Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/BigDT 2
Editcount stats
[edit]User:BigDT
run at Fri Jan 5 23:05:32 2007 GMT
Category talk: 9
Category: 29
Image talk: 25
Image: 680
Mainspace 1743
Portal talk: 4
Portal: 133
Talk: 219
Template talk: 16
Template: 318
User talk: 3676
User: 1297
Wikipedia talk: 331
Wikipedia: 3332
avg edits per article 2.03
earliest 15:21, 22 April 2006
number of unique articles 5807
total 11812
2006/4 37
2006/5 960
2006/6 1455
2006/7 1869
2006/8 3915
2006/9 191
2006/10 116
2006/11 418
2006/12 2341
2007/1 510
BigDT's editcount stats from http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=BigDT&site=en.wikipedia.org as at 2007-01-05 23:05:32 UTC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Questions 10
[edit]- Mangojuice left a following comment at my talk to which I see more appropriate to respond here. --Irpen 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- BigDT's RfA
Hey -- I think your question #10 is a little bit over the line, because you are making comments about BigDT in your question that aren't exactly part of your question. Specifically, I object to the phrase: "I can't help but notice that your involvement to the content writing is so far insignificant" -- that's the kind of comment other users might want to respond to, but being buried in a question makes it impossible. I would like you to consider removing that comment, perhaps using a wording like the following:
10 Administrators are very much involved in hot editors' related issues, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations (unlike 3RR) and require case by case approach (such as DR or Fairuse policies). Do you agree that the better understanding of editor's concerns require administrator's continuous involvement in content writing? More often than not acceding to adminship further reduces user's involvement in content writing. Do you plan to reverse this trend and be continually involved in writing? To what extent? Do you plan to write or significantly contribute towards WP having more featured article. Some have suggested that 1 FA per year is a good vaccine against Wikipedia:Adminitis. Please opine. Thank you.
In fact, I think you should reconsider that comment, period. Keep in mind you're currently in a dispute with BigDT. Mangojuicetalk 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am not in any sort of dispute with BigDT, period. We now have different opinions in one IfD discussion of one particular image. The image is not within the scope of topics that are a primary concern to me. Good people can disagree routinely over minor issues and your calling me biased towards BigDT because of our disagreement over a single image (about which I care little) is really what's "little bit over the line". My comment about user's lack of involvement in significant content writing is the reason why the whole issue is raised and it is integral to the question itself, which is "Why so?" and "How he does not see it not an impediment to being a good admin".
- Therefore, I suggest Mangojuice kindly leaves my question alone and, instead, concentrate on the issues I raised. Is ability and engagement in the content writing important for good adminning? I strongly think that it is and so do many other editors.
- I do not imply that BigDT is a bad editor, a bad guy or anything of that sort. I just think that he did not demonstrate a significant enough commitment to content creation. People differ on how important this is for being a good admin. Cyde, for instance, wrote elsewhere that it's people who contribute to how Wikipedia is run (technical or administrative aspects) are most crucial and irreplaceable while, according to Cyde "anybody can write an article". I view it differently and think than continuous significant involvement in content writing is the only way to ensure remaining in touch with the encyclopedia and its editors.
- My comment and question express only my opinion and I don't see how it is unfair to the candidate. He is free to prove me wrong about the assessment of his commitment to content writing or to try convince myself and other voters that content writing is not so important for good adminning or that he already demonstrated it to a sufficient degree. --Irpen 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- My suggestion that you reconsider the comment is based on only one thing: it's mean. No one with 1700+ edits to the encyclopedia should have the body of their edits dismissed as "insignificant", let alone someone with 100 edits. And I never called you biased; I said that I thought your characterization of BigDT's understanding of policy as "flawed" was going a bit far. Mangojuicetalk 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Mangojuice, I will ignore your characterization of my comment as "mean" and will only respond to the meaningful part of your response. 1700, 170, or even 17 edits in the mainspace of the volunteerly project is not insignificant per se. If someone makes just one useful edit and leaves, we should thank that editor for that improvement of Wikipedia. I call the content written by the candidate insignificant specifically in the context of his trying to get the buttons which I want to be sure are only in pocession of the users whom I can trust policing Wikipedia. Policing means dealing with editors, most of whom consider writing content their main activity. I would like to make sure BigDT is able to understand what it takes to provide the editors with the most comfortable environment for the content creation, which I view one of the main adminning tasks. Understanding this task requires one's own significant involvement in editing. Most of the admins notorious for abuse come from non-editing league. This is the statistical observation which is supported by the analysis of what kinds of admins where more often admonished by ArbCom. I do not "dismiss" BigDT's contributions to the mainspace. I just do not see them sufficient to ensure his commitment to Wikipedia's content, which I view essential.
Further, you now write "I never called you biased". However, in the previous entry you wrote that I should somehow "keep in mind that I am currently in the dispute with BigDT". Keep in mind with respect to what, may I wonder, if that was not supposed to imply that I am biased? In any case, I am not in any conflict with BigDT and my opposition is based purely on his relative lack of interest towards content writing. "Relative" not in terms of its being dismissable, but not enough to guarantee that the user will understand the concerns of the majority of editors who he is to police should he gets adminned.
I may very well be mistaken. I never interacted with him in the past and his responding to criticism much better than some of his supporters' shows a good character. If the majority of the voters do not consider content writing too important he will just win the nomination. No big deal. --Irpen 08:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong -- it's a good question, I just don't think it's right to include non-question comments on the candidate in a question; there's a comments section, and you can include them in your own vote. Apologies if you thought I was characterizing you as biased; I was more trying to remind you to keep cool. If you don't want to remove it (and you probably shouldn't, now, it's too late), I don't mind, I just feel it's more appropriate for people to make comments in comments sections, especially when they're negative ones. Mangojuicetalk 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Mangojuice, since you have now withdrawn any implications that I am somehow biased towards the candidate, that I am "in a dispute" with him and as long as my observations are expressed civilly, remain to the point and otherwise proper in every respect, I kindly ask you to not comment on my temper but to stick to the issues (that is if you have anything more to say on the issues themselves). None of my comments warranted the condescending remark of yours " reminding me to keep my cool". Just accept that people may disagree on the adminship nomination, keep your cool and move on. Thank you. --Irpen 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)