Pigman (talk·contribs) - It's with great pleasure that I'm able to nominate Pigman for adminship. He's been editing here since November 2006 and has over 6000 edits across a wide range of spaces. I can see that Paul fully understands the notability criteria by his valued comments on AfD's - he's certainly be an asset at closing these debates, and to be honest, I believe that's where he'd spend most of his admin time. Another area that Paul works in is new page patrol and has successfully tagged numerous pages for deletion so I can see him being a great help at CAT:CSD. As for article writing, well he does mainly gnomish tasks which are always valuble contributions to the encyclopedia to keep it reliable. Paul took quite a long wiki-break between May and August due to issues in real life, but I really hope you don't hold that against him. From my experience with him, he's a really civil guy and a good laugh, which is always a good attribute for an admin. After saying all that, let's make the Pigman into a sysop! Ryan Postlethwaite22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe in the open nature of Wikipedia and allowing anyone to edit, yet I also believe in creating a reference of quality and accuracy. While I’m not a strict deletionist, I do believe Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Part of being an editor on Wikipedia (or anywhere) is deciding what information belongs and what sort of matrix connects it to other information. I very much try to approach WP without my personal prejudices, but rather with the various standards of notability in mind and with special attention to reliable and verifiable sources. Because I expect at least two good sources for an article’s content (or the promise of their insertion imminently), I tend to be a bit more demanding than some editors on the articles I work on, particularly very recent popular culture items or people.
I consider my ability to easily admit when I’m wrong and correct my mistakes a good quality for an admin. Not that I’m saying I make a lot of mistakes (grin) but that I usually don’t have defensiveness or ego problems keeping me from seeing them when they are pointed out to me. When it comes to content disputes, people can almost always find common cause and solutions if they talk about it.
All in all, I think I’m both temperamentally and experientially suited to wield the mop and bucket for the betterment of Wikipedia. I promise I won’t destroy the project. Not intentionally.
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: Speedy Deletions is currently attracting me. Though I made a few mistakes in the beginning, thanks to the kind feedback of others plus continuing to hone my skills, I am much more experienced now and I believe my judgment is this area is good. Backlogs of Speedy tagged articles are always a concern and I’d like to help with those. My participation in AfDs has been ongoing, if generally at a lower level than I’d like, but I could certainly spend time there closing cases. (I freely admit I haven’t done non-admin closings of AfDs in the past but expect to take this on as a responsibility in the future, as admin or not.) Vandal fighting has always been part of my work on Wikipedia and I expect that to continue. I’m a big believer in consulting with other editors if I have questions or doubts about the proper course of action in a particular situation. This won’t change if I become an admin except I’ll consult more with admins about admin related decisions. I tend to be cautious about making decisions if I have doubts about the best course. On the other hand, I don’t hesitate when I’m clear on the actions needed in a situation.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’m finding it difficult to pick one thing. As an avowed Wikignome, I often do multiple small things to many articles. I might fix the formatting on one article, do copyediting on another, rewrite bits on yet another. I find that Wikipedia requires a certain, very specific kind of writing style which I’ve enjoyed honing here. It’s quite different from my usual (outside of WP) style, which tends to use a more complex and obscure vocabulary and a somewhat more complex sentence structure. Here, it’s all about simplifying and clarity of voice. It’s not a stupid or dumb voice, just a more basic presentation style. I certainly don’t believe everything on WP can be distilled completely to a high school reading level but I find it a good goal to shoot for. If WP is to be an effective reference, it needs to be understandable by many people.
I’m probably proudest of the first article I started, Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. It was also my first WP edit, back in the summer of 2005. The development of the article also shows the ways in which I’ve developed an understanding of WP policy and guidelines which, like many new editors, I didn’t understand much at all at first. While it still has room for improvement, I think it compares favourably to some of the better articles on WP (it is now classed as a Good Article). I’m particularly pleased with the use of a range of reliable sources to substantiate the information in the article. Not all of this is my doing of course, but I had a significant hand in its development to the present.
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: Undoubtedly my biggest conflict on Wikipedia was the Starwood case. I became involved in challenging spam linking and the creation of a slew of nn articles. When I stood up to the spammer, wikistalking and retaliatory attacks by a host of sockpuppets ensued. It dragged out for several months, through mediations and RFCs. When those did not adequately address the policy violations, I filed a case with Arbcom. Arbcom considered and eventually ruled on proposed principles in the case. The eventual Arbcom decision was much less than optimal from my perspective but throughout the process (and to this day) I believe I maintained an even demeanor without losing my temper or engaging in personal attacks. If this kind of issue came up again, I would probably handle it very differently today. I have a much better understanding of the options available in such a situation and places to go for help in handling and resolving it. AN/I of course, but I think some early Requests for Comment might have helped by calling more eyes into the situation. It also would have saved everyone a lot of time and grief if I had thought of filing requests for checkuser earlier in the case.
One of my better traits is that I rarely get angry on Wikipedia. I’m almost invariably polite and helpful rather than confrontational. Unapologetic serial vandals might get a slightly more clipped or terse response from me but I find them more amusing than anger provoking. I try to remember to leave a welcome template on their talk pages but admit I don’t always, particularly on the talk pages of aggressive IP vandals.
A: I guess so although I admit I haven’t been following the discussion closely about the process for such action. I’m slightly concerned about popularity playing a part in such recalls or an organized blitz designed to remove an admin without good cause. I’m sure this has been brought up in the discussion but admins are not always popular figures, particularly strong-willed and effective admins. I’ve seen a number of admins play it safe by not ruffling feathers and in the process become liked but less effective in their admin responsibilities. Of course, there are also a few admins I wouldn’t mind seeing step down. I’ve seen instances where the position seemed to cultivate arrogance, an overly high opinion of their editing skills, and a tendency to use their position as a cudgel to settle situations decisively but not necessarily well. (I’m sorry if this seems an overly harsh judgment on my part but I’m also sure that most experienced Wikipedians know of an admin or two loosely fitting within this description.) Be that as it may, I’m certainly willing to trust the community that bestows the extra buttons to take them away. Adminship is also a position of trust granted by the community. If a large enough segment has lost that trust in an individual, I agree they should be recalled. After all that hemming and hawing, let me definitively and affirmatively say: Yes, I would add myself to the category of admins open to recall.
6. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: Excellent question, MONGO. Blocking Policy indicates that I should consult with the original admin who imposed the block before even considering unblocking the editor. This seems eminently reasonable. If I had doubts about the reasonableness of the original block, I'd take it up on the administrators' noticeboard. Yes, I would follow policy in such a case. Wheel warring is a poor idea. I much prefer communicating about differences of opinion rather than reverting actions. It's a basic tenet of my WP philosophy. Pigmanwhat?/trail19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Post Scriptum: (doesn't he ever shut up?) Part of assuming good faith for me is trusting that admins have a good (policy) reason for their actions, even if it isn't readily or immediately apparent to me. I would certainly speak up if I thought they were wrong, directly to them or, if that failed to convince me, in the proper forum such as the admin noticeboard. Pigmanwhat?/trail00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Optional Question from Malinaccier. Could you explain why your edits seemed to lag between the months of April 2007 to August 2007? —Preceding comment was added at 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
A: Eek! How long has this question been here? Only hours til this RfA will close so I'm sorry about the last minute answer. There were a number of factors behind the wikibreak: I spent much of the summer getting a book ready for publication and publishing it. Lots of copyediting, formating, design and proofreading occupied my time from June to August 2007. However I admit the Starwood affair (detailed in Question 3 above) was a factor in my withdrawing from WP participation for a while. The arbitration was difficult and exhausting in many ways. The resulting Arbcom decision was an unsatisfactory ending to the tangled mess for me. Some issues I thought were clearly central in the case remained unaddressed by Arbcom. I do not blame Arbcom. However, when I helped take a case like that to WP's highest community authority (outside of Jimbo) and the result was so disappointing, I was left with the feeling that policy enforcement was often erratic and unpredictable. Such a perception was deeply disheartening to me. The idea that policy, as I understood it, might not be enforced relatively evenly and consistently in all situations left a feeling of futility about their meaning and application on Wikipedia. Obviously I've come to some sense of balance and acceptance of this aspect of Wikipedia or I wouldn't have returned to edit or to accept this nomination for admin. Is this a "too much information" answer? WP is a community of volunteers and as such isn't always perfect or completely consistent across the board. Yet I think it works remarkable well in many/most instances so I'm satisfied with doing the best I can to help it function smoothly. With liberty and justice for all. Or something like that. Pigmanwhat?/trail02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pigman before commenting.
Support, first because I believe adminship is no big deal, and there should be a clear argument against a specific candidate before opposing, and this user has no red flags, from my perusal of contribs; second, Wikignomes hold the project together, and as more of a writer/major rewriter (dragon), I feel the project needs all the gnomish admins it can get; and third, I trust Ryan's noms, as he's proven a good judge of admin-worthy editors. K. Scott Bailey03:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - although I am more of an inclusionist. Excellent number of edits, breadth of edits, and user pages. Reviewing this user's pages, the said arbitration page, and his comments have given me a lot to think about. Pigman is admin material. Bearian13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Piggy Support - Pigman is dedicated to the project and ready for the mop. He is even-tempered, works well with others, and considers the ramifications of an action before proceeding. He has shown boldness, courage and persistence in standing up to trolls, as seen in his bringing the Starwood case to Arbcom, which resulted in getting those trolls and socks indef blocks and bans. He will be an asset to the admin team. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫18:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. His answers indicate he'll make a great administrator, and that he won't break loose from the power plant and wreak havoc over the countryside. --krimpet⟲06:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to support this nomination anyway, but I was convinced to strongly support for the following reasons: 1. He assumes good faith, as demonstrated here, and I remember his AGF from eight months ago, so I'm pleased to see that Pigman continues to assume good faith. 2. He has recently expressed interest in helping with reducing the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages backlog. For these reasons, I will strongly support this nomination, and am glad to. Acalamari18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I looked at the Starwood arbitration and a controversy he was involved in on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, and have no complaints about the way he handled himself in those issues. He seems to be careful to avoid any promotional editing that might be due to a personal COI. His AfD votes appear sensible. Besides, it would be good to have some self-deprecating humor on the administrative noticeboards to take the edge off, and I think he has the skills for it. EdJohnston21:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment D'oh! Now I feel stupid and forgetful for not mentioning said controversy. Considering I've kept a COI disclosure notice about it on the top of my talk page since the question of its use as a source arose, I think I sort of put it out of my mind. My bad and really not intentionally hiding it. Pigmanwhat?/trail00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I mediated the Starwood case for a while before it went to arbitration. There were a lot of barbs being flung about in that case, but Pigman managed himself very well and maturely. His reaction to an ArbCom decision he found "less than optimal" shows grace, character, and judgment. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have personal experience of this editor's good judgment and in-depth research in AfD processes; that, coupled with intelligent answers above, makes me think he will be an excellent administrator. Accounting4Taste00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
zOMG Support - PigMan is a super editor, great all round player, civil and courteous to a fault. Delighted to add my support here. He'll make an excellent admin - Alison❤06:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support I was also involved in the Starwood case and Paul did well to retain composure in one of the ugliest things I've seen on Wikipedia. Anyone who can do that will make a fine admin. --Salix alba (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I've not had the pleasure to interact with this editor before, I have a great deal of respect for Ryan, and his choice of candidates. As I do with most RfA candidates, I did take a look through the contributions, and the questions here. I'm impressed with the candidate's answers, especially with the answers to questions 3 and 6. With the impending page creation by IPs being re-enabled, this editor's experience in that area will undoubtedly be valuable. I really have no doubts that this candidate would make a fine addition to the current administrative team, and will serve Wikipedia well. Ariel♥Gold01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A trustworthy candidate and the answer to question four reinforces that. His willingness to help out at CSD will be of good benefit to this project. Spellcast02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
