Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Singing Badger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Singing Badger

Vote here (26/2/6) ending 01:00 12 September 2005 (UTC) The Singing Badger (talk · contribs) - Self request. Wikipedian since May 2004. More edits than you can shake a stick at, in a wide variety of subjects. Been asked to be an admin more than once (1), (2). And have even been mentioned in a newspaper, how many of you can say that?? [1]

Support

  1. Support almost 6,000 edits. freestylefrappe 02:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Deserves adminship to better and more easily accomplish any task he chooses. Not every admin has to be a janitor or Walmart greeter. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 04:51
  3. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, seems to have enough contributions, and getting a contribution noted in a newspaper is a good thing too. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. The 'Badger has been around for a while and all my interactions with him have been positive. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support I believe this user won't go rogue with his admin powers.  Grue  15:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Does good work creating an encyclopedia; I can understand why he doesn't have time to muck about in the Wikipedia: namespace. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Wholeheartedly support. I was one of those that offered a year ago to nominate Badger, and I stand by that 100%. Badger is a fantastic editor and contributor--I understand that the focus these days is on new admins who will do work on Wikipedia upkeep projects, but back in the old days if we had a good editor who contributed a lot to the project and didn't cause trouble, I recall us giving them admin privileges if they wanted them. I can foresee only benefits if we give Badger admin privileges--if for no other reason (and I can think of many others) than that a user who has made as many good, well-written, high-quality contributions to this project as Badger has deserves to have that recognized. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal"--in a perfect world, all wiki users would have admin privileges. We restrict them because there are people who will abuse the privileges -- I can't believe there's any concern about Badger in that respect. Sorry for the long note, but I've been wanting to nominate this editor for a year, and I can't believe there are so many oppose votes right now. Jwrosenzweig 17:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Looks good to me. Deb 20:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Good editor and a great username too. CheekyMonkey 22:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. A user I recognize and respect. —Cryptic (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, I decided to research him after I saw his nomination removed (strange that) and he seems like a good user. I hope I don't regret it! Sam Spade 15:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support, but if Hallett Smith is such a "noted Elizabethan scholar" shouldn't we have an article about him? --Michael Snow 20:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support first few oppose votes about setting up RfA wrong seem a bit harsh Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, excellent editor, would make a fine admin. -- Curps 02:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. A name I've seen associated with nothing but good edits. A longstanding good user ought to be given adminship even if he will use it only rarely: long experience without problems suggests he is suitably acquainted with policy despite lack of interest in its creation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. An exemplary editor who deserves a mop even if it's for occasional use. Veledan • Talk + new 21:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support The Musical Mustelidae has clarified my worry (personally being somewhat inclusionist, if there's a chance that an article is under the apparent junk - I was concerned that he might not scratch the surface before hitting the delete button). Alf melmac 23:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support: Not a very social person, but a good article author and editor, and we need people whose idea of content extends beyond format (as well as the people whose idea is format....not trying to pick another fight). In particular, he satisfies a need, as Wikipedia has too few folks working on Renaissance British literature. Geogre 02:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support; I'm also partial to people who mainly contribute content to the main article space. Everything I see is good, and I see no reason to oppose. Excellent contributor. Antandrus (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. The only thing that might mitigate full support is the relative paucity of WP and WPTalk space edits (currently 44 and 4 respectively). However, the quality of his (her?) work is so good, and the interactions which I have seen so positive and thoughtful, that I think this objection is easily overcome. This badger deserves all the accoutrements (s)he asks for.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  08:53:42, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
  23. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support. After perusing Kate's Tool, looking at the classification of edits, looking at his (yes, you're a he!) user page/user talk page, and looking at a (judicious) sampling of his edits over the last few months, I have come to the conclusion that Jwrosenzweig is correct. This is an editor that not only knows how to rewrite and expand articles (a complex task at times) but owns up to prior mistakes in article entries (and corrects them himself). He reverts obvious vandalism on sight when he sees it, and gives room for not knowing everything about a topic (thinking gray: see my own user page for context). To top it off, he has a very delightful sense of humor. Just because he is more interested in adding article content does not mean he does not know how to interact well with other editors (I've checked that too). Admins are trusted members who happen to have a set of tools at their disposal, not perfect or all-encompassing folks who participate in everything. . . I know I as an editor here follow my own fields of interest, as does TSB. I see no reason not to promote him to Administrator status. He's been trustworthy to date. . . and he, I believe, will be trustworthy with the Admin buttons. Correcting the William Shakespeare article for his correct signature - the one from his will - is the icing on the cake for me. Knowledge gathering and contributing like TSB's are simply marvelous. Promote. --avnative 19:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support as per Antandrus. Hamster Sandwich 19:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  26. I apologize. I misunderstood your comment about the newspaper article, which, combined with the small amount of trouble you had formatting this RfA, gave me a bad feeling. Since the issue of the article has been explained, and based on UC's comment below, I will support your request for admin powers. Andre (talk) 19:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Ruairidi 03:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, too few Wikipedia namespace edits. Also the problems you had with setting up this RfA show that you're not familiar enough with procedures yet to be an admin. Your edit count looks promising though, and with a bit more participation in the community I'd definitely support in a month or two. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 01:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

#I agree. Also, where were you mentioned in that article, and how is it relevant to this RfA? Andre (talk) 02:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Switched to support.

    1. Comment: The article (fallaciously) cites the fact that the Shakespeare article being edited by "the 'wise and all knowing' Singing Badger" rather than people such as "Hallett Smith, a noted Elizabethan scholar" as reason to disregard the content of wikipedia for academic purposes. (I'd suggest it's a good object lesson for students in never believing anything you read unquestioningly) Er.. just see below. Seems the problems I had answering this question show that I'm not familiar enough with procedures yet to respond to stuff on RfAs... --zippedmartin 03:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Failure to follow instructions in submitting his self nomination [2] shows a potential trait to not follow policies that admins need to know. Answers to question 1 below indicate desire to revert vandal behavior. I'm slightly concerned that in the last five months and 1,000 edits this nominee has reverted edits a total 38 times, or <4% of his edits (judging by edit summaries, searching for "rv" and "revert"). Lastly, over the last 100 edits, edit summaries were not used in ~40% of edits. Show more interest in what it is you want to do as an admin, use edit summaries more frequently, and do your self nomination properly the next go around (if this one doesn't pass) and I'll gladly shift to support. --Durin 17:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see my comments in the comments section below. --avnative 19:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral—might need a few more edits in "wikipedia", and "wikipedia talk" namespace; shows little interaction.

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  2. Neutral, I too am concerned by his limited interaction with other users. Rje 07:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Please come back to RFA after you have interacted more with other users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    I change my vote to neutral for now, based on carefully studying all of the other edits in the other namespaces... but it is still sort of hard for me to clearly judge this user's interactions with others. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Too little involvement in discussion (245 talk edits, 62 user talk, 36 Wikipedia, 2 Wikipedia talk). I really appreciate your article contributions, but administrators need to have a lot of community involvement as well. Start participating on Wikipedia:Village pump and trust me, you'll like it. Then come back after racking up a few hundred Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk: edits, and you'll have good luck. ~~ N (t/c) 01:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    I can't bring myself to support or oppose now. ~~ N (t/c) 18:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, I like SB but he doesn't have enough interaction for adminship. Will support, in a blink of an eye if an effort is made to interact more often. Falphin 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Normally, this would be an Oppose vote due to a low number to Wikipedia: and User talk: edits. However, several respected editors vouch for you. Also, 6000 edits in main is nothing to sneeze at. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I would like "deleting rubbishy new pages" clarified as it is my only concern with The Musical Mustelidae. Alf melmac 21:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    1. I was simply referring to the obvious junk and vandalism that frequently appears on the new pages list. The stuff described at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It bugs me.

Comments

  • Kate's tool: 6409 edits, 5852 main namespace. ~~ N (t/c) 01:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • From the article: "However, its lengthy article on Shakespeare appears to be impressive but is frequently edited by, among many unidentified others, the "wise and all knowing" Singing Badger. Grolier Online's Americana Shakespeare article, on the other hand, is signed by Hallett Smith, a noted Elizabethan scholar." freestylefrappe 02:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • That is irrelevant. Worldtraveller appeared on the BBC, but it was his edits and contributions that got him promoted to admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought it was fairly obvious that the Badger was making a lightly self-deprecating joke--clearly the journalist writing that article was bashing the idea of an encyclopedia that allows a wise and all-knowing badger to contribute. TSB has always had a good sense of humor about him/herself (in my experience), and I think that a healthy sense of humor about ourselves is important. :-) If TSB didn't intend to make a joke, I hope that will be clarified, since I agree that it's hard to see how that quote offers much evidence of suitability for adminship (unless it's that the article's description as "impressive" and written in part by TSB is a kind of endorsement, I suppose?). Jwrosenzweig 17:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The Badger was indeed making an attempt at humour. Scientists who have studied badgers in the wild have often remarked upon their overly ironic demeanours. The Singing Badger 18:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • All right, I'll admit it! I didn't get it until I read it a second time :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to observe that I find some of the oppose votes to have particularly weak rationale. The Singing Badger has significant editing experience here prior to the widespread use of transcluded pages, and many who became accustomed to editing without them find them awkward. I believe that opposition based on the distribution of edit counts among namespaces is inappropriate. Those editors who are concerned about insufficient community participation would be better advised to review the nominee's contributions carefully, as I believe that he has had more than sufficient meaningful interaction with the community. Not everyone plays chess on the wiki or tries to build a consensus for policy changes, both things that rapidly build up edit counts in nonarticle namespace without necessarily making someone better qualified for adminship. I also note that the Singing Badger does not participate in IRC, and wonder whether the familiarity that comes from IRC participation is becoming a de facto requirement for adminship. It shouldn't be. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I keep misreading the candidate's name as "The Stinking Badger". Nothing against him, though. — JIP | Talk 16:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding Durin's comments: I just did a count myself of omission of edit summary notes, and I found 25 missing in the last 100 as of now. More of the summaries are missing toward the bottom of the list, and the very recent entries are edit summarized. Furthermore, 7 or 8 of the missing summaries relate to his adminship. . . give him a break, he was probably excited about getting his nomination placed for a vote. As far as not placing his admin nomination in the proper place, can't a WP editor make a mistake once in a while? It's in the right place now. That's all that counts in the end, right? (smile) --avnative 19:50, September 10, 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Reverting vandals and deleting rubbishy new pages would be my principal contribution.
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 numerous lengthy articles I created on the etymology of solar system geology - see Geological features of the Solar System and Meanings of asteroid names. I'm fond of these because they create links between very different spheres of knowledge.
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. I've had discussions, sometimes heated, on Talk:Alexander the Great#On the three ethnically-based changes, Talk:Mimas (moon), Talk:Christopher Marlowe, on naming principles for asteroids, among others. I believe strongly in keeping my cool and attempting to use common sense and compromise to defuse rows.