Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Beeblebrox

[edit]

Final (30/35/20); Originally scheduled to end 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC). Nomination not successful. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) – I have decided to nominate myself for adminship. I have over 19,000 edits to Wikipedia since I became an active user in January 2008. I am a very "generalized" editor, I don't have a real specific focus except for articles related to the Kenai Peninsula which is where I live. I've never been blocked or even dragged through the fire at WP:ANI. I noticed something a few months ago, that when I asked for an admin to do something, speedy delete a page, protect a page, etc, they were doing it almost every single time. I concluded that I might as well eliminate the middleman and do it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would start where I have the most experience already, which is in speedy deletion, page protection, and blocking vandals. I would close the more obvious articles for deletion debates, but would probably hold back a while from cases that are not "cut and dried." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Let me get this right out in the open. I don't have any bright, shiny things to point at. No GA or FA articles that I can take even partial credit for. That is because I mostly work with brand new or neglected articles. I do a lot of wikifying and internal link adding, and I try to hook up every new article I edit with at least one WikiProject. I view it as being akin to a triage nurse at the world's largest hospital. I fix up what I can and send them on their way, and mark the hopeless cases with a CSD tag. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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: I haven't allowed any of the numerous conflicts I've been involved to actually cause me stress in quite some time. I learned some time ago that the best thing in any conflict is to try and get more editors involved so that consensus can be reached. Once any given argument has gone two "rounds" without either side changing positions, it is time to find more users and see what they think if anything is ever going to be accomplished. I've recently been participating in discussion at WP:WQA quite a bit, and I think it's something anyone who ever wants to work at ANI should do. To try and solve conflicts without the threat of a block can be challenging, and honestly there are a lot of cases where WQA can't do anything, but I feel it is a worthwhile endeavor to at least try. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
4. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A:Wikipedia has differing levels of user rights. Anyone who has not acted disruptively can edit articles and participate in discussions. Autoconfirmed users can move pages, upload images, and vote at RFA. Admins have a whole box of tools others don't. Even blocked users have the right to contest their blocking as long as they provide an actual reason. Banned users, on the other hand, have been stripped of those rights by the community as a result of unacceptable behavior. As for upholding those rights, I think we do a pretty good job, although of course mistakes are made sometimes. What I would do specifically I suppose would entail being very careful about blocking anyone who was not an obvious vandal or sockpuppet, to seriously consider any unblock request if the user seems to fully understand why they were blocked and not to protect pages without a valid and compelling reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) Nominally 100% optional, but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A-Sending a dispute to ArbCom should be an absolute last resort after any and all attempts to solve it have utterly failed. I would discuss the matter with the other admin, as edit wars don't really help either and sometimes being blocked does have a a way of solving these things, as it can give the blocked user a little time to gain some perspective. If ArbCom rejected the case, we could pick up right where we left off. Whether they believed an RFC would help or not, it would still be something to at least try, and anyone can initiate one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A-Well, first off, I'd find some way to get rid of that pesky edit summary that causing me so much trouble now. That was meant as a joke, but maybe it's not so far off. Nobody noticed it at the time, and nothing "bad" has happened as a result of it, and no one warned me on my talk page or anything, but now that I'm at RFA it's the center of attention. This process bothers a lot of people, and I am one of them. It's the Wiki equivalent of a complete rectal exam, where one tiny error out of 19,000 edits can sink you. On the other hand, I have yet to hear a proposal for a process that would work better than this one, so I guess we're stuck with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A-If it was obviously an account being used only to harm Wikipedia, with no positive contributions, or a banned user or other sockpuppet. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A-An interesting question. This comes down to why we have admins in the first place. They are expected to have good judgement about these sort of things. If I thought there was a compelling case for sock/meat puppetry even without solid checkuser evidence, I would consider their remarks invalid. If there was any doubt, I would consider them valid. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A-Well, sometimes it is safe to let silence speak consent, but if there's only a nom and one vote, a relist is probably in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A-I'm still reeling from my discovery, right after filing this RFA, that User:FlyingToaster has semi-retired and asked to be desysopped, less than a week after successfully passing through this process. This might sound strange coming from me now, but stress rolls right off me most of the time. When it doesn't, I tend to just let it out and be done with it. So, maybe I made a hasty remark that I knew even then was a little out of line, but I had honestly forgotten all about it and once again tried to distance myself from this issue since then. That is a problem an awful lot of folks have, not just here but around the world. They don't realize they've gotten to close to something, become too involved, and they can't see it any other way but their own no matter what. That's why my advice at WP:WQA so often involves a suggestion to turn off the computer and go for a walk. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A-As I stated above, most of the things I ask admins to do for me get done, so I think I have the experience and judgement to preform admin tasks. I think actions speak louder than words and my actions have been pretty darn positive. Also, I live in a time zone that doesn't seem to have many active admins, so I often tag attack pages and copyvios for CSD, and they sit there for hours and hours because everyone's asleep. These types of pages are the most urgent to delete and I don't like it when they hang around, even if blanked, because the attacks or copyvios are still in the history and can be easily restored. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A-It does certainly depend on the criteria. An attack page has to go, the faster the better. If an article gives you absolutely no context to help in a search, then it wasn't doing any good to begin with. If notability is the only concern, there is no harm in leaving it up for the few minutes it would take to search for sources. I have seen blatant copyvio articles simply get chopped down to a stub if they are notable enough, and I think that is a fine solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?
A-This is kind of similar to question 7, so I'm giving a similar answer. Obvious sockpuppets, and returning banned users should be blocked the moment they are detected to prevent them from harming Wikipedia. I also have a very low tolerance for hate speech, but an "only warning" would be in order before blocking. It seems that in practice, users who make threats receive a warning and are usually blocked if they don't promptly retract their threats, and I think that is as it should be. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Rosiestep
14a. To gain a better understanding of your experience with content creation, could you provide a list of articles you've created or heavily edited?
A:There was a noteworthy event in my neck of the woods recently, so Mile 17 fire is pretty much my creation, although a few others have made some edits to it. It's a good example of the kind of work that I do, not the most complicated article, but it gets the job done and is properly sourced. Another article about a wildfire in my area, 2007 Caribou Hills fire, needed a lot of work when I first came across it, and reads much better now. Knik Arm ferry is still a stub, but it was a horribly out of date stub before I fixed it up. I plan to go back to Skilak Lake in just a few weeks and use the opportunity to gather more information and take more photos for that article. Most of the articles I have created from scratch are about events or places in south-central Alaska, but I have edited thousands of random articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14b. To gain a better understanding of your experience with content review, and having read your answer to 2a., could you enumerate which articles, if any, that you created or heavily edited have gone through a content review process such as DYK or AfD?
A:Funnily enough, I nominated List of airlines in Alaska for AfD last year. There was a lot of talk about how it "could" be fixed up at the AfD, but none of the "keep" voters followed up and actually fixed it, so eventually I just did it myself. To my knowledge nothing of mine has ever been a DYK. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14c. To gain a better understanding of your experience with reviewing content created by others, could you describe your participation in content review areas such as DYK, GA, FA, or AfD?
A:As I've stated, I have nothing to do with DYK, GA, or FA. I know we are all trying to make this the best encyclopedia it can be, but the ratings system just does not interest me that much because I tend to focus on articles that are way down at the bottom, and I just try to get them to be basically functional as articles. I have participated in a lot of AfDs. I do my best to take each one individually and avoid the sort of "blanket arguments" that often get used to say either "this type of article is never acceptable" or "this type of thing is automatically notable" or what have you. If an article is really that bad, it probably qualifies as a speedy, and if it is really that great it probably wouldn't be at AfD, or will probably be a snowball keep anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Ottawa4ever (talk)
15. If a wikipedia page were made a a home page for a popular product (Ie an aggressive marketing campaign changes their website to redirect to wikipedias stub article). Under what conditions would you protect the page? thanks
A:Are you talking about Skittles? Anyway, the answer is under the exact same circumstances as any other page. Wikipedia pages are re-used by all sorts of people and organizations, that's what the GFDL is all about. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte sez
16. Please define "start-class article" (in your own words). — CharlotteWebb 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:Normally, an article that basically covers it's subject but may be missing some details, has a good "content to sources ratio" contains no major factual errors. An image also helps bump it up from stub class. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Beeblebrox before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

  • Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the now infamous edit summary: I'm not going to sit here and try to get you all to believe I wasn't fully aware when I wrote that that it was not exactly civil. What I would ask you to do is to consider that I had interacted with this highly disruptive banned user hundreds of times. This page [1] will give you some idea of the scope of this problem if you are not familiar with it. Over the end of last year and the beginning of this year, I spent a good chunk of my time on Wikipedia undoing the work of these socks and getting them blocked. If you search my contribs from this period, you will see that there are hundreds of edits with the summary "banned user" and nothing more. I usually follow the doctrine of revert, block, and ignore rather strictly, as I do believe it is the only way to deal with these types of users. I had tried to leave this whole mess behind me, only to get sucked back in again, and, for a few seconds, I was kind of pissed off about it. If that is such a fatal flaw that the community feels I should not be allowed to be an admin, then so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody really disputes that your past interactions with said user contributed to the outburst - it happens I guess. However, I think the pertinent issue is if a long standing feud of some sort can result in your becoming so disgruntled as to react in that way, then adminship might not be suited for you at this time - you will likely incur the wrath of multiple users if promoted. Wisdom89 (T / C) 09:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]

#:Support No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. He has good experience as well. Timmeh!(review me) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#Support. Seems to know his way around and appears to be exceptionally trustworthy. Jozal (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to neutral[reply]

  1. I'll support this one. Honest answers to questions, good experience looking over contributions and deleted contributions. A few soft spots but we all have those. Plus he's so hip, he can barely see over his pelvis (If you don't get the joke, don't worry about it. I trust the user. Keegantalk 20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with an admonition about that edit summary. As it was 3 months ago, I will take it that candidate has grown since then. I've seen worse examples of incivility in otherwise OK admins, so I'm not impressed enough to oppose for it. Dlohcierekim 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about the edit summary, it as actually 16 days ago, not 3 months. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I was just wondering that - 5th May in actual fact. Not badering the supporters, but it was very recent. Pedro :  Chat  20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the one from Pedro was from 3 months ago. At any rate, there are other issues to be addressed. Moving to oppose <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. A knowledgeable, even-tempered, and fair-minded editor who has demonstrated serious commitment to the integrity of Wikipedia. As for "that edit summary", let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If that's the worst behavior that has happened, it's better than many current admins. Ward3001 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak/Moral Support Beeblebrox has made many excellent contributions to the project. I just feel that it's a shame that the user made those bad mistakes. Following Juliancolton, Assume the presence of a belly-button -FASTILY (TALK) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Firm Support. Unfortunately, it appears this is going nowhere fast but, for what it's worth, this is about the editor and his likely use of the extra tools. I honestly do not think that he would make anything other than good use of the relevant tools and, after all, whatever happened to no big deal? We all make mistakes, but we can't drag our darkest moments around, forever overshadowing our finer hours. At the end of the day, it's a few extra buttons, which, I believe Beeblebrox is sufficiently qualified to press. We can't expect people- admins or otherwise- to be completely infallible. If that were the case, no RfA would ever succeed. Beeblebrox has been perfectly honest about his mistakes and his weaknesses and should be allowed to do a better job of making wikipedia a better place to be and a more reliable encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 00:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak/mediocre support As Jesus (and Ward3001) said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Most of us have made uncivil edit summaries, or uncivil comments on talk pages, including myself. The editor seems knowledgeable. His bad actions may be due to his dedication towards Wikipedia's integrity, not certain. Weak/mediocre support, could change to neutral, and possibly, oppose. mynameincOttoman project 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I believe Ward3001 is stealing my material. :) Seriously, one off-balance comment should not disqualify a full body of work, and I have no reason to fear chaos if Beeblebrox gets a few extra buttons. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support This editor seems honest about his mistakes. I have no doubt that this editor would not abuse the admin tools given to him. Most of us have made mistakes and this is no different. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, the edit summary is not good, but that doesn't negate the good impression I have of this user. We all got a bellybutton. -- Luk talk 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, besides the Edit Summary the user is a sincere vandal fighter and we can always use another vandal fighting Admin. OtisJimmyOne 13:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - one mistake does not a bad administrator make. I like your work in every other area. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I would have lost my temper also, and I know that I would make a fine administrator. Keepscases (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Changed my mind, Support. I have been thinking since yesterday if there is a need of a change of heart. As I said way back, I am neutral and I could not opposed as one single judgment error does not subdue a hundred good contributions. Moreover, I said to myself, "is the emotion of an anonymous user vandalizing this encyclopedia more important than keeping an organized, vandal-free wiki world that is being read by millions of people out there?" ax (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support There are some aspects here I'm not so sure of, but I just have to support somebody who is being opposed because of a single uncivil response to one of the worst vandals and sockpuppeteers Wikipedia has ever seen. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Positives far outweigh one edit summary. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, another RFA run off the rails by one comparatively minor error. Sigh. No evidence this user would maliciously misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Support - Just please don't call people shits. MelissaC1993 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry involving the creation of attack accounts. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 08:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. One mistake isn't really enough to oppose over. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per Lankiveil, Looie and others. ϢereSpielChequers 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as a valuable contributor. The quotes from Q.14c "I tend to focus on articles that are way down at the bottom, and I just try to get them to be basically functional as articles" and "I know we are all trying to make this the best encyclopedia it can be" are what did it for me. There may be alot of GA's and FA's and the more the better but someone's gotta maintain amd improve all that stuff that's accumulating at the bottom and help keep this encyclopedia higher quality overall. We need more contributors like him. About the edit summary, <shrug> we all get frustrated sometimes. No harm was done. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. While the diff bothers me, it was aimed at an obvious pain in the neck of the project. I'm pretty sure that he'll not do anything like that to someone who isn't Bambifan. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I recognize Pedro's concerns. I'm willing to give him a second chance. Antivenin 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I understand the concerns, but I don't feel one edit summary should eclipse the thousands of positive contributions made by this editor. Icseaturtles★ 02:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Fantastic answers to the questions!--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Everyone needs a second chance. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk)
  24. Support per WP:BELLY, WP:AGF, and the belief that the project needs more admins. interested in improving the project. After watching this RfA, and the candidates demeanor, reactions, and temperament - I've come to the conclusion that withholding my support would be my over-reaction to recent events, and an unfair assessment of the candidate. I think the project comes first, and denying Beebs of a couple extra tools would have the effect of Hamstringing the project. I prefer not to think of adminship as an elite ruling class, but of people with a couple extra abilities who can help the project along the way. — Ched :  ?  10:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Per Ched and this edit to WT:RFA.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Have seen candidate help upset users on WP:WQA. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Mostly harmless ;-) I know how frustrating it can be to clear up the endless mess that career vandals and their puppets leave behind. That one summary should not taint the rest of Beeblebrox's fine work here. He should not have said that, of course not, but when you're dealing with a vandal as [insert derogatory term here] as Bambifan, I'm willing to overlook that minor outburst. It never happened before and I don't believe it will happen again. Yintaɳ  23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I think some users are just picking on him over mistakes that any of us could make. For God's sake he has over 19K edits! --Kaaveh (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Opposes are pretty unconvincing. Everybody who touches hard, unpleasant stuff like vandal and sockpuppet cleanup makes mistakes. On 18k+ edits, we don't have a pattern of behavior in the opposes, merely isolated incidents. RayTalk 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, the opposes raised below were just noting a single incident and others agreeing with it. I believe Beeblebrox made a mistake; we all make mistakes, and his one error shouldn't be reason enough to prevent him from adminship. He seems like a trustworthy user, and I doubt that he would misuse any of the tools (or act uncivily towards others). Also, as Ray stated, out of eighteen thousand edits, you're bound to mess up eventually, right? blurredpeace ☮ 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Not Impressive. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that, I agree not impressive. To be fair, Bambifan has caused extensive cross-wiki harrassement. That of course does not justify the inappropriate edit summary, but I'm a fan of context. Happy editing to you, Pedro. Keegantalk 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] And other bits in talk archives also concern. Which is a shame as a lot on the current talk page shines as an example of a great Wikipedian (adding under construction tags, helpful replies, general civility). But I think I'm going to stay in oppose for the mo - consider it a weak oppose - lots to like just a number of concerns that are more than neutral. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered the second I left that if it would come back to haunt me someday, so it's fair enough that it did. To put it in context, I had "battled" this banned user for many months, and it became a little too personal, so I backed off. Then this user actually came looking for me, and I'm ashamed to say, I had conversations with them without realizing who I was dealing with. When another user revealed who it was, I... reacted badly. The bad AIV report was a result of pure haste, for which I [3] apologized, and I have not made a similar mistake since. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <<ec>>Thanks Pedro. I'm gonna let it go as 3 months ago, but that is certainly not what I expect from a fellow Wikipedian. Dlohcierekim 20:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Pedro mostly. Here's my philosophy, somewhat inspired by one of the last lines of this; editors are people, you know. Let's just say that an event in school went exactly like that edit summary by Beeblebrox; perhaps there was a school bully (Bambifan) who harassed other students a lot. Then another overly bold student (Beeblebrox) walks right up to him and calls him a shit. Beeblebrox's frustration was perfectly acceptable. The fact that he lashed out at Bambifan like that (prima facie troll-feeding) was completely unacceptable. Hence, I oppose Beeblebrox's sysopping at this point in time. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 20:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose not ready yet-- 4 rejected speedies this month. I would suggest slowing down a little on the CSD taggings. Look closer for sense, for assertion of significance, for context. Google search for a way to fix articles, and then tag if you cannot. PROD or AFD might be the way to go if there is any doubt as to meeting WP:CSD. Don't be discouraged. Tighten up a little bit and try again. Try to heed whatever advice others have. You're doing a good job, but you need to improve to win our trust. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to no vote per Bearian's neutral and because of the pile-on, assuming editor has navel. Also, the issue for me was not the edit summary, but the CSD tagging. I am certain both issues will be non issues for next time. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Precisely what we don't need. I trust that this RfA will go down in flames per Pedro's diff. Sigh. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per concerns brought up by Pedro and Dlohcierekim that I was not aware of when I originally supported. Timmeh!(review me) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, concerns about temperament as raised by Pedro (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Second link provided by Pedro falls into the three months ago let's forget it category but the diff. from the 5th was way too recent. Oppose.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to support.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Per Pedro and Dlohcierekim. — Σxplicit 04:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Per concerns raised above. Specifically by Pedro and Dlohcierekim. --T'Shael MindMeld 06:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Pedro, especially as that edit was from under a month ago. It Is Me Here t / c 13:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Pedro. You're not quite ready, but please stay at it. rootology/equality 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose > I only got as far as seeing the diff and it was enough to garner my immediate opposition. Way more time needed between now and the time of that edit before you can even be considered, I'm afraid. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose – I would normally grant some levity of the diff in question brought up by Pedro was a while back, but this is not such a case. Sorry. MuZemike 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak oppose - Per Dylan. I like this editor's thoughtful responses to questions and diversity of experience. In general, it looks like they'd be a great admin. However, that "one mistake" is exactly how admins shouldn't act, and the candidate's answer to #10, coupled with the frequency similar situations manifest themselves for admins that block, leads me to suspect that such hasty remarks are not unlikely to happen again. I sympathize with the candidate's frustration that lead to the outburst, but where stress is concerned, admins must not "let it out and be done with it", at least, not on-wiki. However, I would probably support in a few months, given no further incidents. -kotra (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I don't have a problem with the diff Pedro brought up, so much as I have a problem with the unnecessary drama that will come if you, as an administrator, repeat that kind of comment. I also think you need more experience with articles. Get some content, whatever it may be, featured or good, and you'd probably have a better shot at passing next time.  iMatthew :  Chat  18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose inexperienced, not ready yet. Showtime2009 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Not yet. Per (a) edit summary issues (including your ES when transcluding into this RfA); and (b) not enough content creation, or emphasis on well-developed content skills. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I don't think you're ready, per temperament. Syn 23:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - it's not so much the summary, more what that summary represents. It represents that you got angry enough, stressed enough that you made a hasty, ill-thought through action. While in this instance it was relatively harmless, I'd hate to see you dragged to RfC or ArbCom in 6 months time after an inappropriate block, as a result of you (from your answer to Q10) "just let it out and be done with it". I'd be more than happy to support in three months, provided you are able to control that little bit of stress that doesn't "roll right of you". :) ∗ \ / {talk} 02:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Pedro's diffs. Temperament issues. Per \/, you're a good editor and I don't want you to experience the business end of WP:ANI because someone easily manipulated you to do stupid things. Come back after a few months of training and I'll happily support you. On the interim, I suggest you get yourself some shiny things and practice the art of Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism.--Lenticel (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Too many administrators currently. see here - DougsTech (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - The link Pedro has given tips it for me, I'm afraid; anyone who goes off like that shouldn't be an admin. Might support in six months or so if the user doesn't do anything else like that. Skinny87 (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I am not pleased to see the diff Pedro provided or by the edit summaries. Perhaps, you could try to stay cool, be civil and assume good faith while editing. Maybe I'll support you in your next RfA (if this one doesn't pass). Pmlinediter  Talk 08:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak oppose I'm not supporter of self-nomination.--> Gggh talk/contribs 08:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per civility issues by Pedro; sketchy speedy work Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Arma virumque cano has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Indenting. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Pedro. One two three... 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose (mainly as per civility violation) I know people make mistakes, and I think Beeblebrox has excused himself for that outburst, however, that was kind of recent. So I think more activity from this user is needed so see if a change has taken place. I'd like to encourage Beeblebrox to re-summit his bid adminship once he's built a more solid contributions history.Likeminas (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Per Pedro (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Good editor, knows his way around content, but temperament and judgement are off for an admin. In short, does not have my trust. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes well at first, I saw absolutely no reason to oppose you, but like everyone else I saw those nasty links Pedro provided and it might now have bothered me if it was a while ago but it's pretty recent, I'm going with oppose.--(NGG) 01:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose No more uncivil admins please. If the user can't handle a user harassing him now, he won't be able to deal calmly with the issues and drama that come along with being an administrator. hmwithτ 12:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. People who call other users "little shits" should not be admins. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting blocked troll: this oppose was not made by Bishonen. Acalamari 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of you keeping score, one blocked sockpuppet supports and onetwo do not... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Per above, absolutely not. Nja247 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Wrong temperament. Lack of content contribution. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose that diff presented by Pedro is a automatic fail in my book. In my opinion an admin (as well as any user in good standing) needs to be civil. I don't care how much someone pisses you off, you need to keep a cool head. There's a red flag here that I would unfortunately not be able to trust you with the tools. Valley2city‽ 08:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per Pedro. I might support sometime in the future, but in the meantime, you need to improve. MC10 | Sign here! 03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak oppose. Beeble seems to have a good understanding of policy, and is obviously well-intentioned, but the temperament issue... eek. Quantumobserver (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Per Pedro, obviously does not have the correct attitude to be an admin if he/she is going to attack and swear at users, even if they are anonymous. Needs to be much more calm and civil. There are many other users out there who are much more suitable for adminship. Ijanderson (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Per Pedro. My advice is to wait a few more months, and maybe it will go better. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I don't want to oppose, but that diff from Pedro is not how admins act. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you mean that's not how admins ought to act. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'd have to agree with Pedro. I have no real interpretation for this user, but the sight of that basically killed my support. Renaissancee (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral The diff by Pedro is too recent to be overlooked. Otherwise, I can not find any major issues. Nakon 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral also. If the diff happened 5 months ago, I would have supported this RFA, but it was just days ago, specifically 17 days back. Although I could not opposed as one single judgment error does not subdue a hundred good contributions. ax (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Arg, you're killing me here, Beebs, I really wanted to support for your CSD and related work, which has been excellent when I've seen it, which is a lot. The problem with leaving the infamous edit summary on an IP account is that there's no way of knowing that someone else won't be using that IP and see the message. So I have to stay neutral this time, but if this fails, please try WP:RFA in 3 months; I would gladly support then, based on what I know right now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pedro's diff is indeed concerning, though I'll User:Juliancolton/Belly-button Still, as an administrator you'll often find yourself in stressful situations, so I'm afraid I can't support. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PirateSmackKArrrr! 21:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Due to the issues mentioned by your opposers, I don't think I can support you, but I'm not prepared to oppose either. Jozal (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Needs more experience and knowledge of policy. Keep up the good work! -download ׀ sign! 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Probably you should consider withdrawing the RFA and coming back in a few months because of the edit summary. I'm sure it will be forgiven but you have to prove that you aren't likely to do it again. I think it speaks more to the power of trolls than to your momentary weakness or I wouldn't bother commenting. Drawn Some (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Per Juliancolton.--Res2216firestar 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral 14c worries me a bit. I would think to be adminstrator someone should be aware of the ratings system of an article and respect it. It is very easy for a small article to be curropted with misinformation becuase it isnt sourced well. This can cause issues regarding the attention of an admin from a content dispute. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral leaning towards support, the issues brought up do not concern me enough to get me in oppose (or even full-bore neutral), but enough to get me out of support, as the edit summary and other diffs are fairly recent. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral. I'm apprehensive to support after the edit summary to the IP you accused of being bambifan, but I think you will make a good admin in the future. Keep yourself clean and work on creating a more professional demeanor. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (moving to support) "Not piling on" I am sorry Breeblebox, while I will attempt to support by default - the diff that Pedro points to would likely push me to neutral along with Julian and others. In looking a little further, I also found this diff, posted less than a month ago. While I understand that there is no malicious intent, and in fact I myself found some humor in it - given the global community we entail, I believe that there may be a small group of editors that this type of humor may offend. As administrators are coming under closer scrutiny and asked to uphold the highest of standards, I believe it would be best if you withdrew at this time and re-nomed in the very near future. Were it an edit summary or comment in user-space, I might perhaps overlook it, but given that it is an edit summary in article-space, I simply can not support at this time. I would ask you to please return within a couple months, and I would gratefully support a re-nom provided you continue to keep the possible consequences of our actions at the forefront of your thoughts while editing. I would add: I admire the quality, as well as the quantity of your work here, and I certainly agree with Lankiveil, in that you would not abuse the tools. Best of luck, and please continue to help us build as you have in the past, and do in the present. — Ched :  ?  04:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Would support, but can't due to the diff. Wizardman 16:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral — I think you are well on your way to becoming a good admin. But, obviously we need to allow some time to pass between the mistakes of the past and the mop of the future, and that time needs to be filled with plenty of good decisions along the way. I have confidence that you will eventually earn the mop. Thanks for the work you already do. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Support per barnstars at User:Beeblebrox and reasonable arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The musical parody, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Jairus Frigate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omni Consumer Products, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fax Machine Monster of Basildon, as well as in that candidate has never been blocked, but oppose per weak remarks in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulsinus (Heroscape), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2) (use of an WP:ITSCRUFT), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C'tan (2nd nomination). Probably more positive than negative, but the community as well seems rather divided based on their comments above, so I am on the fence between neutral and weak support. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen anyone cite barnstars in an RfA rationale. I didn't know anyone took them that seriously. Maybe I should make mine more prominent. :P hmwithτ 12:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral, would support, but the diffs provided by Pedro concern me. KnCv2 11:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral. I would have supported, but Pedro makes a good point. Still, I don't want to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral - liked everything until I read Pedro's diff. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Neutral per Juliancolton, see User:Ben/Assume the presence of a belly-button. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (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/Beeblebrox&oldid=1146828506"