Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigHaz


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

BigHaz
Final (48/0/0); Ended Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:25:26 (UTC)

- I've been around since March 2004, and consistently active since June of last year. Some of the experienced contributors offered to nominate me near the end of last year, which didn't go ahead for a number of reasons. Thus, in the seeming absence of one of the editors who'd offered to do the honours, I'll nominate myself and see what the consensus is. I've contributed in a number of different ways, particularly through the creation of a large number of Eurovision Song Contest entries, which has also brought me into contact with the DYK process and peripherally to the Main Page (where I've picked up the odd error). My watchlist has never been particularly long, but I keep an eye on it to prevent any vandals from doing their dirty work. I've also taken an active interest in AfD, including closing a number of nominations in accordance with process. When I remember to, I give the Newpages list the once-over as well, which has generally resulted in the traditional "db-bio" cases being listed for Speedy and so forth. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thankyou, self. I graciously accept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: In the short term, I'd envisage getting involved with the deletion process at all levels. Obviously one of the easiest ways to avoid a backlog of Speedies or anything like that is simply not to expect anyone to do my admin work for me, so where I've previously been tagging things, I'll be able to delete them as the situation dictates. I'll admit that it's been the deletion of articles which I've been dealing with mainly, for the simple reason that I haven't done much work in categories or images anyway, but I certainly intend to move into those areas soon enough. Outside of that, I would anticipate taking a much more active role in the DYK process (when there's no conflict-of-interest risk, of course) and seeing if I can't be of assistance with the rest of the main page as well. Of course, the standard vandal-stopping goes with the territory.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Most recently, I've been very pleased with the Eurovision Song Contest entries which I've been writing up - Congratulations (Silvía Night song) being a personal favourite because of the twists and turns of the saga which required researching. Another "feather in my cap" would have to be Andon Zako Çajupi, which I rescued from being pretty much a text dump machine translated from Albanian into an article which turned up on DYK. Going back a bit, I came upon Norfolk Island (a subject dear to my heart) when it was in quite a bad way and contributed to it quite heavily, although the current product is hardly mine alone. There's also Inspector Rex, which I still can't quite believe I started.


 * 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: The two big ones were probably with Rudi Dierick and his sock puppet and then much later with Le Grad Roi des Citrouilles. In both cases, I ended up involving an admin (I reported the former to Samir, after the user in question had ended up using an RCU as a soapbox, while in the latter my recollection is that Durova was already looking at him and then approached me for confirmation of what I was already noticing), although I believe that they probably would have run their course without my involvement. While I've been able to step well back from any personal nastiness as a user, I'd obviously have to reconsider that slightly as an admin - as I would occasionally be required to administer blocks, rather than simply mutter under my breath that a given user could do with one. As in all other admin actions, I'd begin with a softly-softly approach, making certain I had the routines worked out before doing anything serious. As I get the hang of it, though, I would imagine that I'd take my share of responsibility - and flak - for the more controversial blocks.

'''Optional questions from &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs • game) 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
 * A: There are two points here. Firstly, is the subject in fact notable? I'd do my best to find that out (and enlist the help of other contributors to the article where applicable). If the subject's notable, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the subject editing it. If the subject's not notable or hard to tell, I'd mark it as being possibly non-notable or take it through the deletion process until it either got deleted or had notability asserted and supported. The second consideration, though, is what the editor's actually doing. If they're blanking sections or doing anything else disruptive, I'd leave them a message on their Talk page (or even by Email) explaining the situation and see if we can't talk it out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
 * A: Pre-emption. In other words, just because an article happens to be featured (or otherwise linked from the main page) doesn't mean that it needs to be protected. At least, not until it proves to be a vandalism target. Likewise if it's just on a controversial subject, there's no need to pre-emptively protect it. The other major case is when there's a content dispute - the response to a content dispute is to discuss it on Talk and try to work out a way forward, rather than to simply slap a protection on it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
 * A: I'm always very cautious when applying this criterion, and have probably used this tag once or twice in my "career" to date only. I generally focus on the tone of the article. If it makes grandiose statements that are perhaps not quite so significant ("The greatest supplier of widgets in south Didjabringabeeralong") or generally reads like an ad (as was the case with the article Openservices, which I started translating from German only to realise that it said things like "Have you ever wondered how you can improve your business efficiency?" or something like that), that's usually a warning flag. If it still feels a bit fishy, I'll try to chase up its web presence and try to gauge it that way, but by this point I'm normally erring on the side of caution and trusting that an editor with more experience in widget supply will happen along and figure out what the story is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Just Heditor review 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7 Name a time when you Assumed Good Faith even though it might not have won you popularity points with established users.
 * A: Most recently, I'd say that my contributions to this AfD assumed good faith on the part of the nominator, but resulted in the two of us butting heads for a while as we held diametrically opposed viewpoints and clearly held them quite strongly. Most of my activity in recent months, however, hasn't been in relation to established users, so it's hard to think of a situation where I may have lost popularity with one. I'll keep looking, though, if anyone is unsatisfied with this answer. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


 * See BigHaz's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support Oppose
 * 1) Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I've seen him around in AfDs. Good article contributions. Level-headed and dedicated. - Anas Talk? 12:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I don't see a problem with this editor's contributions - active in the all the main spaces; contributes to XfD discussions; vandal reverts and issues warnings; reports to WP:AIV too; active contributor to articles as well. (aeropagitica) 16:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I don't always agree with everything that BigHaz says, but I've seen enough of him to know that I can trust him to use the admin tools wisely. Can't ask for more than that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - BJ Talk 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I'd like to see more activity from the editor but everything he's done has been good so thumbs up. The Rambling Man 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Nothing problematic, and seems like a good editor in general.  Nish kid 64  20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak support per The Rambling Man, a little more activity would be better, but you've been here quite a long time so I can see you're dedicated.  Majorly  (o rly?) 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support - Excellent editor who, hardly unsurprisingly has sold himself short and given others the impressions that he has low activity. He has hundreds of substantial edits though. User:BigHaz/DYK Collection shows that he has written 30 DYK articles. He is also responsible for the vast majority of the Eurovision coverage on Wikipedia. There have been 1000+ songs entered at Eurovision, and he has done all of them from Armenia up to Norway, so that would mean at least 500 start class articles that he has created for Wikipedia. I should import that nom I was already preparing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per above. Seems to have a good head about him. Just Heditor review 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per experiance. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support No real reason not to support and nice answers and knowledge of policy. Captain  panda   In   vino   veritas  03:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I've always admired BigHaz's work here. Khoikhoi 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Good looking contribs, excellent edit summary usage (100% and 100% always nice to see). John Reaves (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Michael 06:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Passes the Test. Dfrg.msc 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - NYC JD make a motion 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Level-headed and always ready to back up his arguments with solid reasoning and knowledge of policy (and though he has got a Eurovision fixation, modern treatments can work wonders, so I can't object on that basis). Yomangani talk 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Everyking 10:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. PeaceNT 11:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support--MONGO 12:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 13:21Z 
 * 25) Support per Blnguyen.--Aldux 21:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, coincidentally also per Blnguyen. I can't stand the Eurovision Song Contest but I have to recognise the excellent work. Jeendan 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) BigSupp --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  13:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, great editor.--Carabinieri 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, BigHaz's interest in Islam/Middle East will add a welcomed aspect to administrative tasks. -- Jreferee 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support, I have experienced and observed only good interactions with BigHaz.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support good answers and seem to have a cool head. -- Pig manTalk to me 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support-Good answers, good number of wikispace edits. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Impressive contributions &mdash; Lost (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. WjBscribe 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Checks out just fine from what I can see. Bubba hotep 10:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support looks good! James086 Talk  13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Only if he promises to stop writing ESC articles and getting them up to T:DYK... (kidding!) Support ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support- The answers are good, and the contributions are great. --  G OD OF  J USTICE 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Support -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Support per nom. Thanks for serving. --A. B. (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Supportnot many edits for being around so long, but the length of time speaks of dedciation and he shows sound judgement.Rlevse 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 43) Dedication is apparent. I trust this user, and I have seen enough to believe my trust extends to Admin actions.  Daniel.Bryant  07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) Support.-- Hús  ö  nd  17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Seems like a good candidate. Dionyseus 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 46) Support ~ trialsanderrors 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 47) Jaranda wat's sup 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 48) Support – riana_dzasta 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)



Neutral
 * 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.
 * 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.