Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigrTex

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

BigrTex

Final (39/1/0); Ended Sat, 12 May 2007 02:26:33 (UTC)

BigrTex (talk · contribs) - Yes, I have found yet another person would would make a good admin in BigrTex. He has done great work on pretty much all fronts. He's done good work on the article front, mostly working with the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. He has over 8000 edits, and had done a lot of work at IFD, taking care of images. Seeing his work there shows that he'd be willing to work on the image backlog, where help is sorely needed. I see no reason why he should not be an admin. Wizardman 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he originally decided to decline the nomination due to (originally) a frew wikibreaks he had been taking. Now that those are over and he seems ready he has decided to accept now, I see no reason not to use this RfA, originally created a month ago.--Wizardman 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination BigrTex (talk · contribs). Being a well rounded user, BigrTex has worked in all areas, putting up many unlicensed images up for deletion. BigrTex has a wide range of knowledge on policy, teaching me about policy and helping other users. I don't see why he wouldn't be a valuable addition to the administrative crew.Shindo9Hikaru 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. ~ BigrTex 19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Most of my recent contributions have been based on
dated prod
}}s).
I am also interested in helping with Special:Unwatchedpages. There are a number of pages that are infrequently visited where vandalism that is not caught immediately may linger for months.
Finally, I am interested in and have participated at
WP:CfD
and would help clear backlogs there if they develop.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have not had any major confilcts over editing, but other users have caused me stress (some of it deserved).
My first response tends to be defensive and occasionally I respond in a defensive tone, as seen in these examples:
  1. Talk:Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project in response to my inappropriate edit.
  2. No rationale}} tags from multi-tagged images uploaded before May 4, 2006
    .
This tends to elicit a response that allows me to move into my more normal response mode which is to overexplain (as I did with User:Dee Mac Con Uladh), and also:
  1. User talk:BigrTex/2007Q1#Space Pirates discussion (from deleted archive of User talk:Space Pirates and User talk:BigrTex/2007Q1#Space Pirates)
  2. Talk:La Coupe RIEL and some at User talk:RILMS#La Coupe RIEL which also resulted in the author moving the content to BluWiki (http://bluwiki.com/go/Lacouperiel)
I take the time I need to produce a result that shows
good faith
and empathy, explaining policies which may not be familiar to the user. I am not afraid to offer a mea culpa when appropriate (as in the Clinch River discussion).
I generally am able to monitor my m:Wikistress and realize that there are plenty of tasks to do around here. When one task becomes stressful, I find something else to do for awhile (either here or elsewhere).
A question from
talk
)
4. Under what circumstances should one
ignore a rule
?
A: I've spent many hours this week trying to formulate my answer to this question. I've read and reread the policy, most of the talk page discussion, some of the talk archives, some of the historical versions of the policy, and some of the essays on the topic. I've tried to approach the answer from at least four different directions. Sometimes the simple answer is the best answer:
If the rule prevents them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.
I found two essays that taken together match up well with my interpretation of
WP:IAR
based on my readings:
5 "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
Docg 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
A: I would enforce
WP:BLP as rigorously as any of the other examples given under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption
.
We have a series of
user talk templates ({{uw-biog1}} through {{uw-biog4
}}) just like we do for vandalism and spam. Editors should be encouraged to use those templates when they remove contentious material from biographies so that administrators have a clear history when they are asked to block, just as they are encouraged to do in response to vandalism.
6. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject of the biography has requested deletion, what weight (if any) would you give this information?--
Docg 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
A: I would give it weight based on the explanation given. I would weight it the same as I would the same explanation from any other user.

7. Optional question by

COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list
? (just answer yes plz)

A: My password meets or exceeds all of the criteria you suggest.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. I beat the Noms Support Good editor would love to see him with the mop. Æon Insanity Now! 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have no idea how the above person found this, lol. Anyway, support as nom.--Wizardman 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Everything looks great. Pastor David † (Review) 03:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom and inasmuch as the candidate seems possessed of the good judgment, deliberative demeanor, and conversance with policy the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I think one can say with much confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive. That, of several comments on his talk page from users whom he contacted about the improper uploading or use of fair-use images, each notes the patience and cordiality of his messages also speaks well of him; new editors are often quite irked to have improper image use addressed to them, and one who does such task pleasantly and successfully serves the project well. Joe 03:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, the image backlog most certainly needs help. --Phoenix (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. User that's willing to help with the image backlogs? Give the user a
    T|C) 07:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Support Again, I see no problems with this user becoming an admin. (aeropagitica) 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support A great user and with the massive image backlogs currently at
    The Sunshine Man 09:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Terence 10:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per all above. With any luck, it looks like you might get unanimous support on this one.
    Need some help? 12:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Support Yes, we do need admins to handle the image backlog, and BigrTex seems like the sort of person I would like working on that task. Captain panda 12:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -very experienced Editor..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 13:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support no concerns here, looks good. Anas talk? 16:37, 5 May 2007
  14. Support BigrTex appears competent and polite. I'm especially happy that he works with image issues, as there seems to be a fairly limited number of people willing to do this. Joyous! | Talk 14:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Moral Support Great work over images. Even few times he kicked on my butt grrr... --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Joe I 18:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Has answered the questions well and has a detailed plans on what he will do with the tools. Also done some great work with images. Camaron1 | Chris 20:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: Excellent edit summary usage, and plenty of experience, answers to questions also very good. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support The way it says is the way it plays. --Infrangible 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I trust BigrTex to do what he says, and his answer to the questions are acceptable. He should rightfully be nomanated. Assasin Joe 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Late Supportas co-nom.Shindo9Hikaru 04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Changed from neutrality; good luck! Jmlk17 06:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Spike Wilbury 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Everything looks good. — CharlotteWebb 16:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support and an endorsement from Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. (Well, I can't speak for everyone in the project, but this member supports it.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Shows a clear need for the mop in his prolific work with images, and plenty of experience, dedication, and knowledge of policies and guidelines.
    talk) 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. Support. Seen nothing but good from this editor.↔NMajdan•talk 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. We need more admins who are both knowledgeable and comfortable in the Image space. Some of those backlogs can get pretty epic at times. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support In most circumstances, anyway, candidate's answer to Question 6 is the correct approach. Thoughtful fellow. Xoloz 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - First because of my good impression on him; second because his experiences with many little-touched aspects of Wikipedia is strong enough to make him admin. --Deryck C. 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. support - From what I've seen, a competant user who would work well as an administrator, I can see him doing great work at IfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I do think this user would be a good admin. Abeg92contribs 16:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Yes all in order. --VS talk 07:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per noms. PeaceNT 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No problems here. James086Talk | Email 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support as per above. —MrSomeone ( tlk • cntrb ) 21:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support All good. Acalamari 23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Per q.6. You seriously think that the views of the subject of a low notability bio are no more valid than any drive-by user?--
    Docg 02:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't know whether Doc properly construes Tex's response—I'll leave Tex to explain—but it should be observed, I think, that until five days ago,
    BLP did not counsel that a participant in (or the closer of) an AfD consider the wishes of a biographical subject (of low notability) that his article be deleted; indeed, it was in practice settled that a subject's desire that his biography be deleted be accorded no weight (toward which, see, e.g., any of the several Daniel Brandt AfDs, the Angela Beesley AfD, or the Jim Hawkins AfD; the subjects of each of the former are, to be sure, volitionally notable, but I don't believe common practice was different for those of dubious and avolitional notability), such that Tex's response (if he means to suggest that the views of the subject be practically disregarded or be considered only in the context of other encyclopedic standards), as a matter of policy, would have been quite right. It is not clear that there is a consensus for the instant version of BLP (which continues, in part relative to this issue, to be fully protected to prevent edit-warring), but even present policy doesn't provide that the wishes be dispositive or that they be considered outside the context of other policies that one might adduce at AfD, and so I think some non-trivial but not unduly significant consideration is what the community seems to suggest might be appropriate. If Doc means to suggest that anyone who, as a matter of conviction, believes that policy ought not to suggest that a low-n subject's wishes be considered is necessarily possessed of bad judgment, there would seem to be many well-regarded and otherwise productive admins and editors (those who, as I, believe we ought to preserve the absolutely no weight idea) who would be understood as unserious or unreliable individuals in whom trust might should not be reposed. Joe 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Neutral

Neutral Choosing neutrality over support per lack of answer on question 4. Jmlk17 22:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BigrTex&oldid=1079636119"