Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BobbyLee


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

BobbyLee
[ Final] (2/12/5) Ended 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

– I have been involved in the creation and improvement of articles such as stillbirth, Breanna Lynn Bartlett-Stewart (and its spoken article), Kleihauer-Betke test, Abbeville, South Carolina, The Abbeville Horror, and more recently, articles related to JonBenet Ramsey. I feel that I have made significant quality contributions to Wikipedia with regard to editing existing articles and writing new ones. I have also helped to clean-up simple grammar and spelling mistakes, and have also reverted vandalism and nonsense on many occasions, warning users participating in such, to cease and desist. I have worked on disambiguating various wiki links in certain articles, and plan to begin working on TeXing mathematical equations where they appear in articles. I feel that I could be an even greater asset to the project if I were granted admin privileges, as they would assist me in performing some of the tasks discussed above. Thank you for your consideration, BobbyLee 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also note that some of my contributions can be found under the IP address 128.192.134.161 (sometimes I forget to sign in).


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my nomination of myself =) BobbyLee 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A:Vandalism patrol, wikifying articles, TeXing equations, moving/redirecting articles as appropriate, link disambiguation, other chores as needed.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A:My three best articles are probably Breanna Lynn Bartlett-Stewart, Stillbirth Remembrance Day, and The Abbeville Horror. I feel that these are excellent articles in that they meet the "Brilliant Prose" and "NPOV" standards, and that they inform the reader about topics of which he/she may not have previously heard.  It's great to be able to write an article that inspires someone to learn about a new idea or topic.


 * 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 haven't really had any conflicts so far, and I've gotten along with all of the users I've dealt with. I think that I would handle a Wikipedia conflict just as I tend to handle conflicts in real life: state my piece, try to have an intelligent debate, and if all else fails, leave for a while to cool off.  It's funny how most arguments resolve themselves when their "fuel" (i.e. two factions willing to argue) disappears.


 * Automated data

Discussion
 * I'd note Answer #1 shows no need for tools. – Chacor 05:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See BobbyLee's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.


 * Support
 * 1) Moral support, no need to dogpile. Since the admin tools don't appear to provide any features that you need, I suggest that you might like to withdraw this nomination by simply saying so above. People won't support you unless you genuinely need to be able to delete articles, block users and the like, no matter how good an editor you are. Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 11:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per above.-- Andeh 16:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Wouldnt require sysop privs. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Per Matthew Fenton, and beacuse the articles given are all three for very minor subjects and unsourced (two of the three articles). The only sourced article was already sourced when he started editing it, and his edits are minimal. An admin should know what is needed in an article (as per WP:V and so on). User has less than 200 edits anyway, so lacks experience. Withdrawing this RfA and coming back in six months may be a better idea. Fram 10:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. To new at the present time.  Please get some experience under your belt and check back in a few months.--Looper5920 11:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose you have fewer than 200 edits, which means there really isn't enough evidence available to me to judge if you'd make a good admin or not. As you say, you've never been in a conflict, but conflict is something admins have to deal with every day and have to remain calm and fsair about. Until I see how you react in these sorts of situations I can't support you. Stay around editing for sa few months and you'll soon build up experience. I'd suggest you also try recent changes patroling which will give you a good feel for some of the admin duties. See if that's what you want to get involved with and try again later. Good luck, Gwernol 12:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose. You have mentioned nothing that requires admin tools, you have very few edits and have not been active for very long. Come back in a few months' time. -- Al e  x  (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose You're too new at this time for me to support the nomination. Also the majority of things you mention don't require Sysops priveledges. I encourage you to keep editing and in another few months to try again. As a small side note, you may also want to try to work on your edit summary usage.  Canadian - Bacon  t  c   e 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - in your response you specify many useful tasks but none of them require the admin flag. The community at large isn't likely to promote anyone w/o a bit more experience around here, - keep up the good work though and if you find a need for the tools after building a track record please feel free to re-apply. -- Tawker 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose You are too new but do not get discouraged by this. Continue to improve the quality of your edits and seek nomination again after three months. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per lack of experience. Michael 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Siva1979. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing; you just need to do more of it for a while. --Aaron 22:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. You are a good contributor, but not yet experienced encough to be considered a serious candidate for adminship. You have currently made less than 200 edits - most sucessful admin candidates have at least 2,000. Also, although you've been around since February this year, there have been periods of several weeks since then where you have been inactive. Admins are generally expected to check-in almost daily apart from occasional wikibreaks. A period of much more consistent contribution will be needed if a future application for adminship is to have any chnace of success. Good luck if you decide to apply again in the future. Zaxem 01:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Lack of experience - but shows promise. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Editorial tasks do not require the sysop powers. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I note you have less than 500 edits and you've been active only since late last month. Try again when you've been editing actively for 6 months and have at least 3,000 edits. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. There is no way to accurately judge whether you are worthy of sysop powers or not, because you have not been active long enough. I recommend you withdraw from nomination and wait until you have more experience. Don't let this discourage you from trying again later. --tjstrf 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral You need several more months of activity before anyone can accurately gauge whehter you could be a good admin. Until then, I would strongly suggest that you withdraw your nomination.-- danntm T C 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral you can perform those jobs just fine without admin tools. Also, I agree with Awyong and others, you need more time and experience. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, would appreciate you having more experience. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.