Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beau99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Beau99

Vote here (0/10/1) ending 05:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Beau99 (talk • contribs) – I nominate myself to be an administrator. I have been a Wikipedia member since September 2004, have made more edits than I can even count, and have started several articles that have since grown to be very good. In addition, a few Wikipedia members have thanked me off-site for my contributions. If am made administrator, I will help with the Votes for Deletion, as well as get rid of vandals when needed. I believe it will be in the best interests of Wikipedia if I had a few more privileges. Beau99 05:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I withdraw my nomination for now, in hopes of gaining more trust among other users over time. I will re-nominate at a later date.

Support

Oppose

1. Editcountitis may not be good, but 561 edits in over a year is a too slow edit rate for an admin to have. Also, this user doesn't use edit summaries very often (almost never). His interaction with other users is almost nil, with just 6 edits in user talk and 27 in Wikipedia namespace. Keeping your head down and working may be good, but not good enough for adminship.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Ok this turned into quite the speech, but I want to be clear on my reasoning. My general baseline is four months and 2,000 edits. However, I'm willing to bend that in cases where one of those being stronger makes up for one being less, particularly on the time side, or in cases where I know the user well enough to get a sense of their suitability. However, I have not had any opportunity to interact with you, and I generally am strongly disinclined to support with anything less than 1,000 edits. Considering that that number is also over a year-long period, that shows a level of participation that I do not think is enough for adminship. Part of why I feel that way is I am concerned that with infrequent participation, you may not be able to keep up with policy. This came up in another user's RfA recently, and in that case I felt confident with both that user's participation level and attention level to policy. However, I note a couple things in your RfA: First, you use the term "Votes for Deletion". VfD has in the past few months been re-named "Articles for Deletion". I myself am still getting used to that change, but I have a hard time being convinced you will be able to know policy well with that kind of error. Second, your user signature does not seem to link to your user page. I believe it is important for an admin to have a clear signature that easily links to both their user and talk pages, to facilitate communication. Third, you describe in your answers to the questions below that you would attempt to resolve disputes off-site. I question the wisdom of this. One of the advantages that we have with the wiki process is that everything is completely transparent. Nothing that we do on this site is hidden, and every edit, comment, and action is reviewable, and for the most part, reversable. If you attempt conflict resolution offsite, there is absolutely no evidence of what transpired. Having that evidence is helpful in that it may serve to protect you, should you be wrongly accused of mis-action by another user. Also, in your introduction, you state that you have more edits than you can count, which in my first read made me think that you were claiming to have a large edit count, however that is not the case. I am sure that was not intentional, but I want you to be aware of the impression that I got. I'm sorry this is such a soapbox, but I like to be clear in my reasoning. I hope that you will continue to provide an excellent contribution to the project. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Per Shreshth91. The Minister of War 10:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The edits seem to be good (apart from the lack of summaries), but there aren't really enough of them over such a long time period. You also mention you want to help oversee VfD, yet you have only contributed to three discussions on it. the wub "?!" 10:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose, per Evilphoenix. I am the last person to get a case of editcountitis, but I don't see enough experience with Wikipedia policy and such to qualify a support vote. Also, misspelling "privileges," while it doesn't affect your potential performance as an admin, really leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Sorry. --BorgHunter (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose: Near complete absence from project over the last 90 days (just 34 edits in that time period). Large gaps over time in contributions. Why would you want the admin tools if you're rarely here? --Durin 14:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose for the third time today, per reasons above. Private Butcher 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose — per above. Orane (t) (c) (@) 19:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose per above --JAranda | watz sup 20:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Do I need to say "per above"? Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Editcountitis sucks. Believe me, I know how hard it can be to convince folks to look at quality over quantity of edits. It was the primary issue on my own RfA, and I rarely vote against anyone over edit count alone. However, participation in the past ninety days is too low to ignore, at roughly 1 edit every 3 days. I also have some concerns that you wish to oversee "VfD" with almost no prior participation in it, not to mention that it hasn't been called VfD for some time now. I believe you're a good editor with some solid contributions, but this just isn't the right time. Edit a bit more and then come back for another try. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I hate to sound editcountitis stricken but kate's tool shows 560 edits in 1 year with only 26 to the Wikipedia namespace... Sasquatcht|c 05:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I realize that, but I consider quality over quantity in most cases. Besides, what may seem like not a lot of edits to you may be different to someone else. --Beau99 06:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Beau99-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 47%, 32% over the last 100. Average edits per day is ~1, .16 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 14:00, 20 October 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. I will help oversee the VfD and get rid of vandals, as well as anything else that comes to my attention.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. The article I started for Elliott Sadler stands out to me the most. It was the very first article started by me, and I put everything I had into making it evolve into what it is today.

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 how will you deal with it in the future?

A. There's nothing I can think of at the moment. If it happens in the future, I will make every attempt to resolve it off-site.

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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.