regardless of whether or not I issued a block in a 3RR situation, I would certainly make a point of asking the editor or editors involved to discuss their disagreement on the article talk page rather than edit warring, and would probably watchlist the page myself to see if they are able to make some progress.

Optional questions from Rudget

6. What responsibilty do administrators have when clearing backlogs? Do you feel that they should be incensed to save or delete content, or should that be put down to personal preference?

I'm somewhat confused by this question (it's the word "incensed" that seems out of place) but will try to answer as best I can (if I'm misinterpreting it you can clarify and I'll answer again). If an admin is clearing a backlog of items which are somehow up for deletion, obviously they should first and foremost be following appropriate policy (is article x really a WP:CSD#A7 candidate?, what seems to be the consensus - or lack thereof - on a given AfD and to what extent are both sides articulating their arguments based on policy?, etc.). Obviously when it comes to inclusionism vs. deletionism (and everything in between) we all have our own beliefs and biases (I personally tend to be strongly inclusionist in some respects and very much a deletionist in others, which I think is common). When clearing backlogs of material put up for deletion, I think administrators should be very attentive to their own beliefs on certain issues and work hard to keep those in check, instead rooting their decisions firmly in our policies. I hope that answers the question.

Question from User:DanBealeCocks

7. An editor, User:lahjh77327bd, has created 1 attack page, and vandalised about 8 pages. Since then they've made 10 contributions - all good faith. Their talk page is empty. What do you do?

First off, I would say that that particular scenario is rather rare, at least from my experience. It's fairly uncommon for a contributor to create an attack page, vandalize some pages, and then start making good contributions; however it's even more unlikely that such a user would not have been warned at some point prior to that. If I did come across such a situation though, I would almost certainly write a personalized message to the editor in question. I would first thank them for the recent good contributions, and then point out our strong policy against attack pages and against vandalism of pages (note: if the attack page and vandalism were particularly vile, and if the "good edits" came immediately on the heels of that seemingly as a sort of cover, it is quite possible that a block would be in order to avoid further disruption). I would ask them to continue contributing in a positive manner and point out that I'm available to answer any questions they might have (as we always do when welcoming a new user). So long as there was no ongoing disruption a block would not be appropriate (bar the scenario I just mentioned), however I would probably watchlist the user's talk page to check for any future issues given that this is a somewhat unique situation. New users often start off badly, and it's important not to bite new contributors, particularly when there is evidence that they have an intention to contribute positively after an unfortunate beginning. (Additional comment: I was thinking more in terms of responding to the user in question and thus neglected to mention the obvious: if the attack page was still up I would of course delete it immediately and would likewise revert any vandalism that had not already been dealt with).

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

• Links for Bigtimepeace: Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

• Same plea here as the one I have been making on other RfAs - lets make a real effort to stop the asking of questions for the sake of it. We don't need to know whether an admin would revert vandalism to the Spears or Jackson article first. It doesn't matter - both should be reverted and you don't need to be an admin to do this anyway. There is an increasingly held view that candidates are feeling overloaded with questions and that this is putting people off applying, which is a problem. A steady flow of new admins is important to a project that continues to increase in size - already we have the lowest ration of admins to users/pages of all Wikimedia projects I believe. Lets try to encourage candidates - if there's information you haven't been able to glean from what the candidate's contributions and what has been said already that you think is needed to decide whether they are trusted/competent to use to tools go on and ask. Otherwise, it's just adding extra burden to the process. Candidates shouldn't be here to jump through everyone's collective hoops - just to help people decide if they can be trusted with the additional user right. Please can we all try to avoid uncecessary/frivolous questions? WjBscribe 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, though, a candidate's position on specific issues may be important. For instance, I will never support a candidate who doesn't agree with the essentials of WP:EM, because I believe passionately that the number one responsibility of admins is to avoid driving contributors away. I'm speaking in general terms, since I don't have any issues with this particular candidate (and supported him below), but I do think RfA voters need to have the right to ask whatever questions they wish (provided they're not self-evidently frivolous). If you don't want RfA itself to get too clogged up with questions, we could suggest that such questions be asked of candidates on their talk pages rather than on the RfA. Walton^One 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support as nominator. I believe Bigtimepeace has been around long enough to understand how the Wiki works and has demonstrated his knowledge of the relevant policies. WjBscribe 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have seen Bigtimepeace around before: he'll do well. Excellent candidate and nominator. Acalamari 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support. (IIRC) Recently interacted with BTP on Sceptre's RfA, saw him/her as highly reasonable and able do discuss calmly. Will go far. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Support. No problems here. Giving this user the tools is a no-brainer. Malinaccier (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support Good track has been around since June 2006. No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per DHMO, and the fact he's trying his best on the State terrorism article. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support No reason not to.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 00:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per being worthy of the tools. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Epbr123 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support evidence of 'pedia building. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - Sound knowledge of policy per contributions to AfD. WP:CSD noms look good, as do WP:AIV. Can trust. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I've never seen you before, but your answers are great, your nominator is enthusiastic, and your work looks more than satisfactory. Hope to see you around more, VanTucky 01:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - a quick review of contributions throws up no problems and shows thoughtful comments and a firm understanding of WP matters. SilkTork *^YES! 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support with pleasure. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - I like RfAs that are easy to evaluate, such as this one! :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support per no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface^T/_C 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Hmm.. rather impressive. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Yup yup yup. MBisanz ^talk 05:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Good user that is experienced with admin-related tasks. Singularity 06:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong Support. Thanks for being honest on my question - I relaised some people may just say that both are important and that they'll revert both the pages. Go you beast. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Disappointed that I didn't notice this sooner. Bigtimepeace is an excellent candidate: he's fair minded and friendly, maintains an eye for neutrality, and stays cool in the face of problematic behavior. By far the most qualified person I've seen come through RFA in several months, and I am pleased to give my unconditional support. east.718 at 07:50, April 19, 2008
24. Support only for wikiadmin doing PhD. Future is now. Redeemer079 08:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Support When your nominated by a bureaucrat you know theres something special in the user. I trust you will do a great job. Good luck. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - although being nommed by a bureaucrat shouldn't be such a big deal. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong support agreement with the above but still a strong support. Evidence of a brilliant users who will go far! Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Couldn't be any more supportive per sense of humour CycloneNimrod^talk? 10:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. I don't see any reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Wow i can't believe i've not encountered you before! Fantastic editor and vandal fighter. You are my perfect candidate for adminship. Good luck! TheProf - T / C 11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Just spent a while reviewing your history, seems A-OK to me. Impressed with the way you resolve disputes. -- Naerii 12:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support" Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Nice answers to questions, checked your recent contributions and was impressed. Davewild (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Been here a long time, no problems so far, behaves. Perfect, the user will not abuse the extra tools --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Argh, not another carbon copy of Pedro's signature. whereas mine is apparently too dull to be worth copying... :-) Walton^One 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

36. Support Great user. Spencer :  Talk  17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just kidding about the signature...Spencer^T♦C 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

37. yup. Without question or hesitation, based on talkpage comments like this. Anyone that is willing to go that length to converse with an editor that has called him a wiki-nazi will make a fine admin. Keep up the patience, you'll do great! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong Support per Keeper. One of the few people who not only understands WP:BITE, but actually applies it even in difficult situations. I don't usually bother voting on unanimous or non-controversial RfAs, but this candidate deserves to get to WP:100. Walton^One 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. With a combination of an excellent WJBscribe nomination and a Keeper support (which is almost always supported by a diff), I'm happy to endorse to that end. Rudget 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - should make a great admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong Support - mentions not biting newbies, sensible attitude to needed blocks, willing to delete attack pages. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - Definitely. iMatthew 2008 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong SupportThis user has proven himself to be excellent in every important area the project needs; he has a fine scholarly precision with article content sources, and keen appreciation for NPOV, RS, and Undue, and other policies; he has always been civil, avoids drama but yet has not been afraid to put himself in the middle of it to play an exemplary moderating role in defusing conflicts as a peace maker. He has shown an amazing ability to keep a cool head, stay focused and rational while dealing with those who would challenged the best of us. And, I have seen how he has puts his own personal views aside in conflict in order to maintain a fair neutrality for the greater purpose of resolving disputes among the quarreling editors. Thus his service to the project and community should be greatly appreciated. In short, there is no question that he would make an ideal administrator that I'd hope others would model. If they did, this place would be vastly improved.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]