Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigPimpinBrah

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

BigPimpinBrah

edit

Final (3/23/3); ended 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate v/r - TP 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

edit

JamesMoose (talk · contribs) – About me: Just a normal 22 year old bro from West Virginia, now living in Wyoming. Here on Wikipedia I occasionally edit anime, game, and music articles, but most of the work I do is fighting spam and vandalism, and patrolling new pages. -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Speedy deletions and fighting vandalism
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would say my best work has been in fighting vandalism, patrolling new pages, and finding spam articles/userpages. As far as content building, nothing too impressive. But my best was probably for the Hoshizora no Memoria article.
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: Haven't been in any big ones, but when there is an issue I discuss it on their/my talk page (and yes I admit there have been a few times I said things I shouldn't have, I'll try and keep that in check).
Additional questions from WereSpielChequers
4 You have a userbox that states "This user questions the official story on 9/11". Could you be more specific as to which aspects of the 9/11 story that you question, and perhaps give us an example of a 9/11 theory that you consider debunked and fringe and another that you consider to be a matter of serious debate? Without wanting to spoonfeed an admin candidate too much, I'm particularly keen to see what you would consider a reliable source for a fact that jibes with the official version of events.
A:The main things I question are who was responsible, as well as what actually caused the towers to collapse. These two I consider a matter of serious debate, the no-planes theory is one I consider debunked. As for this, I'm fully aware Wikipedia cannot accept the contrary information at this current point in time. I would consider physicists and engineers a reliable source, and while there have been many that do not accept the official story, their research is of course unlikely to be published in any of their peer-reviewed journals, so Wikipedia cannot accept their statements at the moment.

General comments

edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

edit
Support
edit
  1. Weak support. A lot of semi-automated edits using Twinkle & STiki, but CSD tagging has generally been good. Generally good AfD comments & nominations, although somewhat intermittent over time. Limited content creation. I am not concerned by the username. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support – You have shown mastery of reverting vandalism; however, you have only been here for less than a year. Just wait some time and gain others' trust. I am still inclined to support you, despite your highly offensive username which sysops have told you to change. However, the username doesn't really matter; it's the person that matters. Good luck! Epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ludicrous opposition over the username; Singularly disappointing to see a bureaucrat leading that line of reasoning (albeit unsurprising). Considering the number of drug use related usernames that we have (including admins) how this is different as a concern I fail to see. Fair and valid opposition of other factors. Moral support per Axl. Pedro :  Chat  18:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted change of username. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Was asked to change his username twice, and did not. --Rschen7754 05:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I hate opposing based on content, but firstly, the article linked as the best contrib is sparsely sourced, secondly per Rschen7754, and thirdly the answers are inadequate (not detailed enough).--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Offensive username, ignored my request to change it. Andrevan@ 05:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's that offensive Andrevan why haven't you blocked it? As you haven't I can only assume that it isn't quite as offensive as you protest. Your inconsistency undermines your argument. Or would it be that it's just unacceptable to you......? Noting you being a 'crat and all... Pedro :  Chat  18:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have, but considering that I have voted oppose in this RFA, I think it would be a conflict of interest. --Rschen7754 19:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but so what? I couldn't care less if you would have blocked or not. I'm responding to Andrevan who didn't block, despite advising the user his username was (according to Andrevan) objectionable but saw fit to oppose the user's RFA over (apparently) that sole issue. I have no clue as to why you have added the above comment Rschen7754. Pedro :  Chat  19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool name dude. Not enough contributions in any field, even anti-vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I think the editor's username is mildly offensive, and recommend changing it. The article put forward as the editor's best content work is largely unreferenced. I encourage the candidate to spend some time making solid, well referenced contributions to encyclopedic content, and in participating in a variety of administrative related areas. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not yet. I don't see, over the scope of the user's work, a full demonstration of policy comprehension necessary for adminship. --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, sharing others' concerns. A very recent !voting incident is of additional concern. I think you should heed advice to request a change of username, and also ensure you're conversant with Wikipedia's policies before resubmitting this request. Additionally, it'd be handy if you could keep a log of CSD nominations. All the best with your continued editing here in the mean time. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. A few concerns: 1) I'd like to see some more considered detail in the answers to questions 1-3. 2) The article presented in Q2 as the candidate's best content work is not sufficiently referenced. 3) I only see 194 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, which suggests (to me, at least) that the candidate needs more time to familiarize themselves more closely with the inner workings of Wikipedia before becoming an admin. Oh, and the username. — sparklism hey! 08:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per all the above. Also, I wouldn't usually consider a candidate who hasn't opted in to the Edit Counter. --Stfg (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. How on Earth are you even able to edit Wikipedia with that username? If that's permissible, then it's the absolute maximum we would accept in that regard — pretty much right on the border between objectionable and downright inappropriate. In any case, it's not a username I would associate with adminship, as it comes across as immature and divisive. Kurtis (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Not just yet - and am not keen on the Username - would hardly instil confidence if being used by an Admin Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Responses to questions don't demonstrate the depth of policy knowledge and communicative abilities expected from an admin. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Sorry, I can't support a candidate with a disruptive username no matter how great are. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 12:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars (in reference to this)? John Reaves 15:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware that we have / had had admins with usernames such as "bong warrior" and "high in BC" - both references to the illegal taking of drugs as opposed to what appears to be a jocular reference to an item of underwear? Pedro :  Chat  18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - sorry 'bro' but I see no reason to support, from either your contributions on Wikipedia or your answers to questions at this RFA. Your name is also unsuitable for an Admin. GiantSnowman 12:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose – Unconvinced, due to the lack of thought out answers to their RfA questions. Username is somewhat of a concern. BigPimpinBrah, my suggestion to you would be to continue on the path you're on (editing articles in conjunction with anti–vandalism patrolling); consider changing your username to one that is appropriate; and perhaps come back to an RfA in 6–12 months time. Good luck! —MelbourneStar☆Merry Xmas! 13:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Q1-3 sparse. I have a dull line at 3k article space edits; I'll go below that if Qs are strong, but I'm not seeing that here. User has not opted in for stats. Glrx (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Per aforementioned concerns. I sense a lack of maturity, and the brevity of the answers to the questions lends doubt that he can be trusted with the tools. — MusikAnimal talk 16:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Username alone, particularly when coupled with aforementioned concerns, give me much pause. Phightins is Gone (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose I was having a difficult time gaining insights to this editor based upon their contributions but I find the lack of thoughtful answers in this RFA not willing to put me in the support column. Mkdwtalk 18:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Per concerns mentioned above. Displays a lack of maturity and I would not trust this editor ability to use the tools wisely. MarnetteD | Talk 18:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No point in claiming that you are just a big fan of Xzibit I suppose? If you want to become a low level functionary here the user name will have to go. Also some of those quirky notions displayed on your user page. Good work on the vandalism though. You need a couple more years. Leaky Caldron 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Hi BPB, I support and thank you for all your many contributions on this project. I hope you will continue to contribute and grow as a member. However at this time I don't see the necessary depth in your WP experience. Your AfD work is good but it appears that many of your edits are STIKI vandal edits and that is great! except WP is a big place and an Admin needs a broad level of experience in content creation and interaction with other editors in all kinds of situations. From your X's Edit Counter file I see that you have very little article talk page experience. Also you have many user talk page edits, but I fear this is mostly STIKI vandal warnings (you logged 5,000 STIKI edits in your first 6 days of using the tool). Your user talk page likewise shows only minimal positive interactions with other editors. A variety of interactions with other editors is invaluable to an Admin who will be making decisions and taking actions that will sometimes result in adversarial feedback and tense discussions. Learning to deal with these kinds of situations is vital to becoming a good Admin. So I have to oppose at this time and hope you come back better prepared in the future. PS While I would not oppose your nomination solely based on your user name, because yes, there are lots worse names out there... still.....I would recommend a name change for everyone's sake. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Hello, BPB. Thank you for the work you've done fighting vandals. I can't support you at this time. After a quick review of your talk page, I must oppose. Your edit here was not constructive and contrary to a guideline resulting in a caution. You missed copyvio in an AfC move. And RfA !vote had to be oversighted due to inclusion of personal information [1]. I won't build a textwall but I judge that you need more time to understand Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and culture. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 19:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. Candidate has been here almost a year and has a clean block log. The username is troubling, we've had several admins with rather worse ones, however consensus is shifting and some of those admins have renamed themselves; So I won't oppose over that without first getting the candidate to explain what it means to them - I'd suggest they do so on their userpage or get a rename before their next run. I'm concerned about over hasty deletion tagging, this A3 was after just two minutes and was this month. However with the current state of !voting I doubt I will have the time to fully assess the candidate and oppose for poor deletion tagging or accept that as an isolated incident that just happened to be one of the first handful I checked. I have not yet checked the article they created to see if they have demonstrated an ability to add reliably sourced content. However the 911 userbox does worry me, I would like to fully discuss their attitude to fringe theories and see significant content contributions demonstrating they understood reliable sourcing and NPOV before I'd support a candidate who had a userbox like that. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How fascinating. Do please point me in the direction of User:Bongwarrior's rename request. I can't seem to find it (and nothing against Bongwarrior - highly capable admin). Or maybe smoking illegal drugs is fine in your world, whereas women's underwear isn't? Pedro :  Chat  18:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure the candidate's name refers to a Bra. I have a feeling it is actually a slang of the slang "Bro" (not a male Bra, but short for "Brother" or more simply 'guy') with a silly vernacular twist. "Big Pimpin" isn't really a suitable attribute for a bra, but it works great for a 'Bro'.--v/r - TP 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've no real idea what it refers to either. Apparently certain people in oppose (notably the bureaucrat Andrevan) have already worked out what it means - at least to them. Either way, it's offensive and blocked with the underlying IP free to choose another name or it isn't. The hypocrisy is as blatant as it is unsurprising. Pedro :  Chat  19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The clue is in the nomination statement surely? He says he's a "bro". What else could it mean? Leaky Caldron 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea Leaky. Your knowledge in this matter is clearly superior to mine. Either way it's offensive and blockable or it's notPedro :  Chat  19:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have is with the word Pimping, which has the connotation of sex trafficking. --Rschen7754 19:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And it also implies small, petty, sickly according to Wikitionary [2] - and either way all these challenges are the usual BS. Either it's offensive and blockable or it's not. And if it's not please provide me with a valid reason as to why it means the user behind the screen name can't wield the protect tool (for example). There's plenty of reasons to oppose, but the username ain't one. Pedro :  Chat  19:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope no one is tempted to get trigger happy here. After all, if "Ang lic anus" came up as a user name it would, correctly, be blocked. Remove the spaces and we have a valid user name, one whose early edit summaries contained reference to an arsehole. Leaky Caldron 19:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the name means, hence my suggestion, and indeed my lack of an oppose. For all I know the candidate is into car customisation. As for troubling admin names that lead to renames, I was thinking of one that used to refer to Xenocide. ϢereSpielChequers 20:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Really User:WereSpielChequers. You "don't know what the name means" but apparently "The username is troubling". Do try and be consistent. It's embarrassing enough for me when I see rubbish like you've just typed - I can't imagine who you feel re-reading it. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Requesting clarification of something you find troubling is neither inconsistent nor rubbish. The editor has now renamed and so the point is moot, but for the record if they had put an explanation on their userpage and it had been as innocuous as being a reference to car customisation then I would have ceased to be troubled. ϢereSpielChequers 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is indeed (mostly) moot, in that he has been renamed. Your disingenuous response that you requested "clarification" is more concerning. As you clearly can't see it, please note here you specifically stated that the username was troubling. You requested information on the candidate's approach to fringe theories and, indeed asked a follow up question about that. At no point is clarification of the username even touched on. Please contrast this to here where you unambiguously stated that you "don't know what the name means". It's getting more embarrassing by the second WereSpielChequers. I'd invite you to acknowledge, very simply, that you stated a username was "troubling" yet 8 hours later confessed you "don't know what the name means". It's really pretty simple, the diff's cover it. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright Pedro, let it go. This isn't about WSC and there is no point in trying to guess their intentions. You're not in their head. You're both respectable admins, there is no need for an argument here.--v/r - TP 21:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing no one's intentions TParis - I think you'll find I've made backed up my argument with undeniable diff's, but yes this RFA is no longer the place. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral – CSDs look good and user has been hard at work on reverting spam/vandalism, but lack of content creation, username, and edits like this are concerning. With a change of username and another year or two of experience, I'd be more than willing to reconsider. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 14:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Comment - Re: "I would consider physicists and engineers a reliable source" (in answer to Q 4): I think you better check out WP:Original research. On the other side, their research was published in The CIA and September 11 (book) which can be cited (for what it's worth). Kraxler (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BigPimpinBrah&oldid=1240221390"