Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bbatsell


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Bbatsell
final (52/1/2) ending 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

– It is my pleasure and honor to nominate Bbatsell for Adminship. I have worked with him on a few articles and I find his edits to be of the highest quality, and his interactions with others to be helpful and courteous. He has been editing on Wikipedia for one year, and he has over 3,000 edits. In addition to contributing to articles, he takes an extremely active roll in figting vandalism. He is a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit and spends a huge amount of time on RC Patrol. In fact, as far as I can tell from looking at his edit history by time of day, he rarely sleeps. He follows policy meticulously, right down to 100% Edit Summary usage for his most recent 1,000+ edits. He does also have his e-mail set, for those of you like myself who feel this is important. The sooner we give him the tools of adminship, the better for the project. Johntex\talk 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I humbly accept John's nomination. -- bbatsell |  &laquo; give me a ring &raquo;  04:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Extreme I-beat-the-nominator! support. Despite being a proud member of the CVU. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Suport --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.Looks Good.  And a fellow Texan. Pschemp | Talk 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I-also-beat-the-nominator Support. Despite being a Texan. (and also all-around excellent work on WP and good answers here) (ESkog)(Talk) 05:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Looks good. Hook 'em! &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as a Texan, Longhorn, and (most importantly) good editor and good admin candidate. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) NSL E (T+C) 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, seems like a good candidate. J I P  | Talk 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - looks like he's been a very good RC patroller. --Whouk (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Proto t c 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support -- Nacon Kantari  e |t||c|m 13:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support All in 14:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 14:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support: --Bhadani 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support &mdash; Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support -- as nominator. Johntex\talk 19:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -- Fantastic user, very helpful in CVU IRC, and has helped me once or twice with specific problems (I really thought he was an admin). -- light darkness  19:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, should make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, so he can go block vandals himself instead of bugging me :p--Shanel 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, despite it looks like I'm a lonely Sooner among this Longhorn gang! -  Phædriel  ♥ tell me - 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support--Ugur Basak 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support--Jaranda wat's sup 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. —Kirill Lok s hin 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support--Jusjih 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, give him the mop and the flamethrower already. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support looks good to me.--MONGO 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) M e rovingian { T C @ } 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support -- Samuel Wantman 10:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support --Adrian Buehlmann 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) support to oppose this would be crazy, excellent admin materialBenon 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support We need more quality writters on wikipedia User:Mjal
 * 35) Support Will make a great administrator Dr Debug (Talk) 05:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Have seen Bbatsell in action recently regarding some vandalism on Coldplay and he/she acted in a swift an efficient manner. --Madchester 07:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support (thumbs Up)looks good from here too--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Sure. Adrian Lamo ·  (talk)  · (mail) · 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support RexNL 13:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support I've only been impressed with what I've seen of bbatsell's contributions.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support Georgewilliamherbert 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support Seems like the right person to have admin powers Ikh (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Good editor + (100% summary use / last 1000 edits) = Support. Jonathunder 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support. Good edit history and should make a good trustworthy admin and not at all swayed because he's a fellow Texan.-- Dakota ~  ε  21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support, good vandal fighter. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support. --Myles Long/cDc 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. &mdash;A 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) SuperBowl Sunday Support [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support, a fine candidate for adminship. Hall Monitor 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support We need more admins. The percentage of admins in Wikipedia is very, very, low and insignificant. If this goes on, admins in the future would have a very hard time maintaining Wikipedia from vandals. All the best! One with Her 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Keep it up! Krashlandon (e)  13:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Needs more project and project talk edits.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral - could use more project-space experience. From what I can tell, most of those edits are vandal-reversions.   &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 15:13Z 
 * 2) Neutral per Quarl, I'm generally quite positive about this editor otherwise I'd have been leaning more towards oppose. --pgk( talk ) 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Bbatsell's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.



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 don't anticipate jumping into anything right away that I'm not completely familiar with, so I imagine right away my main focus will be towards RC patrol and vandal-fighting, a process with which I've become intimately familiar over the past several months. I also anticipate helping out with speedy deletions, closing AfDs, helping users with requests for page protection and any other administrative requests once I feel comfortable that I can do a good job fulfilling these roles.  I do intend on familiarizing myself with most (if not all) of the processes that administrators are responsible for or have a role in; I've already read all of the administrator materials, but again, I like to make sure I know something backwards and forwards before jumping into it, especially with such high responsibilities as those afforded me by adminship.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'm more of a janitor and copyeditor than a write-an-article-from-scratch type of editor, although I have created and expanded several articles, most having to do with either music or sports, particularly those of my Texas Longhorns. I created such articles as Dave Matthews & Friends, Jeff Coffin, and Wideawake, and have helped to expand the Texas Longhorn Athletics and related articles with John and my contemporaries.
 * With that said, I'm pleased with my efforts as a janitor. A lot of times I see such editors held in lower regard, but I feel that they are as necessary to an encyclopedia as are those prolific writers who can bring an article up to featured status in zero to sixty seconds.  I feel that I have given this effort my all, and will continue to do so far into the future.


 * 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. To be honest, nothing major comes to mind. There have been a few incidents arising from misunderstandings with suspected vandalism, but in my opinion, these have been worked out quickly and to the benefit of all parties.  However, I have always been fascinated with Wikipedia's "self-governing" nature and find myself spending significant amounts of time simply reading through Requests for comment and Arbitration hearings.  While I don't often participate, I feel that I would be able to effectively should the need arise in the future simply because I've read all about every aspect of dispute resolution.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! -- Johntex\talk 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. When would you use &#123;{test1}} to &#123;{test4}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * A. When it comes to suspected vandalism, I tend to err on the side of caution. If it's not at all clear that the suspected vandal intends disruption, then I generally assume good faith and start with  .  If, however, the user in question has a history of vandalism, or his/her edits are clearly meant only to disrupt and could in no way be interpreted as "tests", then I will utilize.
 * The bottom line in this department for me is that I have no desire to scare off any potential helpful editors. If it were my first time visiting a site such as Wikipedia, and I had no idea what I was doing, I could certainly see myself editing a page to include what could be construed as vandalism simply because I did not know what I was doing.  I don't want to bite someone's head off, or to scare them away from this fantastic project, just because they edited in something disruptive to an article — they may know better, or they may not.  I like to assume the latter is true until the former is proven.
 * 5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * A. If the user does not have a history of such flirtation with Wikipedia policies, then I would most certainly simply bring the issue up to them on their talk page — ensure that they are familiar with the 3RR policy and to encourage them to pursue consensus through talk pages instead of engaging in endless revert wars. If, however, the user does have a history of breaking the spirit of the law, then I would have to examine each incident on a case-by-case basis.  At this point in time, I would certainly ask for other administrators' input as to how to deal with the user.  However, if I felt that the user in question posed a threat to further disrupt Wikipedia, I would have no qualms in issuing short blocks to prevent such action (not to punish the user).
 * 6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
 * A. I would encourage discussion rather than straw polls. It's easy to simply type ~ after twenty other editors have done the same; it's harder to spell out the reasons you feel a certain way, but it's the "good" type of harder.  It's the type of harder that fosters growth in the community and facilitates consensus.  I'm not claiming to be innocent of going along with the crowd, but if I were able to change one thing, I would change the level of discussion that goes on on a daily basis.  It would help us reach more sound decisions a lot of the time.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.