Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Funnybunny

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] Funnybunny

Final: (14/25/3) ended 21:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Funnybunny (talk, contribs)– He has at least 2500 edits (estimate since last edit count Interior's tool is broken and my Kate's tool is broken) and has heavily contributetd to Userboxes, Family Guy, tropical cyclones articles, and a expericenced vandal fighter. He is probably one of the most active contributors I have ever seen. I personally think he would be great as an admin.The Gerg 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I have also been active in project pages. I have been participating in deletion debates, mostly the AfD, I have also been reporting vandals on the AIV. I have also placed my thoughts on the RfAs of other users. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I finally accept, even though it's not June yet. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The candidate wishes to withdraw: For the first couple of days, I have held on to this RfA. The first few hours were good, but it started to fall on the first day. I believe that withdrawing this RfA would be better, since the opposing side has gained obvious majority for most of this RfA. I would like to thank both the supporting side and the opposing side for showing me that this still isn't the right time. Some candidates have been opposed so much, they left Wikipedia in frustration and shame. I see the opposing side as a good entity; one that shows you the error of your ways, and a guide to show you what you need to do before your next RfA. For your good judgements, I thank the opposing side. I will heed the guidance I have received, and reform myself for seven months. I would also like to thank the supporting side for showing me that I am still vital to the Wikipedia community and that I must not give up. Again, thank you. Bureaucrats: you may now remove this RfA and archive it. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 21:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Wow. I beat the nominator! Great user and is ready for admin.—G.He 01:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ninjaed my first suppport!!!!!⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Will make a great admin. ForestH2
  4. Support Will make a fine admin. Lou franklin 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support The only thing that makes it weak is that Funnybunny is very eager to ask questions and learn, so I would like the user to go through admin coaching as s/he would be very receptive to it. But I have no problems supporting without that. Friendly editor who gets them vandals. Teke 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support I've seen Funnybunny around. A good user in general who deserves a chance. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 02:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Seems to have a lot of connections with anons, as well as established users. Good for an admin.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per Buchanan-Hermit Jaranda wat's sup 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strongest Possible Support Per nom. Keep it up! The Gerg 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Obviously a great user. DarthVader 07:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Go on, be nice. Funny bunny sounds really cute and cuddly and fluffy. Why not give them a chance? 81.19.57.146 13:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, anonymous users can't vote on RfAs. Please login if you wish to vote. Thanks, Gwernol 13:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak support. Although he doesn't have an enormous amount of contribs and time by today's RFA standards, I'm confident that he'll do well as an admin, unlikely to abuse it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support per Siva and in view of the user's views apropos of vandalism (as expressed in, inter al., the answer to question one). Joe 23:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC) moved to oppose
    Strongest Possible Support-per nom. Keep it up! The Gerg 00:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Turns out I already did vote! I kept coming up with edit conflicts when I last tried voting, amd did'nt know if the vote counted
    COMMENT-- It should be noted that the Gerg already voted. :) Dlohcierekim 00:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_Crusher of Hopes and Dreams 14:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. support. i'm willing to give him the benifit of the doubt Semperf 00:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, too few contributions to Wikipedia namespace. Naconkantari 01:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, does not warn vandals after using popups to revert their vandalism. For example, [1], [2] and [3] are some of his reverts done today that were not followed up with warnings. Kimchi.sg 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose not enough experience, 50% edit summary use rate for minor edits, linking to RfA on userpage. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, I'm not quite sure what the deal is with these two (nominator & nominee) as well as the barrage of sockpuppets and/or "close personal friends" likely to fill out the support section, but something seems really suspicious with this group. — GT 03:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Let me just say that it's wholly coincedental in my vote and timing. I'm not friends with Funnybunny, I've only talked to the user once regarding Defcon. I've seen the user around, and like the work. Let's assume good faith in voting? Teke 03:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose based on low edit count and insufficient time, despite strong AfD experience. Needs more time and more well-rounded experience. Although claims vandal fighting as a strength, has less than 3,000 edits. This is rather low for a vandal fighter. Has been with Wikipedia less than four to six months. Needs to warn vandals more consistently. Proposes to discourse with vandals rather than blocking them-- does not need adminship for that. I’m not sure what is meant by, “reviewing AIV”. Would check with another admin before blocking-- not ready for that tool. Needs more article creation and editing per se. Just not ready quite yet. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Object: Good number of edits, but you're not yet ready. --Slgrandson 03:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Has a previous malformed RfA here that I would have liked to have seen mentioned here. Coupled with relatively small number of edits to namespace and his off-policy answer to Question 1 and I feel I have to oppose. Gwernol 03:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, number of main page edits. Kim van der Linde at venus 04:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (and sorry for the slip just before with the faulty edit)
    To add, 'five talk page edits, which suggest to me no major main space edits, but probably only vandal fighting. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, a quarter of his edits are in user space. We're here to build an encyclopedia. --Rory096 05:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose for not needing administrative privileges per answer to Q1. GChriss 05:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Not enough experience and answers leave me confused whether having him as an admin would help the community. However, I may change my view if he is able to give convincing answers to JoshuaZ's questions. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. No way. Almost everything about this candidate is wrong and making him an admin would be a serious mistake. I wish I could be more constructive, but I absolutely don't think people this aggressive should be encouraged with adminship. Grace Note 06:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose- I don't think this user needs administrator priviliges, and I wouldn't quite trust him with them. Reyk YO! 07:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, only 5 edits for Article Talks is not nearly enough. It shows either an inflexibility to editing or wishy-washy to the same. Neither is good for an administrator. Vandalism hunting is admirable, but not the only thing that administrators have to deal with. Ted 08:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Not a good range of edits, and answers to questions are a bit iffy. Steveo2 11:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. More experience in required. --Bhadani 11:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per above. --kingboyk 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per above. Maybe in a few months.--Eva db 13:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, sorry - not ready. Proto||type 14:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. "Don't be discouraged" oppose. On the way, but not there yet. Needs more experience, particularly in article writing/creation. Deserved or not, editors look to admins for direction when writing the encyclopedia, and this candidate's direction, as the moment, would seem to be "let's find you another admin." Would be happy to support when this candidate is ready to step up to the plate. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong oppose lack of talk edits. Computerjoe's talk 20:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose, lacks of experience. Try again in three months time. --Terence Ong 04:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Mackensen (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, not warning users because you are afraid they will vandalize more is counterproduction. I'm frustrated with the process (and lack of support from admins), but I do it anyway. Ted 20:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Weak oppose (moved from weak support) Because adminship is no big deal, I invariably support candidates whom I think to be unlikely to abuse admin tools, even as I may not expect them to do much constructively with those tools; if a user is generally civil and doesn't seem to have a mercurial disposition, I don't mind if he/she has the mop and bucket and doesn't often use them (even a little work closing AfDs, blocking vandals, clearing untagged images, etc., is appreciated). Here, though, even as I don't think the user likely to abuse the admin tools, I wonder about his/her fitness for adminship (and prospective avolitional misuse of tools), notably in view of his/her answers to JoshuaZ's questions. Joe 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning to oppose per low mainspace count and per Kimchi abakharev 02:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral a little concerned with the attempts to please allcomers in his answers, but not enough to oppose. Rockpocket (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  1. Comment- User's page mentions a prior RfA March 27. Should that not be mentioned in this RfA? Thanks, :) Dlohcierekim 03:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Username Funnybunny
Total edits 2200
Distinct pages edited 1200
Average edits/page 1.833
First edit 23:09, 4 February 2006
(main) 993
Talk 5
User 435
User talk 415
Image 11
Template 37
Template talk 7
Category 3
Wikipedia 243
Wikipedia talk 48
Portal 2
Portal talk 1

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: As your public servant, I will carry the duties of an admin like any other. First of all, I will use a different tactic of approaching vandals. Instead of distributing a block, I will try to help them see the error of their ways, and try to get them on track to become a good contributor of Wikipedia. I've noticed that blocking usually does not really do anything, it just supresses the vandal. Second of all, I will help other administrators close old deletion debates and see what the public has decided to do with the article. Third of all, I will serve the Wikipedia Community by reviewing the AIV. I will then, help the vandals. If all goes wrong, I will contact other administrators so they can help me decide to block or not. Fourth of all, I will help out with the Deletion review and see what the Community has decided. Fifth of all, like any user can do, I will continue to help out with the vandalism by reverting. Using the rollback button will provide a faster way to restore vandalized articles. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am particularly pleased with the good work reverting vandalism. I am also pleased that I have reported countless vandals on the AIV. I am pleased of these because vandalism is a constant event that worries many editors. By reverting vandalism and reporting destructive vandals, I am helping the Community - even if it is just one revert, it will help Wikipedia one step at a time. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 01:35, 19 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: Most recently, I have been in a very bad conflict with Frank Schouten and his sockpuppet Yuri Lueska. This person constantly vandalized Grazielle Oganna, blanking the article and adding vulgarity into it. I had to revert countless times to keep the article intact. I have listed Frank on the AIV, and he was blocked indefinitely becuase his account was only being used for vandalism. After a few moments, Frank created a sockpuppet and continued his destructive work. Again, I've listed his sockpuppet on the AIV, and his sockpuppet was put to rest. His vandalism stopped, but if I become an Administrator, again as I said above, I will approach a vandal by persuading them to stop and try to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. A vandal can become a very respected user at Wikipedia in a few months of reform. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, additional questions are completely optional.

1 In your answers to the first two of the standard questions you place a heavy emphasis on dealing with vandalism. However, you seem to not often warn vandals. Could you respond to concerns that this makes you insufficiently prepared to fight vandals.

A: Well, I noticed that when I do warn vandals, the vandals are "notified" that I've reverted their edits. Then, they know that they should vandalize it again, creating an edit war, which I wish to stay out of. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

2 You also claim that "I will use a different tactic of approaching vandals. Instead of distributing a block, I will try to help them see the error of their ways, and try to get them on track to become a good contributor of Wikipedia" and yet I see no attempt at this in your contribution list. In fact, you have a list of vandals that you keep an eye and your list includes insults to the vandals User:Funnybunny/People i'm keeping my eye on. What will being an admin do to make this any different?

A: Actaully, i've noticed that creating a block will just supress the vandal recently. Frank Schouten is a good example because once he was blocked, he continued to vandalize using a sockpuppet. I believe that vandals need to be encouraged to become good editors. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

3 Also, related to your attitude towards vandalism you state that "I will serve the Wikipedia Community by reviewing the AIV. I will then, help the vandals. If all goes wrong, I will contact other administrators so they can help me decide to block or not." To be blunt, this is very far from the policy and consensus standards about how to deal with vandals and would seem to just waste the time of other admins and people who need to revert the vandals' continued vandalism. How would you respond to such concern?

A: Well, the vandals can put their energy in a useful way, so they can actually help Wikipedia. If this goes unnoticed, and an admin just blocks them like so, the vandal will continue to vandalize Wikipedia. It would be better if the vandal become a contributor. If it is such a waste of time, I will be the one who devotes time into persuading the vandal to contribute constructively, so other admins can go along with their duties. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

4 I can't find any example of your AfD edits that goes against the pre-existing consensus at all. How would you respond to concerns that you do not think/research your AfD comments and simply follow the general trend?

A: It does seem like a coincidence that I do follow the general trend. I do admit it, but every AfD I've participated in, there was a nominator that seems to be right. I do read the article, and I do read the previous comments. When the content of the article and the comments sway me, I give my comment, which is usually the general trend. If it is a bad thing to follow the general trend, then from now on, I will try to investigate further into the AfD and the article that may change my mind about my comments. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please ask more questions from your curiosity. I will be happy to answer them. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 22:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions from The Gerg

1How would you respond to your opposers who say who don't have enough expericence?

A: Actually, I do believe they are right, and I will not argue that I have too less experience or too less edits. I will try again in December of 2006. Hopefully, I will be experienced by then. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

2What do you think of most admins on the english wikipedia today?

A: The admins today are keeping Wikipedia clean. They are the reason why this encyclopedia survives. If my opposers say that I'm not fit enough to join their rank, I will try to reform myself so I will be capable of handling the work all admins have to keep up with. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 16:26, 20 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.