Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bart133

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Bart133

final (9/8/5) ending 02:52 21 February 2005 (UTC)

I ran across this fellow a few weeks ago when I saw that he had fixed vandalism to one of the main pages on my watchlist (Wikipedia:About or something like that). Going to his userpage, I found that he had been awarded the exceptional newcomer award, and on his talk page I observed praise from several users regarding his quick grasp of our policies and involvement in the Vfd. I was impressed, so I looked over his edit history and found that he is quite involved in the community. I say, he's worthy. →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 02:54, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

I definetly accept, thanks! Bart133 (t) 03:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Notice: If this nomination does not meet consensus by the above deadline, I elect to extend another week. --Ryan! | Talk 09:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Good User, 1000 edits is a little small but I'm willing to overlook it--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. As long as his last name isn't Simpson.  ;) --Ryan! | Talk 14:43, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Edits seem useful and I recognize the name. I support. - RedWordSmith 18:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Looks good to me. Rje 19:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. I generally expect users to have 1,200 edits before requesting adminship, but I can be flexible. 1166 edits is good enough. And I like his work. --Lst27 (talk) 23:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    As they say, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."—seems more mature than some editors thrice his age. Work is of good quality, seems to enjoy thankless tasks like fixing typos and tagging images. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Back to neutral... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    How did you know that? I do.  :) Bart133 (t) 02:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Cool. JuntungWu 04:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 05:32, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Andre (talk) 13:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Heh, I started editing when I was 12, became admin when I was 13... ugen64 02:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I am hesitant. 3 months and 1000 edits is a pretty quick promotion in general. But this chap is in 6th grade. I'm sure he's a fine and responsible fellow. But for someone still in elementary school, I'd rather see a somewhat longer history & evidence of behavior in tense situations. Another couple months. Nothing personal at all, I suppose I'm just an age bigot. Wolfman 04:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    If you are willing to call yourself an age bigot, it is a strong indication that you are not. :-) →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 04:29, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
    Well, I would happily vote to give him a Barnstar. So, maybe I'm just being circumspect. Wolfman 16:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Ahem, 6th grade, in the U.S., is middle school. Certainly seems responsible enough for me. Эйрон Кинни 02:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. I looked through his edit history. Over the past few days he's put a speedy tag on something up for VFD (presumably he didn't check the edit history when it was vandalized, instead just slapping a speedy tag on it – something that happened before, as well). I also found numerous grammatical errors when reverting, such as [1] and [2]. All this, combined with listing Fruit Brute for deletion (the article was vandalized, but the history of the article was still there and the article itself still had content establishing its notability), and the other objections raised lead me to believe that he's not ready for adminship yet. I'd likely support later. CryptoDerk 05:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Also, I just noticed that from December 5 to January 7 he only made 6 contributions. So his period of activity is really more like 2 months. CryptoDerk 05:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Note--the Versace goof was in his first hundred edits, so I'm willing to chalk that up to new user enthusiasm. I note that the next edit to the article was also by him—[removing the tag] a minute later. The recent item is more troubling. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the hell out of this one. this user not only has been editing for 2 months, is one of the youngest users of wikipedia being in 6th grade, I do not feel this user has the maturity level to handle the power. This can be seen by his "not notable" reasoning of an item produced before his birth, that he put up for VfD without even a simple google. If people like this become admins, I'll become an ex-user.  ALKIVAR™ 06:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Maybe after more edits. -- Jordi·✆ 07:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. He's on the right track, but 2 months of activity and 1100 edits just isn't enough. What clinched it for me was the Fruit Brute VFD. A Google query turns up over 1000 hits. With a bit more experience, I will support. Carrp | Talk 14:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, and extremely so. Maybe after a few more years of schooling and experience, but placing adminship responsibilities in the hands of someone who has yet to reach middle school is not a wise idea. Also agree that his edit count is somewhat inflated due to minor copy editing. Granted, minute copy editors are needed, but that does not convey to me that the person is ready to handle admin responsibilities. Furthermore, this person has not displayed the maturity level that I would expect to see on VfD and has made several unnecessary listings. Closing comments: keep up the good work and try again a few years from now. —RaD Man (talk) 00:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Adminship is not a reward, it is a position of responsibility. Phils 18:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I'll want to see evidence of a longer editing history at Wikipedia before I can consider supporting. As Wolfman said, I may be an age bigot (I teach 6th grade, you see), but a user as young as Bart133 will need to demonstrate considerable maturity before I can see myself supporting a vote for adminship. Joyous 15:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. He seems to be an exceptionally solid and mature contributor for someone his age, but I'm yet hesitant to offer my support. This is mainly because I agree with Wolfman's comment above and my personal editcount/time minimum standard is above 2000 edits/four months. Will likely support in future. jni 09:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm also hesitant to offer my support, mainly for the same reasons as Jni. When the questions below are answered, I will re-evaluate and may change my vote to support. Carrp | Talk 15:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Due to the Fruit Brute VFD and the fact that the user has only 2 months of editing, I am opposing this RfA. I will support in the future. Carrp | Talk 14:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'm waiting to hear his answers to the questions below; see also my comments. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Moved to support. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Back to neutral on this one. Still seems to need seasoning; a little too prompt to {{delete}}, and I didn't notice the month on hiatus. Check back in a couple of months. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Waiting for his responses. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    See below for responses. Bart133 (t) 01:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. I am uncertain to vote either way. His praises have some merit, but the caution urge from others certain has me concern. I think I slightly agree with the fact that this request for adminship comes premature. I do not wish to discourage either way, therefore I wish to remain neutral. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Comments

  • 1166 edits. First edit was in November 2004. Carrp | Talk 03:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Only 6 edits from December 5 to January 7. CryptoDerk 05:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I looked at several pages of his contributions, and I see he has made many valuable edits fighting vandalism and nonsense. Good work. Jonathunder 04:27, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Looking at his contribution history, there are a lot of very minor copyedits (removing doubled words and correcting single typos). This is valuable and worthwhile work, but I fear it results in an (unintentionally) inflated edit count. I'm also a bit concerned about all the images that he's tagged as GFDL (images that were left untagged when uploaded by other users.) I've asked him to clarify how he verified their GFDL status; hopefully they're all good. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Bart133 responded quickly to my copyright questions, and a cursory examination of his other image tags suggests that he's usually quite thorough and conscientious. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly urge those who have already voted to reconsider. I think he's a good editor, and I could care less about edit count, but 2 months of activity and multiple instances of putting VFD/speedy tags on articles that didn't deserve them has really got me worried – especially since so many people have already voted to support him and none of them have brought these issues up. CryptoDerk 06:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's something to consider: one of his listings for deletion resulted in some comments that were rather harsh. In my humble opinion, those comments will probably make him be more cautious in the future. The old adage, that one never makes a mistake more than once, holds true in this case. →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 07:45, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • I know it's only been two days of voting and there's still five days left, but if my observation is correct it is now unlikely for Bart133 to achieve consensus for promotion to adminship. But don't get discouraged - many fine admins were promoted only on their second (even third) subsequent nominations. JuntungWu 16:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. It was just a bit too early for this RfA. The oppose votes (including mine) were mainly based on inexperience and/or a recent erroneous VfD. If Bart133 keeps up the good work for another 3 months, I will strongly support. Carrp | Talk 17:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I want to remind people that please do not judge people by age only. We have many adults that vandalises Wikipedia pages. Are they mature? Hell no. SYSS Mouse 18:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe age should not be an issue. I note that we already have sysops that are roughly the same age. JuntungWu 01:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) (note that I've already voted support).
    • Indeed. Ilyanep is, if my calculations are correct, no more than two years older (more likely one) and he is a Bureaucrat. The classic characteristics of any age group are statistical, and there will always be outliers. →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 01:49, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
      • Absolutely, there are many young people exceptionally mature for their age who would be fine admins. Bart may be one such. However, the average person that age would likely not be a good candidate. The question is whether there is a sufficiently long record at this point to determine with confidence whether Bart is exceptional. The nomination simply seems premature to some of us. Note that I would be at best neutral even if he were 40 based on the rather brief track-record. I think at least a couple mistakes have been made in the past with such quick nominations. Wolfman 02:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't support simply because the user is too new, but opposing him on the basis of nominating some breakfast cereal for deletion is utterly ludicrous. Gamaliel 06:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It does sound rather funny when you put it that way, but the point is that the VfD demonstrated inexperience. A low edit count or two months of editing time doesn't automatically disqualify a candidate for me. However, I prefer that admins have enough experience to perform a basic Google test before nominating for VfD. Carrp | Talk 12:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oddly, the nominator hasn't supported the nbomination. Doesn't the nominator usually support? Bart133 (t) 21:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I was the first to come to the defence of the Fruit Brute article, but it troubles me to see so many using that VfD against him in this RfA. It's perfectly understandable if he's a 6th grader that he probably hadn't heard of it. He should have Googled before listing it as a VfD, but then lots of VfD nominators (even some current admins) don't always do that. I think that VfD was a mistake on his part, but I don't think it's so egregiously bad that it should cost him an adminship. Everyone who hangs out on VfD for awhile makes a bad call or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:20, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Fruit Brute thing clearly touched a sore spot with some people, as does the age thing. Since I haven't chimed in from my original vote, I should point out that in my book a bad VfD or two doesn't count against someone, and age doesn't matter, but bad speedy tags do. An administrator has three main technical abilities -- block, delete, and protect. While it's hard to predict if someone will make a lot of bad blocks or bad protects, one can see if an administrator will make some bad speedies. If Bart had one more month of activity and hadn't made a couple of bad speedy calls, I would have supported. If he had several more months of activity & a thousand more edits, I would have overlooked a couple of bad speedies. CryptoDerk 02:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oww, his Open Tasks box hurts my eyes!!! -- Riffsyphon1024 02:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It hurt mine too, for the short period that it was there for. Bart133 (t) 04:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Probably, I would help with anti-vandalism and deletion tasks, since I already do as much as I can to support these already. However, I would probably help with all I could.
Can you explain why you listed Gianni Versace for speedy deletion [3] after it was vandalized rather than make the appropriate reversion?  ALKIVAR™ 06:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I mostly like all my contributions equally, although, if you look at my user page, I have a list of articles I've created. Add Blue Hen Chicken, which I wrote anonymously, and you get a list of contributions I like.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. No really major conflicts, although Grunt and 24.116.8.12 were in a short revert war on my user page over how quickly I revert, and there was a somewhat minor dispute over Fruit Brute.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Bart133_f328.html"