Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bumm13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bumm13

Bumm13 is a fantastic user. He has been editing here an absurdly long period of time, and is already one of our most trusted editors. He is as familiar as any of us with Wikipedia policy, and is also usually the most active person in the #Wikipedia IRC channel, where he also has chanop access. He has consistently denied our offers to nominate him for Wikipedia adminship until now. I believe he would make an excellent administrator, and is cautious and level-headed enough to trust with the proverbial sysop mop-and-bucket. Unlike some adminships, Bumm13 would genuinely find the sysop tools useful in his day-to-day activities on the 'pedia.

Bumm13 has been editing at Wikipedia for over 2 years and 6 months, and has racked up a huge 8381 edits in that time. Amazing. - Mark 15:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I accept. :) Bumm13 15:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Obviously. - Mark 15:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Without a doubt - BesigedB (talk) 15:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. only, of course, if he accepts, in which case emphatically dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Of course. Carbonite | Talk 15:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Although there are questions about the sanity of anyone who would willingly make dotmaps... support. Rhobite 15:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Very much. Bishonen | Talk 15:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. WHAT? Bumm isn't an admin? Nadavspi | talk 16:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Thought he was anyway, think he should be. AlexR 17:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. He, IMO, allows cooler heads to prevail. Dbroadwell 18:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. How did this take this long? Snowspinner 18:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Adam Bishop 18:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. CryptoDerk 19:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Jordi·✆ 19:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Strong support. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 21:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Definitely. SlimVirgin 22:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Obviously yes. Geogre 22:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. STRONG SUPPORT- Not an admin? He should be...count this as \infty votes :) If bumm doesn't become an admin after this, then I will take a bath in my toilet. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Very strong support. Andre (talk) 02:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Strong support. JuntungWu 03:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support Squash 04:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support --jag123 05:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. No way. No way! I would have sworn on me great-grandmummy's grave that ol' Bumm was an admin! He's got to be! Wow, that's crazy. Bumm's a great lad. STRONG SUPPORT! P.S.Everyking'soppositionisborederingonidiotic(nottomentioncompletelyfalse). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this support vote is blankfaze's, but it may need the ol' ~~~~ treatment :-) . Bumm13 06:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nah, can't be. The real Blankfaze sold his great-grandmummy to me on IRC recently. Bishonen | Talk 09:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow, that's bizarre, I never make votes without signing them... :-P BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Burgundavia 10:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support I was suprised to learn that he was not an admin yet. Let us fix this shortcoming. Rama 10:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Good user.--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 11:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. I thought $USER was one already - David Gerard 12:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. Enthusiastically support. It's about time! -- Seth Ilys 14:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. Strong support, There can be no doubt. Finally you gave in eh mate :> Inter\Echo 16:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Rje 19:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Yep. --iMb~Mw 21:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. without a doubt -- sannse (talk) 21:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Very verily. ugen64 21:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. I support the idea of bumm receiving an adminship. DO'Иeil 01:29, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Yes of course. Antandrus 04:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support, naturally. (And quick, before he changes his mind and turns it down again!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. Mike H 07:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. jni 10:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. Indubitably. +sj + 05:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support, of course. -- Scott eiπ 08:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Not an administrator yet? I'm surprised. Strong support. --Lst27 (talk) 23:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support - great guy! Oh, btw, I'm not here. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh dear, even ghosts vote for Bumm13 ! :) Rama 16:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  42. With due admiration. -- Hadal 05:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  43. Meh. Tepid support. -- Cimon 16:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Bumm13 obviously has a LOT of experience on Wiki. --Evanwohrman 01:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  45. Quite. — Dan | Talk 02:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  46. Well, duh. Dysprosia 06:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. Meets my criteria. Filiocht 09:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support. Based on edits and history on Wikipedia, there is every reason to believe he will use admin powers wisely and to good effect. Rationales of Oppose voters do not seem to address any issues pertinent to this nomination. Jayjg (talk) 15:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support. Mackensen (talk) 19:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  52. Yupsireebob. Grutness|hello? 02:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  53. ...you're not serious. Bumm isn't an admin? Full support. Mo0[talk] 04:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  54. Yup. --MarkSweep 06:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  55. Cool. JuntungWu 12:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  56. Aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:34, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  57. Wow! - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support. Good editor, good guy. - Vague | Rant 00:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  60. {{thought he was one already}}. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support in lieu of toilet. Yelyos 04:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No way. I don't have any experience dealing with him on Wikipedia itself, but my IRC experience in dealing with him suggests to me that he doesn't have a suitable personality for adminship. Everyking 16:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • IRC isn't exactly supposed to be a professional consortium of intelligence. We could consult zionicman on that one. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 21:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ditto to Mero's comments. If people only seperated Wikipedia from IRC, then we'll all be happy... Squash 04:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There is proper conduct on Wikipedia, and there is conduct on IRC. They are not the same. -- BRIAN0918  18:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I've not known anyone who was an asshole on IRC, but not one on Wikipedia. This especially goes for admins since there is no compensating control to discourage them from being assholes. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
        • An asshole to you maybe, but not necessarily to anyone else. As for compensating control, you can always revert anything a user does. So why the big fuss? -- BRIAN0918  00:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Hell no. -- Netoholic @ 06:09, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
    • That's an awfully vociferous no. Any reason? Snowspinner 07:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've seen people leave support votes of "Hell yeah", so what's the difference? Anyway, this person is disrespectful, insulting, and I'll not support until an appropriate process for removing adminship is in regular use. -- Netoholic @ 07:36, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
        • So let's get this right: you will only vote for this user if you can later get rid of him? Smoddy (tgec) 16:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I want us all to have the ability to make sure our admins are right for the job, both before and after they are promoted. I would be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt, so long as I have the ability to undo that action should it be in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 17:06, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
            • Gotcha. Makes good sense. I don't agree, but that's irrelevant. Your comment makes sense now. Smoddy (tgec) 17:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose in hopes of seeing Frazzydee bathe in a toilet. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 08:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. As far as I can see, does not meet my admin criterion, jguk 20:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    How do admin powers help people making featured articles? - Mark 00:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. STRONG Neutral on the basis that bumm has a monopoly on support, and my vote won't matter regardless. :)  BRIAN0918  14:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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. Reverting vandalism is a natural one for me. Any little thing that helps Wikipedia run a little smoother is a good thing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Chicago Coin and PERQ; the first due to its relative obscurity and difficulty getting historical information about the company online; the second for similar reasons, but also because the article helps unite disparate information found in several places on the World Wide Web.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I've had no major conflicts while at Wikipedia. I've had a few minor conflicts and those have always been dealt with (usually just misunderstandings and the like). I see no need to change how I deal with such situations in the future.