Content deleted Content added
→Oppose: me too |
WereSpielChequers (talk | contribs) →Neutral: here I am |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
||
# Candidate has been here almost a year and has a clean block log. The username is troubling, we've had several admins with rather worse ones but consensus is shifting some of those admins have renamed themselves; But I won't oppose over that without first getting the candidate to explain what it means to them - I'd suhgest they do so on their userpage or get a rename before their next run. I'm concerned about over hasty deletion tagging, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Protonjon×tamp=201312020 this A3] was after just two minutes and was earlier this month. However with the current state of !voting I doubt I will have the time to fully assess the candidate and oppose for poor deletion tagging or accept that as an isolated incident that just happened to be one of the first handful I checked. I have not yet checked the article they created to see if they have demonstrated an ability to add reliably sourced content. However the 911 userbox does worry me, I would like to fully discuss their attitude to fringe theories and see significant content contributions demonstrating they understood reliable sourcing and NPOV before I'd support a candidate who had a userbox like that. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 12:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC) |
|||
# |
|||
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> |
Revision as of 12:03, 12 December 2013
BigPimpinBrah
(talk page) (0/2/1); Scheduled to end 5:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Nomination
BigPimpinBrah (talk · contribs) – About me: Just a normal 22 year old bro from West Virginia, now living in Wyoming. Here on Wikipedia I occasionally edit anime, game, and music articles, but most of the work I do is fighting spam and vandalism, and patrolling new pages. -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Speedy deletions and fighting vandalism
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I would say my best work has been in fighting vandalism, patrolling new pages, and finding spam articles/userpages. As far as content building, nothing too impressive. But my best was probably for the Hoshizora no Memoria article.
- 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: Haven't been in any big ones, but when there is an issue I discuss it on their/my talk page (and yes I admit there have been a few times I said things I shouldn't have, I'll try and keep that in check).
General comments
- Links for BigPimpinBrah: BigPimpinBrah (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for BigPimpinBrah can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
- Was asked to change his username twice, and did not. --Rschen7754 05:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I hate opposing based on content, but firstly, the article linked as the best contrib is sparsely sourced, secondly per Rschen7754, and thirdly the answers are inadequate (not detailed enough).--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Offensive username, ignored my request to change it. Andrevan@ 05:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cool name dude. Not enough contributions in any field, even anti-vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the editor's username is mildly offensive, and recommend changing it. The article put forward as the editor's best content work is largely unreferenced. I encourage the candidate to spend some time making solid, well referenced contributions to encyclopedic content, and in participating in a variety of administrative related areas. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not yet. I don't see, over the scope of the user's work, a full demonstration of policy comprehension necessary for adminship. --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, sharing others' concerns. A very recent !voting incident is of additional concern. I think you should heed advice to request a change of username, and also ensure you're conversant with Wikipedia's policies before resubmitting this request. Additionally, it'd be handy if you could keep a log of CSD nominations. All the best with your continued editing here in the mean time. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. A few concerns: 1) I'd like to see some more considered detail in the answers to questions 1-3. 2) The article presented in Q2 as the candidate's best content work is not sufficiently referenced. 3) I only see 194 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, which suggests (to me, at least) that the candidate needs more time to familiarize themselves more closely with the inner workings of Wikipedia before becoming an admin. Oh, and the username. — sparklism hey! 08:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per all the above. Also, I wouldn't usually consider a candidate who hasn't opted in to the Edit Counter. --Stfg (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- How on Earth are you even able to edit Wikipedia with that username? If that's permissible, then it's the absolute maximum we would accept in that regard — pretty much right on the border between objectionable and downright inappropriate. In any case, it's not a username I would associate with adminship, as it comes across as immature and divisive. Kurtis (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not just yet - and am not keen on the Username - would hardly instil confidence if being used by an Admin Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Neutral
- Candidate has been here almost a year and has a clean block log. The username is troubling, we've had several admins with rather worse ones but consensus is shifting some of those admins have renamed themselves; But I won't oppose over that without first getting the candidate to explain what it means to them - I'd suhgest they do so on their userpage or get a rename before their next run. I'm concerned about over hasty deletion tagging, this A3 was after just two minutes and was earlier this month. However with the current state of !voting I doubt I will have the time to fully assess the candidate and oppose for poor deletion tagging or accept that as an isolated incident that just happened to be one of the first handful I checked. I have not yet checked the article they created to see if they have demonstrated an ability to add reliably sourced content. However the 911 userbox does worry me, I would like to fully discuss their attitude to fringe theories and see significant content contributions demonstrating they understood reliable sourcing and NPOV before I'd support a candidate who had a userbox like that. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)