Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bigtop 3

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

[edit] Bigtop

Final (0/2/4) ended 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note Previous RFAs 7 July 2006, withdrawn and 10 July, 2006, withdrawn.

Bigtop (talk · contribs) – I'm very good at fighting vandalism, contributing to various articles, as well as participate on AfD nominations. I assume good faith to most edits, as well as being civil. I started contributing on January 17, but now I've been constantly active since April, and I've been constantly active for four months. Right now, I'm contributing on my fifth month, and it's getting well. I'm planning to close AfDs, as well as participate in backlogs to do various things, like deleting most candidates for speedy deletion, as well as deleting categories, redirects, and templates for deletion. I've been contributing on various articles, from expendable launch vehicles to aircrafts.

FireFox recently left Wikipedia a few days ago, and now I'm thinking about a replacement for him, because Wikipedia users do not want to leave FireFox from Wikipedia. I might need some help with the administrative team.

I'm also planning to respond to the administrator's noticeboard, so I should think I should help the administrators so we can keep Wikipedia clean and professional. Bigtop 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Bigtop 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) I decline and I decide to be an admin probably in 2007. So I'm sorry, I'll just have to settle fighting vandalism by myself. --Bigtop 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I'm thinking that I need help on how to delete files (pages, images, etc.) Copyright violations is a bit harder, so I need some help. Also, I need help with page merging. Page merging is one of the hardest jobs I can do and I'm not doing any page merging yet until I look the WP:MERGE page. I'm trying to watch for candidates for speedy deletion because I found too many "non-commercial-only" images that are not allowed for Wikipedia before I plan to be an admin. Participating in backlogs may be easy, because it all requires attention. Also, I'm watching for "nonsense" or "empty" pages to be candidates for speedy deletion, watch for pages to be created on WP:AFC, and others.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm pleased on a lot of contributions, and respond on articles for deletion. I've created a separate page for SeaWorld San Diego called "List of SeaWorld San Diego attractions, shows, and restaurants" to keep Wikipedia clean. This is one of the articles I've cleaned up; another one was STS-3xx (Space Shuttle Rescue Mission). I cleaned up by deleting the "messed-up" flight plan timeline, and then someone re-created it again to meet quailty standards. I also uploaded several images of aircrafts I took at Oakland International Airport to look better on airline pages in Wikipedia. Images include two Boeing 737s at Oakland (one is a parked Alaska Airlines 737-900; another was a taxiing Southwest Airlines 737-700) as well as several single-aircraft images. I was also the creator of the "list of expendable launch vehicles" template (see Template:ELVs).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've had been felt stressed on a couple of occasions. One of my biggest happened on July 9, 2006, when I tagged an "impostor" username when an administrator blocked me for creating a vandalism account. However, I only tagged that "impostor" when I did not create that account! So then, I used edit summaries on (almost all) edits so I can let users what I added, like if it's an inappropriate username, I give the summary like {{indef-user}}, etc. Another happened on August 2, 2006, when a user is not being civil. He wants me to "remove warning at once", but FireFox (who left) gave him a civility warning and I was calmed down. Being civil is important in Wikipedia; WP:CIVIL says that being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly.

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Bigtop (over the 4747 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 217 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 21, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 18, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.67% Minor edits: 99.57%
Average edits per day: 63.82 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 272 edits): Major article edits: 98.78% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4747 edits shown on this page and last 25 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.04% (2)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.82% (39)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 7.88% (374)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 14 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 37.76%
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
All edits to deletion pages: 5.16% (245 edit(s))
Identified XfD/DRV votes: 4.49% (213 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.02% (1 edit(s))
Edits to "copyright problems" pages: 0.02% (1 edit(s))
Edits to RfAs: 0.91% (43 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0.29% (8 support vote(s)) || (6 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 0.61% (29 edit(s)) (15 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.61% (29 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 17.57% (834 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3489 | Average edits per page: 1.36 | Edits on top: 28.42%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 35.52% (1686 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 29.05% (1379 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 15.36% (729 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 13.67% (649 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 20.79% (987) | Article talk: 1.03% (49)
User: 25.72% (1221) | User talk: 37.54% (1782)
Wikipedia: 10.13% (481) | Wikipedia talk: 0.4% (19)
Image: 1.22% (58)
Template: 2.4% (114)
Category: 0.48% (23)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.25% (12)

• See Bigtop's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• I'm part of the Wikipedia Youth Foundation, as I'm 13, and the Wikipedia Youth Foundation is open to youth 17 and under.
• My edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool is found here.
• Edits through Interiot's edit count tool:

Total edits     4722
Distinct pages edited   3470
Average edits/page      1.361
First edit      19:29, 17 January 2006
        
(main)  987
Talk    49
User    1221
User talk       1780
Image   57
Image talk      1
Template        114
Template talk   8
Category        23
Category talk   3
Wikipedia       459
Wikipedia talk  19
Portal  1

Previous RfAs can be found here and here. JoshuaZ 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Current tally: (0/2/4)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Bigtop 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

   Nominees should not vote for themselves. --Durin 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Voting for one's own RFA makes me suspect lack of understanding of policies, which isn't ameliorated from reading various AfD votes (most of which are "per noms", none of which cited policies). If I read this correctly 1780 user talk page posts are mostly vandal tags (good!), but the puny article space and article talk posts signal "more time needed" at the least. The two prior RFA's don't look too good either. ~ trialsanderrors 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose You need more time, also, the time period between all three of your RfAs is troubling. Yanksox 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, I see you have a good number of namespace edits, and a good interaction with other users, but you are lacking article talk page edits, at just above 1% of your total edits. These are important because they mean that you try and help get consensus when modifying articles. If you are going to work with merges, in example, if you don't use article talk pages you may merge stuff that others don't want, or are still discussing. Having reviewed your previous nominations (ended July 7 and July 10), makes me think you are trying "too hard" to become adminship, which is sometimes frowned upon here. And in this especifically case, I agree. Three times in 40 days is a little too much for my own taste. Spend some more time doing what you are doing -- ReyBrujo 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Bigtop certainly seems like a good user, but his very low number of article talk edits- which I personally consider even more important than actual article edits- worries me, as does his age (whether or not this is an irrational worry is open to debate). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kicking222 (talk • contribs) .
3. Neutral per everything above (especially self-support and recent RfAs - these things in particular make me worry about knowledge of policy); no need to pile on opposes right now. Srose (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Answers to questions don't display a wealth of knowledge of policy. Low mainspace edits but good effort to talk to other users, something that is very important for all admins to be able to do. Admits that he needs help in several areas but we all have strengths and weaknesses. I would recommend editor review and possibly signing up for admin coaching too. Another RfA can always be submitted in three or four months' time.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.