Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bigvinu


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

Bigvinu
(talk page) (0/7/0); Scheduled to end 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Closed per WP:NOTNOW. Glass  Cobra  18:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by bureaucrat Nichalp

- Even though I've been here at Wikipedia for about 1 Year and 2 months now, I've felt as though my work regarding Wikipedia's political pages are enough to warrant a Request for Adminship. Such works include the inclusion of Election infoboxes within most articles concerning Democratic or Republican Primary. While I did not create all of them, I established the precedent by establishing the Election infobox at 2004 Democratic Primaries. Through these edits I set the precedent for Wikipedia's usage of Election Infoboxes in presidential primaries.

I have also realized that while working on several Wikipedia political pages such as the 2008 Democratic Primaries that despite the repeated attempts by users to disregard Wikipedia precedent of the election box usage, several users would remove any attempts by multiple users to include the Wikipedia precedent. However, instead of intervening no admins got involved in the discussion, despite the fact that it had escalated on to the verge of an edit war by some users.

I have also participated in political afds such as Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process and United States Democratic vice presidential candidates, 2008. Bigvinu (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I Bigvinu hereby indicate acceptance of my nomination

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would mostly try and start a cleanup effort within the Wikipedia political field mostly regarding several stubs and articles missing references. Usually these articles are 2008 Primary stubs that were hastily created and contain only links to polling data and results. I believe if Wikipedia wishes to maintain a useful encyclopedia that these articles must undergo drastic clean up efforts. I would use my work in such primary articles such as in the South Carolina primary as well as my extensive works regarding the creation of  the Nevada caucuses to help in a general cleanup of political articles.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Well, my best contributions to Wikipedia would probably be the inclusion of infobox:Election for the usage of primaries. I did this by removing the categories of running mate and electoral votes and then applied it to the 2004 Democratic Primaries, 2000 Democratic Primaries, 1996 Democratic Primaries, and 1992 Democratic Primaries. From there my work regarding those infoboxes was established as Wikipedia precedent where articles covering Democratic primaries from 1956 to 2004 all carrying my election infobox idea.I would also have to say Howard Dean presidential campaign, 2004 which I re-did from scratch.


 * 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: Yes, I have dealt with editing conflicts. Most notably one in the 2008 Democratic Primaries page. Users began disregarding the election infobox practice which served as linking articles together (ex.2008 Dems. primaries note how the infobox serves as a way of navigating to the 2000 and 2008 primaries.

Well I was able to deal with that by taking it to the discussion page and making a proposal detailing my arguement for the infobox and why Wikipedia precedent should by taken seriously for the purposes of the article. I would use that experience to in the future avoid edit wars to be able to use those skills to civilly argue out editing conflicts in the discussion page to hopefully minimize edit warring on Wikipedia.

General comments

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


 * Links for Bigvinu:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bigvinu before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I don't know him very well and only for a very short time so I'll leave out what I've seen looking up his history and just give here my own first hand experience I made with him recently (twice) at the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article. Bigvinu made some controversial edits there and furthermore, he seems to dislike conversations at talk pages or to respond to other users legitimate questions even on his own talk page. Personally I also doubt he is ready, prepared and willing to be neutral enough to qualify for an admin position at this time. Of course he might learn and change and qualify as such in the future. --Floridianed (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stephen Colbert AfD was totally unfounded and provocative. I wouldn't expect an admin to nominate a GA for deletion on some shaky notability grounds. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The first three opposes were added before this RFA was transcluded. Useight (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed them. Not sure if notifying them would be appropriate. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Your talk page is full of people telling you about your mistakes.  For what it's worth, thanks for not blanking it.  Keepscases (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - doesn't appear to be ready. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Regretful Oppose - Sorry but the AFD for Steven Colbert did it for me. And this oppose is NOT just because I have been watching Strangers with Candy a lot lately. &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose not yet ready. - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - per 3 user talk edits ever. You need to work on interacting with other users more.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose due to lack of contributions demonstrating an understanding of policy and procedure, and what appears to be a lack of approachability and communications with other users, all of which are important attributes for an admin. Shereth 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose as per Tinkleheimer; the fact that you AfD'd Stephen Colbert, the man probably most responsible for heavy vandalism on Wikipedia :P, shows that you may lack the experience needed to be an administrator. Come back in a little while, when you're more ready. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 18:25, 14 July 2008 (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.