Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bouncingmolar

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] Bouncingmolar

Final (3/11/4); Ended Tues, 13 March 2007 02:32(UTC)

Bouncingmolar (talk · contribs) - I started to use wikipedia december 05, and have since become hooked after discovering the Dentistry pages which were very primitive at the time, while answering dental questions on yahoo answers. The large majority of my contributions have been aimed at restructuring and creating pages in the dentistry section. I also wikignome when I see anything on any of my wiki diversions and obsessively revert any discovery of vandalism. The main contributions I would make would be to assist administration in the dentistry project pages. The majority of pages i monitor fall under the dentistry category, so I can review them. However I consider general anti vandalism as one of my priorities - Bouncingmolar 12:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept - Bouncingmolar 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I will be back after a few more thousand then :) Bouncingmolar 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit I don't spend all my time on wikipedia, and maybe i do look a bit like a maggot. I do try to keep my life balanced. In regards to XFDs, although I would like to resolve XFDs they are not my main priority. My main interest would be administration in the Dentistry area, I watch all the dentistry articles i have found, and not all of them need to be changed. jimbo wales (whoever he is), says its not a big deal. I think the quality of my contributions shows that I am responsible enough to hold a mop. I don't plan to go out and slop it over the entire contents of wikipedia, but I can still make a difference, even if my mop wouldn't be as big as others.


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: The main sysop chores I am interested in is administration of the dentistry section (eg helping users merge or move information and facilitate resolving disputes). However I am very keen to help with anti vandalism efforts. At the moment when I discover vandals, I always check their past contributions to form a picture of the type of editing they do and report when i think appropriate. I would also participate in the wikipedia Categories for discussion.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of my contributions to the Dentistry category. In particular, apthous ulcer and oral ulcer, also the sub pages of dental auxiliary also Dental restorations and dental restorative materials. I am particularly proud of these ones because they required merging of information or separation and in the case of dental restorations, there was much discussion as to what the solution for the merger would be.
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: I couldn't say that I have been in any heated conflicts, but I think that is partly because my contributions and conflicts are either neutral and because they are usually resolved by civil discussion using logic to reach a solution.

Optional Questions

4. In your RfA, you say that you've been here since 2005, but your edit history suggests that you have only been editing continuously since February 9, 2007. You did have a few days of activity in June 2006, July 2006, and December 2005. There is nothing wrong with long gaps (I have them too), but why should we not evaluate you as an editor who has been here for just over a month? --Selket Talk 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A: An administrator is a normal user who the community views to be responsible enough to use the extra tools productively. I consider my self to be a responsible user, I admit I do have other responsibilities in my life which may create gaps in my editing. But I think that the quality of my contributions should count more than the number of thousands. I also referred to when I started only to tell you about myself. Administrators are just normal users with a mop and a bucket. I think I can make a fair and positive contribution with a mop especially as part of the dentistry project
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - I'm fed up with editcountitis. Any user in good standing who wants admin tools should get them. Period. Why should less than 1000 edits disqualify this user for adminship? Walton Vivat Regina! 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Ridiculous. I ask all of you to read the Nomination Standards section of this page. "The only major consideration for whether a user should become an administrator is evidence of how the user will use administrator tools." Granting a user with less than 1000 edits does not somehow dilute the quality of administrators. Jimbo Wales himself has stated that Adminship is not a big deal. The number of edits a person has does not correlate to his experience. Please reconsider your opposition if it is solely based on edit count. Kntrabssi 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Not knowing who Jimbo Wales is surely shows a huge lack of knowledge regarding even the basic working of Wikipedia, nevermind the more intricate workings of such things as the blocking/banning policy. -- Nick t 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Hopefully the Wales comment was tongue-in-cheek . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 22:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    exactly. Because of his lack of edits we have no way of really knowing whether he'll abuse the tools.--Wizardman 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - editcountitis is killing RfA. - Richard Cavell 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Lack of experience, and sporadic history of editing. You're doing a good job, please come back in sometime. Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose less than 1000 edits in the main spaces, sporadic contributions - why the long series of gaps in your Wiki-career? General lack of admin-related tasks on your cv, too. Best to withdraw this application and return when more admin-related experience has been gathered. (aeropagitica) 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, under 1000 edits, a huge wikibreak splitting them in half. Try ocntributing more to wikispace.--Wizardman 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Not even a 1000 edits which by standards is too low to apply for Adminship and as user Wizardman pointed out "a huge wikibreak"..--Cometstyles 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - I see neither the need for the tools, nor the experience to use them. —dgiestc 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: "jimbo wales (whoever he is)" - probably the most alarming comment coming from a candidate I've ever read on an RfA. -- Nick t 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    the worst? :P I suppose without tonal expression it can be taken out of context. Bouncingmolar`
  7. Oppose. This isn't an issue of editcountitis. bibliomaniac15 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    ___further comments come after retracting my acceptance (see time of retraction)___ Bouncingmolar 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose While the total edit count is disturbingly low, I accept that this is not necessarily a bar to adminship. But I would suggest that only 29 edits in wikipedia and 3 in wikitalk is. We have to be assured that you are aware of, and can implement, policy, which these edit figures do not indicate to me. As to the "Jimbo Wales" comment, while a newish editor may not know the name, the very fact that the name was brought up might well have suggested that, before making a profession of ignorance, you should actively find out who he is. And while not knowing who he is is perhaps ok, not troubling to find out is alarming.--Anthony.bradbury 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    I think that my comment about jimbo wales is being misinterpreted, I'm sorry my sense of humour does not gel well with yours :)Bouncingmolar 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - less than 1000 edits is not enough to know how to use tools. Come back in a few months after you have at least 3000 edits. Patstuarttalk·edits 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Too little experience. Michael 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Extremely bad grammar and use of capital letters. Plus, I've got more edits than you and I don't think I'm anywhere near ready to try for adminship. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your late comments captain. I'm not sure what you're referring to. However I think that loose comparisons to your editing style are irrelevant.Bouncingmolar 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral not as active as I'd like to see, not enough experience to go closing XFDs (only 23 edits in wiki-space) and finding it hard to see a real need for the tools. However, general contribution is good, keep doing it and become more familiar with XFDs and try RFA again in a while. The Rambling Man 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. NeutralExperience issues. The Evil Clown 20:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I've seen Bouncingmolar do some good work with the dentistry project on dentistry-related articles. Bouncingmolar is a quality Wikipedian who makes good contributions. I'm not convinced, however, the Bouncingmolar has the requisite policy knowledge to be effective as an administrator. I recommend withdrawal, increased participation in policy-intensive areas like AFD, and a second try again in several months. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral fails my criteria.-- danntm T C 23:31, 12 March 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.