Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bushcarrot 2

Add links
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.

Bushcarrot

[edit]

Final (0/12/3); Ended Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:46:05 (UTC)

Bushcarrot (talk · contribs) - After more than two months, I am throwing my hat back into the ring for adminship. I have had experience with some of the tools (such as protecting pages, blocking vandals, deleting pages, undeleting pages, etc.) on editthis.info, so I have an understanding of that. Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Like I said before, what have I got to lose?

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I hope to assist with banning, clearing speedy deletion backlogs, protecting, and deletions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I try to make small edits, and I am honestly pleased with many of them. I can say that, right?
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: My response to the deletion of Esperanza (see question 3 of my past RfA) was something I deeply regret. I was foolish, I was immature, and it was something that was difficult for all parties involved. I shouldn't have told the nominator to "go fuck themselves", and if I could take it back, you better believe I would. This is the honest to Jimbo Wales truth.
Additional question from xaosflux
4. You mention you have experience with administrator tools, what wiki are you an admin on, or have you been an admin here under a seperate name? — xaosflux Talk 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not here. I said I used admin tools on editthis.info. That uses mediawiki. I was originally intending to write an online MLA format guide for online, but gave up after a while. Hence, someone using my name to vandalize. Probably an ISV member or something. Hope that helps. Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 01:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Gwernol
5. In March you requested that the archive of your talk page be deleted. Why was that? Do you believe all communications with users should be open an easily accessible? Would you do this again if you were an admin?
A. I was totally unaware that it was rarely done. AS for the why part, I made a bad decision by using Werdnabot. If I had known it was rarely done, then I wouldn't have asked otherwise. I think it should be accessible. And, now that I know it, I would not do it again, regardless of being an admin or not. Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. You mentioned wanting to help with the speedy deletion backlog. Could you explain, with an example, where you think the borderline between an article that should be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:A7, one that should be Prodded and one which should be taken to AfD is? What would you do with User:Gwernol/HillstoneLows and why? Thanks.
A.
7. Under what circumstances would you apply semi-protection and protection to an article? When would it be inappropriate for you not to apply protection? Admins are able to edit all protected articles. When should you edit a protected article and when should you not? Thanks.
A.
8. What is your opinion of the form of RfA currently being used in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis?
A.
Completely optional and possible frivolous questions from Physchim62
answer at your own risk
9. What do you understand by the guideline WP:SELF?
A.
10. Under what circumstances would you be willing to ignore all rules?
A.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Several of these opposes are seriously lame. I mean, you don't have to pile on opposition, ask if this RfA is a joke (I strongly oppose taking away self-noms by the way) and tell him he has an "attitude problem" when he chooses to respond to this lameness, or says "what have I got to lose". Are you serious? You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. RfA isn't easy for a lot of people, especially not when it's 0/12. Grandmasterka 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Um, I just closed the RFA, so won't be counting this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I don't see any indication that this user is experienced enough and familiar enough with policies, guidlines, et cetera to be a competent admin. In addition, all the replies here seem to a combative undertone that is very unbecoming. John Reaves (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I Oppose for several reasons. Firstly, I don't like your attitude. "What do I have to lose?" is not what I want from a admin. Secondly, although I believe you are sincere in your regrets for the Esperanza incident, I don't know if I can trust you to not relapse. Thirdly, with only 141 edits, I think you could use some more Project namespace edits. Gutworth 02:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "What have I got to lose" is an attitude problem? Boy, I'd better tread more carefully around here... I mean, you don't actually lose anything if your RfA fails. Grandmasterka 07:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Unfortunately, it takes a while to recover from the kind of blunder that was cited at the previous RFA (and here in Q3). The shaky understanding of policy convinces me that now is not the time. YechielMan 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Not enough edits to Wikispace and weak answers. And also due to the short discssion about banning and blocking below--$UIT 04:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. "Banning" vs. "blocking" is an important distinction. ➪HiDrNick! 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose answers reflect general inexperience. More edits are needed in the project-space. —Anas talk? 05:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - What is this? A surge of really bad self RfA nom's has arisen (see RfA above...) & I'm begininng to wodner if it's a kind of joke? Anyway, based on the answers alone I should oppose & I will. To few Wikipedia namespace edits, too few Mainspace edits, not enough experience overall etc etc. I'm sorry, but although you don't have a lot to lose, you do have a lot to learn. Come back later, Thanks, Spawn Man 05:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Your combative and fierce attitude is not admin like quality. Second, a ban is a whole lot different than a block. Please see WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK.Please do not take this offensively, take this as constructive criticism.--PrestonH(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, weak answers and lack of edits generally. Terence 09:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Very bad answers to questions, I dont think you know the difference between a Ban and and Block. Tellyaddict 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose -the highest is only 4 Edits on you mainspace which is not good enough. MYaybe if you apply sfter 6 months, you might have a chance..--Cometstyles 12:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Another candidate whose userpage convinces me to oppose; this time it's the obnoxious fake orange bar of doom at the top. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bushcarrot's orange bar is impossible to confuse with a new messages flag because they have entirely different text. This is akin to opposing a candidate based on their favorite breakfast cereal or haircut. A Traintalk 15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neurtal Pending answer to new quetion. — xaosflux Talk 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for answering, maintaining neutraility for now. — xaosflux Talk 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. This may just be a slip in wording, which is why I'm not opposing for it, but saying in your answer to Q1 that you're going to help with banning users makes no sense. And if I assume you meant "blocking", you just listed everything an admin can do for an answer, which is totally unhelpful. -Amarkov moo! 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to sound rude, yet accidental rudeness often occurs, so please pardon me in advance. In regards to your comment: banning, blocking, it's the same in a sense. Also, I apologize for phrasing my answer to Q1 wrong. But, is that the reason that people become administrators, to help with that stuff? Or, is it a trophy, even if WP:ANOT says otherwise? Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 01:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Banning is forbiding someone from editing, possibly indefinantly; blocking is a technical measure used to enfoce a ban, but also used to temporarily stop editing due to other violations. — xaosflux Talk 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, then. I always thought it was the same thing. At least I learned something, even if this means nothing. Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 02:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral the concerns of the previous RFA still hold true but I can't oppose a candidate who is not prepared to give up easily. More experience please. The Rambling Man 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bushcarrot_2&oldid=1270455494"