Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bottesini

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] Bottesini

Final: (2/6/1) ended 01:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bottesini (talk · contribs) – I believe I am a quialified Administrator for Wikipedia due to my broad, well-balanced edits and my helpful nature. I am more than willing to help new users when they request it, or when it seems they are in need. Unfortunately, sometimes my lack of authority often forces me to redirect new, eager users to an administrator for the required actions. I feel that having the ability to mediate disputes (I am already a member of the mediation cabal) and deal directly with those seeking help would create a less confusing environment for users that might be discouraged by Wikipedia's steep learning curve in areas of WP policy, etc. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 22:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I withrdaw

I withdraw
I withdraw

I appreciate all the comments. It's pretty clear that altough I'm active and wiki-competent I need more edits to pass this nomination. I'll be back in a little bit, and I'm keeping those who promised to support me later to their word. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 01:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. SupportSince User:Bottesini has stated he understands fully the requirements of adminship and has answered satisfactorily some tough questions I asked him at User talk:Light current, I believe he is worthy of nomination for admin. Light current 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strongly Support Very sorry. I wanted to oppose another request. I strongly support you. ForestH2

Oppose

  1. Oppose Far too few edits; I suggest withdrawing this RfA. You obviously want to be an admin, so perhaps if you were to come back in September, I'd support you. joturner 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    Just for the record, if you were to check my contributions directly, I have over 1000 edits. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    I apologize. Often times, when I say "too few edits", I really mean "too few edits and too little experience". I know that they are not always one and the same, but when someone has too few edits and too little experience, I usually just say "too few edits". When someone has a lot of edits but still too little experience, I say "too little experience". I never oppose simply on the basis of too few edits (although there is almost never a situation when someone has too few edits for my standards but enough experience; only User:Amgine came close). joturner 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    And also, a good number (possibly majority) of your contributions are just welcoming editors. joturner 23:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    Certainly not a majority. According to the table below, only 6% of my edits are to user talk pages. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 00:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    According to the table below, just over 53% of your edits are to user talk pages. joturner 01:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose You don't spend enough time actually working on the encyclopedia. The behind-the-scenes stuff is important, certainly, but an admin needs to have a more balanced experience. --Tango 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The time in user talk isn't the problem; it's the lack of time everywhere else. Could be a great admin in a few months. RadioKirk talk to me 00:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, not enough edits and not enough experience. You're getting there, but you're not there just yet. Royboycrashfan 01:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Sorry, not enough overall or article edits. —Mets501talk 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose number of main space edits. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral Like the user, but not enough edits. Sorry. MoppEr Speak! 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments I put some data for the user below.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User contributions
Contribution data for this user (over the 1258 edit(s) shown on this page):
Time range: 64 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 04, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 1, March, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 87.62% Minor edits: 93.43%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 66.96% Minor article edits: 98.11%
Average edits per day (current): 19.74
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 5.33%
Edits on top: 47.3%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 66.69%
Minor edits (non reverts): 22.89%
Quick reverts: 0.87%
Unmarked edits: 9.54%
Wikipedia namespace edits:
Article: 17.33% | Article talk: 9.14%
User: 9.62% | User talk: 53.02%
Wikipedia: 9.86% | Wikipedia talk: 0%
Image: 1.03%
Template: 0%
Category: 0%
Portal: 0%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0%
  • You have answered my 3 questions I believe honestly. I would now like you to think very carefully about what is involved in being an admin. It means:
  • Giving priority to sorting out other peoples problems even handedly, not considering your own views.
  • Getting all sorts of undeserved verbal abuse from other editors.
  • Lots of vandalism patrols dealing with mindless and abusive vandals.
  • Not much time left to work on pages you hold dear (like Double Bass)
  • Maybe losing some past (fair weather) friends.
and probably a lot more besides. So are you still wanting to be an admin in the light of the above?--Light current 00:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Yes — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I am more than happy to help remove vandalism, to help with closing AfD's, and I am willing to do any of the repetitive, mindless tasks most others don't want to do. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 22:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I believe that my contributions to the double bass article have helped improve it's quality drastically. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 22:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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:I have never had a major conflict myself (as I always try to remain civil, and other tend to be also if you are always respectful), but I have mediated disputes before. It can be somewhat stressful watching users getting so involved over the wording of a sentence or something of that nature, but a compromise can usually be reached. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 22:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Additional question from Tango: Can you explain why only (approx) 1/6 of your edits are to the main namespace? I understand that you are involved in mediation and I can see you do a lot of welcoming, but even with that, 1/6 seems a very small proportion.
This is due to, as you said, me being mostly involved in mediation, etc., but it is also a result of my article revisions tending to cover a lot in a single edit. Additionally, I think some of my article edit counts were not recorded when there was a glitch in the edit count tool. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
And, according to this, 43% of my edits are to the main namespace. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I used the javascript version (linked to at the top of the toolserver version), which I believe is fully up to date (it takes the information directly from your contribs page), and it was about 200 main edits for 1200 total. --Tango 23:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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.