Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BovineBeast

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] BovineBeast

FINAL (3/10/5); Withdrawn prematurely by User:EVula 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BovineBeast (talk · contribs) - Well, what to say, really? I've been editing and reading Wikipedia for a while, and I feel like I would contribute usefully to Wikipedia as an admin. BovineBeast 13:04, 20 June 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 intend to help keep POV out of Wikipedia by protecting and reverting pages where necessary. I also believe that I can helpfully contribute by editing the main page. BovineBeast 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One of my more extensive contributions has been my expansion of the Nepali language article. I believe I have improved the article quite significantly, by introducing a more standard and also more consistent orthography, and giving a brief summary of the grammar of the language. I feel that on a lot of more obscure, but nonetheless important topics, Wikipedia often falls short, and it is generally in these areas which I make my best contributions. I also created an article on Initial consonant mutation in the Celtic languages, which was featured as a Did you know? article, though I believe it has since been merged into another article. BovineBeast 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
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: Generally in the case of an edit conflict I'll confine my actions to the talk page until something can be resolved, taking action only occasionally. Although it has to be said that I haven't directly been involved in that many. Generally the only stress I've suffered is slight exasperation at the nationalism that comes into play on a large number of articles, particularly country pages, or pages about disputed territories. From time to time I'm also slightly frustrated when someone with only a little knowledge of a subject will revert something which is correct to something that is either less correct or oversimplified. If I gain admin powers I will attempt to be more pro-active at attempting to restrict nationalist POV in wikipedia. BovineBeast 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Moral Support. For the vandal fighting and contributions that have been made. However your answers to the questions don't seem, to me, to illustrate an understanding of adminship - reverting nationalistic POV for example is well within your current "powers". I think that your RfA may well not get very far, but kudos for the self nom and efforts so far. Please don't be discouraged. Pedro |  Chat  13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well, yes, reverting nationalist POV is within my powers, and I am aware of that. Perhaps I didn't express myself as well as I'd have liked. The problem is that I feel that reverting often ends up futile, and it will often be re-added. Which does get quite frustrating. BovineBeast 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    but when you are an admin, it is usually considered wrong to take admin action with respect to an article you have been working on, and especially as a way of ending a dispute or revert war that involves yourself. So how will being an admin help you here? How do you handle such as situation now, and how would you handle it differently as an admin? DGG 16:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Pedro's reasoning. Acalamari 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Moral support per Pedro. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 18:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - True, you've been editing for some time. However, your total edit count is 387 and your mainspace edit count is just 234. We need to see a more substantial edit history than that to tell if you're ready to be an admin. Majoreditor 13:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'd just like to point out that my recorded edit history belies how much I've contributed, to a large extent. If you look at my edit history you'll see a few large gaps in my contributions during which I've been contributing anonymously. BovineBeast 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Can you / would you be willing to provide the IP addresss you have contributed under in those instances? It will help other editors getter a fuller picture of your work. Pedro |  Chat  14:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    I wish I could, but it was a dynamic IP at the time. Sorry. BovineBeast 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per wanting to edit the Main Page, which shows little understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. Discussions actually take days about expanding a border from "7" to "9". Evilclown93(talk) 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I do not feel you would be a threat to Wikipedia, but your limited scope of edits fails to demonstrate, to me at least, your understanding of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. --Ozgod 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Need more experience at wikpiedia and I'll be glad to support at that point! Corpx 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Most of the time, when I oppose people, it's because of edit count. You have less than 400 edits, and I'm sorry, but maybe next time. Politics rule 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Sorry. I know its bad to judge people by their amount of edits, but 390 are ridiculously small and with a peak of just 59 edits. Sorry. No can do. RuneWiki777 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Candidate says he wants to use the tools to keep POV out, which is exactly what he wouldn't be allowed to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, but with Moral Support. Thanks for offering to be an admin, but with that few edits, I don't feel you have the experience to be an admin. Come back, possibly with about 1K edits (the more the merrier), and you will have a much better chance of getting through this RfA. You could also try helping with the backlogs we have at the moment, and commenting on other RfAs, putting your opinion in on Talk:Main Page, and participating in XfDs. That will give you a lot of experience, but remember to read about them, and make sure you know how they work first. Stwalkerster talk 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, But with Moral Support - Stwalkerster put it very well. The lack of editing, as well as the lack of experience that that shows, is not helping. Your heart is in the right place, so keep up with editing: Work with backlogs, comment on RfAs, and XFD XFD XFD!! Gain experience in the Wikipedia namespace in admin-type activities, come back a few K's of edits from now, and you'll be good to go. --tennisman 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, but with Moral Support Opposer per Stwalkerster. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Need moar edits – Gurch 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Your contributions to the project thus far are good and commendable, but as stated above the answers to the questions don't demonstrate a firm grasp on policy just yet. I'd never oppose anyone for having too few edits, either, but must admit that with only 14 Wikipedia space edits, I can't really use that to judge your grasp of policies either. I'd suggest getting involved in some policy-intensive areas, such as XfD or policy discussions on the Village Pump, to demonstrate your knowledge of policy and procedure and come try again in a bit. Arkyan • (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I dont want this to be a pile on situation but I think you need more experience and some more edits, most commenters on RfA's look for at least 2000 and a good usage of edit summaries, you could certainly be an admin in future months with improvements. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - Edit count is a bit of a issue, but not really my main concern. It is the lack of experience that worries me. Get acquainted with wikipedia policy more, and try again when you have 2000 edits. Then I might support. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral -- I dont want to go either way: you cant have my support, and I dont want to pile on more opposes, but I do want to vote. So thats why I'm here. Sorry, I just cant support a candidate with this amount of experience. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 21:43, 20 June 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.