Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bunchofgrapes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Bunchofgrapes

Final (33/0/1) ended 22:00 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. I've been active here for a few days short of three months, and have 2100+ edits. I've mostly contributed in food and drink related articles, bringing two (cheese and black pepper) to FA. I believe my contribution history shows a maturity and, for the most part, level-headed cautiousness demonstrating that I'm not likely to do anything, um, "interesting" with admin privileges. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Indeed I accept. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. The first time I get to be first! This is a thoughtful editor who definitely wants to improve articles. Don't let the modest cheese reference mislead--he knows his business. Marskell 22:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Extreme cheese support (with black pepper on top). No Account 23:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, yes! Great work for helping me and the others with Eddie, too. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Bunches of Support - frequently seen this editor actively improving. BD2412 T 00:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support good editor --Rogerd 03:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support we've talked, I've been paid to support....I mean, great editor. Quentin Pierce 03:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Conscientious, level-headed contributor, unlikely to destroy Wikipedia with the mop. Wayward 07:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support Looks good to me ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 07:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Merovingian 10:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Suport – good FA editor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support MONGO 10:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support Good editor --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Izehar 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support — happy to support this nomination, particularly in light of the candid response the user has provided to question #3 below.--Lordkinbote 00:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support this excellent editor. I could oppose, but that would just be...sour grapes. HA HA HA I kill me. Lord Bob 05:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. A good editor who is well thought-out and cool-headed, with good participation in the various namespaces. -Splashtalk 18:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Sarah Ewart 00:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support - I've known about Bunchofgrapes since soon after he got here, and he's always been a great editor. I like how he really emphasizes WP:CITE in his work, and in my interactions with him he has shown a great degree of boldness and civility. --Idont Havaname 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. I've met up with his activities at several occasions and I am impressed with his demeanor in dealing with awkward situations. After having a look at Bunchofgrapes contributions I am delighted to vote for his promotion. hydnjo talk 02:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Yummy ... I mean support. --Michael Snow 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. --Bhadani 15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Sounds good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. I gather that Bunchofgrapes will be pretty level-headed in working out conflicts. —thames 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. -- DS1953 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support, mais naturellement. Proto t c 09:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. -- JamesTeterenko 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. I've encountered this editor in a few places recently and he's consistently been very helpful and amicable. rspeer 03:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. An indefatigable editor dedicated to high quality content. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Eh....your experience is a little bit low for a self-nom, but you seem like a talented and already experienced editor. I'll support. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 00:10, 1 December 2005 (CST)
  33. Support - keep up the good work! Tedernst | Talk 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral: I see you have chosen to drag me and Sicilian baroque into your application for adminship I have no opinion one way or the other if you become an admin or not - there are now so many one more is neither here nor there. But, please do not use me to make yourself sound like Mr. Niceguy who mad a little mistake, because the flak I took for exposing that man is as open a wound as if it was yesterday. Giano | talk 22:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd hardly call his comments below 'dragging you in'. As far as I can see Bunchofgrapes has admitted he made some edits he regrets and apologised for it, or is there anything else to this that we don't know about? Raven4x4x 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Can you explain the No Whammies/Eddie thing on your talk page? Inquiring minds want to know. ;) —thames 23:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure! User:No Whammies is either a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or impersonator of User:EddieSegoura, one of several such who counted votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt among their very first edits. (This is an AfD I opened after following EddieSegoura around a little after his premature first RfA). I am one of several users who have been trying to keep a suspected-sockpuppet tag on No Whammies' user page; I believe I restored it twice today. With a number of puppets or impersonators active (see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_EddieSegoura), the tags are useful for keeping track. No Whammies claimed he isn't a sock puppet and called the tag vandalization. I can't swear No Whammies is EddieSegoura; he could conceivably be a user acting like a sockpuppet to mount some strange smear campaign. Perhaps I shouldn't have called No Whammies "Eddie" on my talk page. I should also point out that EddieSegoura's apparent personal web page [1] lists the game show "Press Your Luck" as one of his interests; "No Whammies" is a catchphrase from the show. I'll also add, in case there's any question, that I'll entirely recuse myself from any administrative action against EddieSegoura or any suspected sockpuppets if I am promoted, since I've made myself quite involved in the affair. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I'm not going to claim that I'm going to suddenly start taking an interest in becoming a super-janitor if granted admin rights. I'd like the rollback button, since like everybody else I see plenty of vandalism on my watchlist. I'd like knowing I have the teeth to block the occassional vandal who doesn't go away after {{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}. And I do enjoy going on new-page patrol once in a while, where I think I do an accurate job with the CSD tags; helping out more with that process would be fun sometimes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Cheese and black pepper, as I mentioned above, my featured articles. I'm food-obsessed and generally quite unhappy with the state of food articles here (some people seem to think a food article means a recipe, grrrr), so every little bit helps. Bringing cheese to FA also got me interested in that whole process, so I try to spend time evaluating and assisting the candidates at WP:FAC.
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. No major edit conflicts; I've never come close to an edit war. Mostly that's to do with the relatively uncontentious nature of the topics I edit, I suppose, although controversial points do come up [2]. I'm also quite eager to work things out in talk pages, where I try my best to keep in mind that one can never be sure if one is right or wrong. The worst Wikistress I've had (but in a semi-fun way) was probably the day cheese was on the front page; it got a lot of attention and I had a hard time reminding myself that everything didn't have to be fixed immediately. More negatively, Tony1's RFA and the kinda-sorta-related Sicilian Baroque FAC were a low point for me; my most-regretted edit came during that, when I all but accused Giano of making a personal attack. [3]. He hadn't; I apologized and removed the comment shortly thereafter.
Currently I've got a little stress going monitoring and interacting with User:EddieSegoura and a parade of puppets and/or impersonators, but it's no big deal. I think my interactions with him demonstrate my commitment to civility and assuming good faith.
My most important tool to deal with stress is to remind myself that there are a lot of pages out there, right now, in far worse shape than whatever page I'm worrying about. That might cause some people more stress, but it seems to help me :-)
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.