Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Booyabazooka

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.

Contents

[edit] Booyabazooka

Ended (24/11/12); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (banana) 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Booyabazooka (talk · contribs) - I'm nominating myself, in short, because we can always use more trustworthy admins. Over the last couple years I have touched a fairly broad array of Wikipedian affairs and have become familiar with most policy, so I think I'm in a good position to help out. ~ Booya Bazooka 21:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I've been around for a while doing logistical/cleanup work. I haven't hit too many roadblocks from not being an admin, but I'm looking to expand the scope of my tasking a bit. I'd like to help chisel away at the backlogs, and being able to take care of things like protection, deletion (speedy and debated), and move work will give me a bit more to do. I plan to start out cautiously, doing simpler or clear-consensus tasks until I become more comfortable with the tools and duties.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of the various article cleanup and wikification. For some specific contribution, I've recently created Infobox graph. I like this kind of stuff; standardization in presentation is important for reader clarity, and standardization in writing format is important for collaborative writing. I've also done a good bit of SVG conversion for similar reasons: better presentation and easier editing.
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: Most Wikipedians seem to argue fairly reasonably, so I find that debates are usually productive, not stressful. Recent example: a Bring radical cartoon I'd rather see gone (still unresolved). I did jump into one conflict with an editor who insisted that his unsourced story belonged in the Karaoke article; this was a stressful one because in the end I don't think I was successful in convincing him why Wikipedia policy necessitated better sourcing to include his edits.

Optional question from O (talk)

4. At what time would you use common sense instead of following policies and guidelines?
A: Common sense is not an alternative to be used instead of following policy. WP:UCS is a reminder that the guidelines should be read with their purpose, the encyclopedia, in mind. Policy pages can never be absolutely clear on every contingency, so "common sense" is what allows one to mind a rule's intent when its words are not on point. ~ Booya Bazooka 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions from SMcCandlish (talk):

5. Selecting one item listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that arguably does not belong there, explain (citing WP:CSD and/or WP:DP in detail) why it should not be speedily deleted. (If all of them appear to be appropriate candidates, say so and I'll think of replacement test of admin judgement.) Your personal, subjective opinion of the value of the item (how well written it is, the importance of the topic beyond satisfying WP:CSD's notability requirements, and so forth) should not be a factor.
6. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. As above, keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Booyabazooka before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I'm not impressed with Booyabazooka's userspace editing habits. I feel he spends to much time editing own userpage instead of building the encyclopedia, and therefore I cannot really determine whether xe will make a good sysop, and consequently I don't believe xe should be sysoped. Maxim 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support I find this user trustworthy. An examination of contributions indicates that they are polite and not-stupid. I believe the user will not doing anything rash and will consult more experienced users if they are not sure. I do not find the other concerns significant enough to oppose. - TwoOars 05:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support I think you are almost there, and will be soon. I would like to see your talk and overall editing skills improve however. Jmlk17 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - too new? He's been around since October 2002 and started editing regularly in 2004. Only 250 edits each to Talk: and Wikipedia:? Who says that's "only"? Who cares? Does anybody have any reason to believe that this user will abuse the full set of buttons, cause if not, the rest is just plain silliness. Zocky | picture popups 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support doesn't look like a nut job. - Francis Tyers · 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support This user seems fine to me: he has been around since 2002 was five years ago. Granted, the user hasn't edited every single month since then, but as of February 2006 Booyabazooka has been reasonably active. In the last few months he hasn't been active as much, but I'm sure that will pick up soon enough. He's done a reasonable amount of edits to categories, templates, and images, and a large amount of editing to the mainspace. My only concern is with the Wikipedia-space edits: it's not the number that I'm concerned amount, it's the recent edits done to them: not many edits have been done to the Wikipedia-space recently, and it would be a good thing to see more activity in that area. Apart from that, I have no issues with this candidate, and if this nomination doesn't succeed, I am sure Booyabazooka will address everything here and will pass next time. Acalamari 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Meet's my criteria, no huge problems. A great user. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Weak Support Low user talk and Wikipedia edits, but user has been at Wikipedia for a long time which suggests plenty of experiences anyways. Captain panda 03:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Could use the tools, not mental. Some of the reasons to oppose border on the ridiculous (thinking "we need more trustworthy admins" is a bad reason to go through RFA, for example). Or for describing the editor as "too new" when he's been editing since October 2002. Neil ╦ 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Too few talk page edits, too new, too untrustworthy because s/he believes to be trustworthy. Those and other valid reasons mean I cannot support - not. —AldeBaer (c) 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Looks like he does a lot of cleanup and maintainence etc. Could use the extra buttons even if he has erratic use. - Wardhog 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Extra-Strong Support per great answer to Q4. Common sense is not an alternative to be used instead of following policy - this is exactly right, and is something that a lot of veteran admins could do with learning. WaltonOne 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Answers show level-headedness and there is no reason to not trust this user to perform uncontroversial tasks until s/he feels comfortable with more controversial ones. –Pomte 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support no obvious problems; really like the answer to #4. No reason not to trust this user. (→O - RLY?) 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Opposes based on not maintaining a ludicrous editing rate, or being "too new" after five years, are extremely silly. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Even though I'd prefer if the edit summary usage was a bit higher, he still looks like good admin material. Pax:Vobiscum 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support per response to my initial oppose. Perspicacite 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support because this user has a life outside of wiki and therefore won't be as stressed. T Rex | talk 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support — could have more talk or project space experience, but certainly been around long enough and has the right answers (especially Q4). Everything I saw shows civility and reasonableness. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support See no evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Solid user ~ Infrangible 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Excellent user, happy with his responses to the questions, so I give my support. Deliciously Saucy 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Everyone should be an administrator. For chaos concerns, see User:A.Z./Imagine. If they're abusive, they can have their tools taken out. (this is a standard message that I'm using to support RfAs and it's not a judgement of Booyabazooka's merits: I just think no merits are required) A.Z. 00:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Weak Support - seems to be a good candidate but I support weakly because the number of edits are too low. --Aminz 09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - per Acalamri. Douglasmtaylor T/C 10:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose Sorry mate...but your project space count is quite low (I'm not opposing just per that though), which points to...er...not-so-much admin experience. Especially when the largest number of project space edits is to WP:VPT - good work, but not admin work really. I'm also a bit concerned about the activity levels...in the last 6 months you've made an average of 100 edits a month, which is really quite low. Your mainspace work is wonderful and should be applauded, but I just don't think you're ready for adminship. Sorry. Giggy UCP 22:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose While your contributions may have helped improve the project, you simply don't have enough edits in the project space. You're on the right path, but I don't think you're ready at the moment. New England (C) (H) 03:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. Try again after a few months and you may have my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose too new Jaranda wat's sup 05:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Because you start out with "I'm nominating myself, in short, because we can always use more trustworthy admins." which makes me instantly think that you're not trustworthy, and you're a self-gloater. Also says that nobody else thinks you're good enough to be admin if you must nominate yourself. (sorry if this came out harsh, it's not meant to be an attack, please don't take it the wrong way). GBenemy (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think most people would believe that they are trustworthy themselves. I do not see how the candidate saying so can be considered gloating or boasting. And about the self nomination part: it is not necessarily true that no one found Booyabazooka good enough to be an admin. Often only those users who participate in the more visible areas, and thus get noticed by the established users, get nominated by others. I believe that a vast number of users either haven't heard of RfA at all or don't care. Anyway, we should take a self-nom as confidence and willingness to help, not as arrogance or a sign of not measuring up. - TwoOars 09:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    If you have to end your comment apologizing for its harshness, that would be a good sign that it's not constructive or polite, as the instructions at the top of this section recommend. Leebo T/C 11:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    Weak oppose You clearly have experience but your editing habits are erratic. <200 edits per month for the last few months suggests a loose attachment. I would worry you'd be unavailable if an arbitration case came up and your administrative activities were in question. Perspicacite 06:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    It might be helpful to know story behind my edit count distribution. For the past three months, I was studying in Barcelona and spent most of my time being overwhelmed by Europe. When classes and work eat up much of my daily time, my edit count drops. So, if you're looking for tons of edits, this is a valid concern. I wouldn't worry about unavailability, though, because my activity is well spread out, and even during low periods I still check my watchlist daily. ~ Booya Bazooka 07:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    Not exactly thrilled by Walton's repeated attempts to get users to change their positions, but that addresses the issue; support. Perspicacite 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose- I'm opposing because of the answer to the optional question of when to use common sense and not follow policy. Per WP:IAR, One of the main and most important rules of Wikipedia is that if the policy prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. If you don't understand that then I question whether or not you would doggedly follow the rules even when they seem not to apply in some circumstances opposed to using common sense. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but this oppose is one of the most unfair I've ever seen. You would oppose a candidate for stating that they will follow the policies and guidelines laid down by the community? "Common sense" is an extremely vague and opinion-centred term; justifying actions by invoking "common sense" is often little different from simply following one's own opinion, IMO. The rules are there to ensure fair and balanced decision-making; lots of veteran admins could learn a great deal from this candidate's great answer to Q4. WaltonOne 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    No, WP:UCS and WP:IAR are VERY important aspects of wikipedia policy. "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." "Improve and maintain content, Be considerate of others, Use common sense. If the rules prevent any of this, ignore them." Dogmatically following the rules to a tee is only harmful to wikipedia. People need to use common sense (even if you think it's vague and subjective) when editing. Many of the times the rules are flawed or are too incomplete to encompass all possible situations in which cases we need to do what seems best. If what we do is wrong then that's not a problem either as someone else with better common sense will no doubt come along and correct it. WP:UCS and WP:IAR don't mean to ignore the rules totally all of the time. They simply mean that if a specific rule clearly prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Use your common sense if a rule is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia, the rule might be changed the next day as the policies are frequently reworded and changed around. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    WP:UCS is not actually a policy; the alternative essay Wikipedia:There is no common sense puts across an equally valid opposing point of view. My interpretation of WP:IAR is that it should only be invoked in totally uncontroversial circumstances, where any reasonable person would agree. (For instance, if a new page says "Fred Bloggs, born 1995, has an IQ of 200 and conquered the world before he was five years old", then it technically doesn't meet CSD A7 but should still be speedy-deleted.) In any case where there is likely to be controversy, admins should not ignore the rules, but should go through the full process and get community consensus for their actions. Otherwise we very easily become a dictatorship. WaltonOne 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    We can continue this discussion on my user page. We've already started discussing it on my talkpage so I don't see the point in discussing it here. My opposition to this user becoming an admin still however stands. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    For the record I have to concur with Walton on every single point. Especially in that WP:UCS barely qualifies as an essay at all, it's just a few personal-opinion sentences (not that its counterpart is any better) and has no weight as even as nascent, wanna-be skeleton of a consensus-adopted guideline. We're free to support/oppose on any basis we like, but I hope others don't adopt this unduly narrow one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    Here we go again... (→O - RLY?) 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. General experience issues, I don't have a sufficient level of confidence to trust this user with the extra tools. Daniel 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Inexperience in wiki-space indicates candidate is not yet prepared to handle many daily admin tasks. Xoloz 14:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per Giggy. Number 1 of oppose. Politics rule 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose A good person, but not enough experience to make judgments in using the extra tools. Please try again in three months, however. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral A good editor in the article space but I too am concerned that ~250 edits each to the user Talk and Policy spaces during your Wiki-career aren't enough to demonstrate your competence in the role of an admin. Try doing some admin-related tasks and contributing to XfD dicussions, quoting policies and guidelines where appropriate in each case. This will serve to demonstrate your grasp on the essentials of adminship and show just how at-ease you are when conversing with editors from grade school all the way to post-Doc and all points inbetween. (aeropagitica) 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Your answers and contribs are not outstanding, but cleanup work is the kind of work admins need to be doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J-stan (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I think that you are definitely on the right track. However, I would like to see you spend some time in project space doing some administrative tasks for a while before going after your mop. Trusilver 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - almost there - just a bit more work in project space needed. Lradrama 08:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - While this user has made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, I was unable to see much admin-like activity in his last 1000 edits. Combined with an average of only 100 edits per month for the last 6 months, makes me think that the tools aren't really needed. With some more time to dedicate and some more in XfD, AIV, etc, I would support. Useight 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - Not enough experience, though on the right track. Show us what you can do with the tools (or lack thereof) you have now. Orangemarlin 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral You are on the path, grasshopper, but you are not ready for the enlightenment mop yet. Change your user preferences to remind you to use edit summaries, make some substantial edits to articles (not just adding images and templates, but writing the encyclopedia), work well with other souls in AfD discussions, and help vandals change their ways (or help them along the trail to WP:AIV). Do these things, and the mop can be yours in two or three months. - KrakatoaKatie 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    Those are mighty patronizing words to somebody who's been around long before you. Aside from the clichés, do you have any reason to distrust this user with the buttons? Zocky | picture popups 23:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    Zocky, your comments border on personal attacks. Everyone has a right to an opinion here, and Katie's comments are quite valid. OrangeMarlinTalk 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Personal attacks? Don't be ridiculous. Zocky | picture popups 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, where did you get personal attacks out of that?? T Rex | talk 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral You could be a good admin in a few months, but I think you should try to get more involved in Wikipedia, and not just mainspace edits. Also, you should change your preferences to remember to use edit summaries. Lemonflashtalk 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral -- You seem to have a good number of contributions, have been around for a while, but the comments of the opposers cannot be simply ignored. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    OK, I usually object to people pestering oppose and neutral voters, but I'm really genuinely baffled here. Which of the oppose comments cannot be ignored? That somebody who's been around longer than most admins is too new? That the candidate for adminiship lacks admin experience? That 250 edits in project namespace is not enough? That 6 edits per day on average is not enough? I'm at a loss here. Zocky | picture popups 06:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral, lean support -- The user looks like a good contributer, but looking at Interiot's edit counter showed me red straight away. Please show edit summaries for all edits, to help others on things like special:recentchanges. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral pending answer to at least one of my questions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral, leaning oppose I'd like to see an answer to one of the prior opiner's questions too, to see how this candidate thinks. (Given the weekend and lack of other contributions, I'm not majorly troubled by the lack of a response to date.) And that, in the end, is why I am unable to support - I can't get a sense of how they think. I looked through their deleted contributions, and found two AFD nominations (one speedy delete A7, one unanimous delete) and a PROD (speedy deleted under db-nonsense, which I think was incorrect by the deleting admin, and should have been a prod). Seeing this, I don't think that they would be too aggressive with the delete button, giving me enough comfort to be neutral despite a lack of evidence on which to trust the user. GRBerry 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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.