Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bushcarrot


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

Bushcarrot
[ Voice your opinion] (3/21/1); Scheduled to end 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

- I have always worked mainly with dealing with vandals, but I would post various redirects when necessary. I feel that I could help out a lot more by being an Admin. Bushcarrot ( Talk·Desk ) 01:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Sure, what have I got to lose? Bushcarrot ( Talk·Desk ) 01:44, 27 January 2007 (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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do 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: I plan to assist with AIV, and maybe helping with CSD and protecting pages.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'm not really pleased with all of my contributions, since I mainly came to Wikipedia for RC patrol.


 * 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 made one personal attack when Esperanza was going to be deleted. I was angry at the moment, and when I took it out on the users here, I deeply regret it, and I wish that I never did it. If you want to oppose my request for adminship due to that reason alone, by all means do so, but I made a mistake, and I understand that I handled that in the wrong way.


 * General comments


 * See Bushcarrot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support Oppose
 * 1) Moral support &bull; You have potential, but it is too early for adminship, I feel.  Try again in a couple of months and you may get better reception.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  ( Talk to Me  &bull; Neutrality Project  ) 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) (moral) Support - an off-track decision somehow - it's nice to see such a courageous editor in this bureaucratic "world" of Wikipedia. His statement "what have I got to lose" alone deserves my encouragement. --Deryck C. 07:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support-see nothing wrong with this user and has enough experience.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per lack of Wikispace edits, plus you haven't been around long enough yet. Try again in 3 months and you may be worthy, nothing in you history shows anything serious.-- Wizardman 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose you appear to be uninterested in this RFA, your answers are not very inspiring and this cannot be overlooked, I would not want an admin to act in that manner. Especially in a deletion discussion. ~ Arjun 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - per lack of encyclopaedia building (imperative for an admin). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Doesn't show enough interest, answers are bare-bones, and ultimately not enough experience.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Not yet: You're doing well with opposing vandals, but you need to get other types of experience too, especially work with XfD. Work on that, get some more edits, and you may have a great chance in a few months. Heimstern Läufer 01:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. That personal attack was from less than a month ago, and it is not the level of civility I'd expect from an admin. Also lack of encyclopedia building, weak answers to questions, and low participation in XfDs and Wikipedia talk. Come back in a few months with improvements to these, and you'll likely have a successful RfA. –Llama man 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose : 'es 'avin' a larf.  Gardener of  Geda  | Message Me.... 02:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Arjun and lack of mainspace and wikispace contributions. Try again in a few months.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per lack of mainspace edits. I suggest trying again in a few months after gaining more experience. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Although I have had interactions with Bushcarrot and he seems to be a nice guy, the fact that he told the nominator of Esperenza's deletion to "go fuck themselves" (see here) leads me to oppose. Sorry dude.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  04:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strongest oppose. In addition to experience concerns, what were you thinking? -Amark moo! 06:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per User:Bushcarrot/bookbio. Try again in a year. ~ trialsanderrors 07:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. There's no way I could support within a month of this. Our admins can't be telling users to "go fuck themselves". I understand that you apologized above, but comments like that (and those referenced on the bookbio page) don't contribute much good to Wikipedia. I'd suggest participating (civilly) in some discussions before applying again. alphachimp  07:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per everyone (including the neutral and supports, which let's face it, are "oppose, but too polite to say"s). I note that after the self-nomination, the self-nominee took a quarter of an hour to decide to accept.  Frankly, should have thought about it a bit longer before doing so.  Alai 09:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose I agree with the comments above about work in policy related areas such as wp:afd, wp:mfd, wp:tfd. However I do think that it took a lot of honesty to admit you made a personal attack and that your honesty is very respectable. Come back in a few months with a few thousand more edits and then see what happens!! Good work on RC patrol aswell. Telly addict  11:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose I suggest withdrawal. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 12:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong oppose due to this. WJBscribe 13:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Withdrawl needed. Carpet 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per Alphachimp.-- Hús  ö  nd  16:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose, lacks of experience, edits, WP:CIVIL concerns. Terence Ong 17:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose - Statement & answers are too thin for me to approve. Scob e ll302 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral - I have seen this editor around. We all have that urge to get a little hot under the collar, especially about something we care about.  I respect this users zeal and passion.  I think in the future, this user would make a good administrator(as long as there are no more uncivil edits).-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:39, 27 January 2007 (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.