Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bourbons3

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

Bourbons3

withdrawn by candidate (1/7/1) removed 2 January 2006 ending 9th January 16:34 (UTC)

Bourbons3 (talk · contribs) I have been for Wikipedia for roughly 3 months. I have created a number of pages in a variety of categories and sections throughout Wikipedia, with near a 1000 edits. I have contributed a lot to the Userboxes project by creating several userboxes and organising them into existing pages, or creating new pages and grouping alike userboxes. I have made 50 userboxes on a variety of subjects including political parties, users' favourite colours (or colors) and sports that users participate in. I have also made major edits to London-related pages, and contributed to discussions including a recent userbox dispute, and have made a largely backed proposal for the Userbox policy. I have also helped clean up the RuneScape series, contributing a large majority of the information on the RuneScape quests page. I have also nominated several unneeded pages for deletion, inclusing, Free RuneScape quests (which acted as a game guide - which Wikipedia is not), specific RuneScape quest pages and duplicate userboxes. I have voted on several pages' deletion discussions with both keep and delete. I have also voted in a couple of Adminship nominations. - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

:Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept by nominating myself

I withdraw myself. Save myself from checking this page. I'll try again another time, where i have more experience. Thanx for your comments.

Support

1. Strong support User has contributed to a number of pages, and done good work in the Userbox project - ElizabethEeyore 16:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC) User's 3rd edit. →FireFox 16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too few edit summaries. Use more the preview button. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I have come across him deliberately adding fake data into an article. An IP editor and User:Omi007 created a vanity page called Omer Sheikh. When I put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Sheikh, Bourbons, apparently in an attempt to save the article, added content to the article to the effect that Sheikh has played international cricket matches for England. No such player has ever appeared in international or domestic cricket in any country. An admin can check the old contents of this article and corroborate what I have said. Tintin Talk 17:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

   I can confirm this. →FireFox 18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose, because of the answers to the questions below. —Cleared as filed. 17:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, His attitudes in his edits to RuneScape quests, few edit summaries, little if none vandalism fighting. Olorin28 17:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose, for several reasons. First of all, his presentation of himself in this self nom: those "roughly 3 months" are not even 2 (first edit was November 8) and the near 1000 edits are closer to 600. Second, the support vote he got was by someone with a 4 day old account with two previous edits. Third, his nomination (and his sig) has a lot of spelling and typing errors. Wikipedians don't have to be perfect but it doesn't lead me to believe that this user is careful enough to be a trustworthy admin. The nature of his edits and his lack of edit summaries add to that feeling even more. And last of all, the last sentence in his answer to the last question makes me pretty certain that this user is either trolling or doesn't grasp much of the way things are (or should be) done here. --JoanneB 17:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per all. Sorry. →FireFox 18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I just found this cut and paste move made five days ago: when it was reverted by Merovingian this user re-reverted with the edit summary DO NOT REDIRECT, THIS IS ORIGINAL AND PROPER PAGE FOR INFORMATION. I have therefore changed my vote from neutral to oppose. -- Francs2000 18:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral - I don't have anything against this user and he has done some good work here with the userboxes. The difficulty I have is that although he's been here since the beginning of November the actual number of pages edited is quite low, because of the tendency to press "save" rather than "preview". Try again after a couple of thousand more edits. -- Francs2000 18:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral While I'd be perfectly happy supporting this nomination, I do not feel comfortable doing so because of the objections raised. This is more of a "better safe than sorry vote". Izehar 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I dont see any spelling mistakes in my sig, its called Alt keys. And if you're bring up spelling mistakes as a reason to oppose, you're being pretty picky. Is the last sentence forbidden or something? And what exactly is wrong with my answers? - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry about the comment regarding the spelling mistake in your sig, it turns out I was wrong about that (I didn't mean the Alt keys, but the 'contrib's' looked wrong to me, sorry). If you read my vote, you'll see that the spelling mistakes are not my only reason to oppose, by far. And yes, regarding new admins, I am picky: although almost every admin action can be undone by another admin, admins can do a lot of damage to the image of Wikipedia. They are regarded as examples by some other Wikipedians, and for that reason (and for others, too) they should be held to high standards. The last sentence is not forbidden, but trying to resolve a conflict by 'quietly' reverting the edits from someone else leads to edit warring, not to a solution for that conflict. --JoanneB 18:16, 2 January 2006 (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 would most like to help prevent vandalism. This is becasue vandalism is easy to do (vandals do not need to be registered, and therefore cannot be traced) and casues problems in terms of an article's content and its reliable. Vandalism can be written in a formal tone, so it looks genuine, and therefore cannot always be noticed straight away. This causes the article in question to have false information, which could cause a lot of problems for users who use the article for a source of information.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I am most pleased with my contributions to the Userbox project. This is because it is a big project, and it's cause is an important one, causing several people to join it within 2 days. The userboxes i have created help because they were requested, and are all organised into categories and/or pages - pages linked from the Wikipedia:Userboxes page for easy access. There is also alot of tasks i can still contribute to, including organising existing userboxes and changing all userboxes to a User prefix.

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. In the RuneScape section, there were a few occasions where my edits were disregarded or even deeted. This did annoy me, but i have learnt in time to be rational with vandals and editors. I now know to calmly respond to these edits by reverting to previous versions of the article.

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.