Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Revolving Bugbear

Revolving Bugbear

Voice your opinion (talk page) (14/0/1); Scheduled to end 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Revolving Bugbear (talk · contribs) - I'm very pleased to nominate Revolving Bugbear, formerly CheNuevara, for adminship. Bugbear has been with us since April 2005 but has a few gaps in editing. I first met Bugbear from third opinion, where he helped act as a third opinion in a dispute in Call of Duty 2. I found that he was very helpful in working towards a solution and knowledgable in policy, and the dispute soon ended after a month or so of ceaseless quarreling. Bugbear had a former RFA back in the summer of 2006, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CheNuevara, which was failed because of lack of experience and a possibly objectionable username. Since then, he's proved himself to be an experienced and able user. I ask that the community support Revolving Bugbear as a trustworthy user, and hopefully admin. bibliomaniac15 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. Thanks bibliomaniac! - Revolving Bugbear 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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: The admin task I am most interested in is the admin part of the deletion process. In the past I have been fairly active in AfD discussions, and I would like to be able to help out by closing discussions as well. I also would help with the Sisyphean task of taking care of CSDs and prods.

Dealing with page protection is also something I'd gladly work on. I would be interested in helping on WP:RFP, particularly -- but not exclusively -- as involves editing protected pages. I also think that, although it is not strictly speaking "admin work", the ability to deal with page protection would help me in my (largely informal) mediation attempts. (I recently worked with editors on the National Civilian Community Corps talk page while the page was protected, for instance.)

I will cop to a heretofore lack of activity on the various noticeboards, which is something I plan on changing in edits to come. However, tasks that involve blocking and the like would really be ones I'd easy myself into slowly. This is not to say I would shirk them, but I would approach the area with great caution until I had built up my own confidence and the confidence of others in me.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My most significant contributions early in my Wikipedia career mostly revolved around the Buffyverse. In fact, very early on I built the framework for WP:BUFFY. The project thrived for quite a while, and while I was very active in it I helped shape a number of precedents for work on Buffyverse articles, such as episode format and minor character merges. While the tireless work of countless other contributors made it happen, I'm proud to have had my influence on it.

Some of my more recent work has been on German-language issues. I am particularly proud of my work on Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany and I plan to (when I get my hands on my sources again, which are currently in another country) flesh out some more of the series I started (see the summary-style Censorship in Germany). I recently rewrote the Horst Mahler article, which was deleted for BLP reasons. I plan on continuing my translation work (I'm fluent in German), examples of which are Mainz Cathedral and Austrofascism.

I also, quite honestly, enjoy some of the more thankless tasks. I have a fistful of articles with high fan traffic and low non-fan traffic on my watchlist to keep an eye on.

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: Of course I've had Wiki-related stress, and of course I've gotten in scrapes with other editors. I don't think there's any Wikipedian who's been active for a time who hasn't. It's just the way that human beings work.

I like to think of myself as a reasonably level-headed person. I think that when I get into conflicts, I can handle them with some amount of grace and humility. I recently got into a scrape on Talk:¿Por qué no te callas?. I felt pretty strongly about the issue, but I did back off when it became clear that my opinion was not the community opinion.

Online communication is a tricky thing, and it requires a careful balance between tact and willingness to speak one's mind. I try to walk this line. I say when I think something is wrong, but I try and do it in a way which is reasonable, reasoned, and issue-centric.

4. Optional question from Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs)

Q. Can you explain the gaps in your contributions? You made 56 edits in the first 9 months of this year, and about 900 in the last three months. A similar gap is found from March to May of last year, where you made only 12 edits, and from september to November of 2005, where you made one edit.

A. I sure can.

From September 05 to July 06 I was living abroad. September - November I didn't have Internet access at all, because it wasn't included in my housing plan and I lived quite a hike from the campus network. March/April I was traveling a lot, so again, I generally wasn't near an Internet connection. I also wasn't as active in general at the time, so taking these breaks didn't seem troublesome to me.

The break during the first half of 2007 is mostly owing to the fact that I was writing an honors thesis at the time. I actually did make a fistful of edits during that time, but mostly from IPs around campus and in various libraries, as I tried to hold myself to a strict no-logging-in rule not only on Wikipedia but on a whole host of other online groups I belong to. It was very important to me to be able to concentrate on my academic work, and, when I'm on Wikipedia, I tend to spend a lot of time on it. I finished my thesis about two weeks before graduation, and moved out of my parents' house about two weeks after graduation ... once again, into a building where I didn't immediately have Internet access. Once I did get access in August, though, I made a commitment to myself to stick around.

I would like to stress that a) all of the breaks are on account of real-world activities and circumstances and not related to Wikipedia in any meaningful way, and b) during the 2007 break I made sure to see all things I was involved in (namely two mediation-turned-arbitration cases) through to the end before I "logged off", leaving an explanation behind.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?

A: I was not previously explicitly aware of this decision, but I was aware of the practice of summary deletion. The actual decision itself appears (see caveats below) straightforward: the ArbCom endorses the practice of deleting articles outside of the normal deletion process if they contain serious BLP concerns.

The fact that these articles "must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so" should be no great revelation. Per CSD G4, recreated material substantially the same as the original without addressing the original deletion is speediable.

I find the idea of summary deletion a little bit troublesome. How long does it really take to get a second opinion -- in most cases, you can probably get one in a few minutes if you ask in the right places. On the other hand, restoring deleted content arbitrarily is more troublesome to me -- the deletion process is in place for a reason and, even though it has its quirks and flaws, reversing deletions in the face of either consensus or policy is just not a good idea. "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean "do whatever you want", it means "rules should not be paramount to common sense when common sense clearly is appropriate". When an action clearly snubs both policy and common sense -- like undeleting an article which could expose Wikipedia to legal concerns -- it's clearly a bad idea.

I have some qualms about the BLP policy, in both its formulation and its application, but I realize the purpose it serves and respect it. I also have some qualms about the way this decision is phrased -- "significantly violates any aspect" is a slightly troublesome phrase to me -- but I understand and agree with the principle.

6. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?

A: Well, in theory, the undeleting of an article deleted for BLP concerns should be approached like the undeleting of any article, just with more caution. Any attempts to restore deleted versions of an article must of course go through the deletion review process. If I wished to restore a previous version based on some apparent flaw in the deletion decision, I would bring it to deletion review.

On the other hand, when attempting to create a new article on the same topic, the situation is less straightforward. If BLP indicates that the article itself was inappropriate -- an article which serves no function other than, say, to invade someone's privacy -- then any recreation would be inappropriate. However, if the article is on a topic which has already been deemed encyclopedic by the community which was deleted on more "technical" BLP concerns (i.e. an article on a legitimately famous person which was incidentally created to defame that person), then creation of a new, appropriate, neutral, well-sourced article which holds up under community scrutiny would not be inappropriate. Care must, of course, be taken that the new article is not just appropriate, neutral, and well-sourced in the author's opinion.

I don't know whether or not this question was posed in response to my work on Horst Mahler, but either way, I would like to note that my work on that article consisted of a rough translation of the German version followed by thorough independent research to source it. If you have specific questions about that, I'd be happy to answer.

It wasn't in particular — I ask these two questions to every candidate — but I will be sure to check out that article in relation to your answer. Thanks for answering my questions. Daniel 00:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim.23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They are 100% optional but may help me or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove any of these you don't want to touch if you like.

7. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A- Far more important the number of "!votes" is what they say. If this group of suspect accounts / IPs contributed comments that consisted of "ZOMFG howcanyoudeletethisarticlethatscensorship ?!?!?!!!111", then the decision is pretty obvious.

If they contribute meaningfully to the discussion, then that's a different story. Generally, in my experience, this is the rarer situation, but it needs to be handled sensitively. Given the caveat that these things must be approached on a case-by-case basis, my first instinct would be to relist. Often in relistings people will delve more deeply into their opinions and make more compelling arguments -- and likewise, people using puppets are more likely to give it away. If a relisting isn't reasonable for some reason or another (it's already been relisted a couple times, or the discussion is already unwieldy), my next instinct would be a no consensus closing. If it can't be relied upon that the accounts are abusive ones, it's probably best -- again, given case-by-case judgment -- to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, in the spirit of my own fallibility, I'm never above taking the time to look for a second opinion. While this isn't, from what I understand, common practice in AfD closures, it might be appropriate in a situation like this.

8. How do you define nonsense as used in WP:CSD?

A- Nonsense, for purposes of speedy deletion, is inherently irredeemable. Gibberish is the obvious incarnation, but WP:PN's second category, "no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever", is also pretty much not reconcilable to meaningful communication. If no coherent meaning can be derived from a text, it's nonsense. If some coherent meaning can be derived from it -- even if it's an outlandish meaning -- is not nonsense.

At the risk of sounding like a now-infamous former Supreme Court Justice, I think I can recognize nonsense. However, it is important to distinguish between things that make no sense to me -- I know absolutely nothing about sub-Saharan traditional beliefs, for instance, and I'm not familiar enough with the Cyrillic alphabet to distinguish it from faux Cyrillic on sight -- from things that patently make no sense. Articles that are written in other languages, that are so technical as to be meaningless to laypeople, or that are intelligible but patently false are not patent nonsense within the meaning of WP:CSD. I think I'm also, in general, capable of distinguishing between the two.

It is of course the case that the "not to be confused with ..." on WP:PN are all not nonsense.

9. In closing AfD's, how do you weight "Delete per nom" as a ratioanle?

A- Again, this really has to be looked at contextually. I think people should, in general, articulate their own views on AfD. On the other hand, we all cut corners, and sometimes the nomination is so eloquent and complete that the most sensible thing seems to be to agree with it. In a WP:SNOW-style deletion nomination, "per nom" (or per anyone else, for that matter) !votes probably indicate that there are a number of people think the nominator got it pretty right. If the nom gave his nomination as "nn bio delete" and a subsequent post gave a reasonable argument for why the subject merits an article, "per nom" !votes say to me that the person probably didn't take an appreciable time looking at the article and discussion.

So again, it's a contextual thing. In general, though, I would recommend to all AfD participants that, even if it sounds repetitive, they factor their opinions in their own words. They are necessarily more compelling that way.

General comments

• See Revolving Bugbear's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Revolving Bugbear: Revolving Bugbear (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support good contributions, good range EJF (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Knows what he's doing. Good contributions, perfect edit summary usage, all around good editor. Best of luck. (Actually, I'm a little concerned with the lack of template space edits, but I don't think that should get in the way.)   jj137 ^♠ 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Looks fine to me. Good luck. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support score is for username.  Grue  22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support good answer to my question. It will be nice to have a Lord Jeff as an admin. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Looks good. :) GlassCobra 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
9. I first encountered RB in the Call of Duty 2 dispute noted in the nom - and I was really impressed with the way he handled himself, demonstrating excellent knowledge of policy, and teaching a new and relatively uninformed user the ins and outs of OR. I trust him absolutely as an admin. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Of course--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
11. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support as meeting all my standards -- 3,000 edits, at least 3 months' service, no problems, participated actively in article work, user doesn't totally neglect the edit summary (recently at least), and intelligent and proper answers above. Breaks in service as an editor is no big deal, but as a sysop, ought to notify the others. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support meets User:Dlohcierekim/standards. The gaps were concerning, so I took the time to review some AfD discussions and so forth, added questions. Good answers to my questions. Thoughtful, articulate, careful user unlikely to abuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 03:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - Obviously a careful and thoughtful user, no problems. PookeyMaster (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Been on Wikipedia since 2005, but has large gaps in edit history and only 3000 edits. I'd say yes with some more edits. Sirkad_talk^sign 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

   How do the issues you list - 3000 edits, and gaps in editing - indicate the possibility of misuse of admin tools? What would another couple thousand edits do to allay your concerns? Picaroon (t) 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

   The Candidate already explained why he was absent in Q4. PookeyMaster (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)