Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Bigtimepeace - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WJBscribe (talk | contribs) at 14:26, 19 April 2008 (→Questions for the candidate: rmv unneccessary questions about music stars - v little do with someone's competence to be an admin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:26, 19 April 2008 by WJBscribe (talk | contribs) (→Questions for the candidate: rmv unneccessary questions about music stars - v little do with someone's competence to be an admin)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Bigtimepeace

Voice your opinion (talk page) (33/0/0); 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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)

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


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages (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)
5. How will you balance pro-active page editing (i.e. trying to improve pages as an editor) with your admin duties? Will you sacrifice the former for the latter or try to balance both?
6. 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.
7. Are there any existing policies that you would to see ammended and/or enforced differently as to how they are generally now. If so, please explain.

Optional questions from Rudget

8. 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?

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  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)
  2. I have seen Bigtimepeace around before: he'll do well. Excellent candidate and nominator. Acalamari 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  4. Strong Support. No problems here. Giving this user the tools is a no-brainer. Malinaccier (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support Good track has been around since June 2006. No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support per DHMO, and the fact he's trying his best on the State terrorism article. Sceptre 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support No reason not to.--KojiDude 00:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support per being worthy of the tools. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Epbr123 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support evidence of 'pedia building. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - Sound knowledge of policy per contributions to AfD. WP:CSD noms look good, as do WP:AIV. Can trust. Wisdom89 (T / ) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  13. Support - a quick review of contributions throws up no problems and shows thoughtful comments and a firm understanding of WP matters. SilkTork * 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support with pleasure. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - I like RfAs that are easy to evaluate, such as this one! :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support per no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface/C 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - Hmm.. rather impressive. Tiptoety 04:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support Yup yup yup. MBisanz 05:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. Good user that is experienced with admin-related tasks. Singularity 06:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  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 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  26. Support - although being nommed by a bureaucrat shouldn't be such a big deal. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  28. Couldn't be any more supportive per sense of humour CycloneNimrod 10:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  29. I don't see any reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  31. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 12:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  33. Support" Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Category: