Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Singing Badger

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zippedmartin (talk | contribs) at 03:55, 6 September 2005 (→[[User:The Singing Badger|The Singing Badger]]: ugh, extra :). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Singing Badger

Vote here (9/2/4) ending 01:00 12 September 2005 (UTC) The Singing Badger (talk · contribs) - Self request. Wikipedian since May 2004. More edits than you can shake a stick at, in a wide variety of subjects. Been asked to be an admin more than once (1), (2). And have even been mentioned in a newspaper, how many of you can say that?? [1]

Support

  1. Support almost 6,000 edits. freestylefrappe 02:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Deserves adminship to better and more easily accomplish any task he chooses. Not every admin has to be a janitor or Walmart greeter. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 04:51
  3. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, seems to have enough contributions, and getting a contribution noted in a newspaper is a good thing too. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. The 'Badger has been around for a while and all my interactions with him have been positive. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I believe this user won't go rogue with his admin powers.  Grue  15:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Does good work creating an encyclopedia; I can understand why he doesn't have time to muck about in the Wikipedia: namespace. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wholeheartedly support. I was one of those that offered a year ago to nominate Badger, and I stand by that 100%. Badger is a fantastic editor and contributor--I understand that the focus these days is on new admins who will do work on Wikipedia upkeep projects, but back in the old days if we had a good editor who contributed a lot to the project and didn't cause trouble, I recall us giving them admin privileges if they wanted them. I can foresee only benefits if we give Badger admin privileges--if for no other reason (and I can think of many others) than that a user who has made as many good, well-written, high-quality contributions to this project as Badger has deserves to have that recognized. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal"--in a perfect world, all wiki users would have admin privileges. We restrict them because there are people who will abuse the privileges -- I can't believe there's any concern about Badger in that respect. Sorry for the long note, but I've been wanting to nominate this editor for a year, and I can't believe there are so many oppose votes right now. Jwrosenzweig 17:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Looks good to me. Deb 20:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good editor and a great username too. CheekyMonkey 22:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, too few Wikipedia namespace edits. Also the problems you had with setting up this RfA show that you're not familiar enough with procedures yet to be an admin. Your edit count looks promising though, and with a bit more participation in the community I'd definitely support in a month or two. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 01:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree. Also, where were you mentioned in that article, and how is it relevant to this RfA? Andre (talk) 02:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The article (fallaciously) cites the fact that the Shakespeare article being edited by "the 'wise and all knowing' Singing Badger" rather than people such as "Hallett Smith, a noted Elizabethan scholar" as reason to disregard the content of wikipedia for academic purposes. (I'd suggest it's a good object lesson for students in never believing anything you read unquestioningly) --zippedmartin 03:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral—might need a few more edits in "wikipedia", and "wikipedia talk" namespace; shows little interaction.

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  2. Neutral, I too am concerned by his limited interaction with other users. Rje 07:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Please come back to RFA after you have interacted more with other users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I change my vote to neutral for now, based on carefully studying all of the other edits in the other namespaces... but it is still sort of hard for me to clearly judge this user's interactions with others. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too little involvement in discussion (245 talk edits, 62 user talk, 36 Wikipedia, 2 Wikipedia talk). I really appreciate your article contributions, but administrators need to have a lot of community involvement as well. Start participating on Wikipedia:Village pump and trust me, you'll like it. Then come back after racking up a few hundred Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk: edits, and you'll have good luck. ~~ N (t/c) 01:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't bring myself to support or oppose now. ~~ N (t/c) 18:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Kate's tool: 6409 edits, 5852 main namespace. ~~ N (t/c) 01:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: "However, its lengthy article on Shakespeare appears to be impressive but is frequently edited by, among many unidentified others, the "wise and all knowing" Singing Badger. Grolier Online's Americana Shakespeare article, on the other hand, is signed by Hallett Smith, a noted Elizabethan scholar." freestylefrappe 02:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • That is irrelevant. Worldtraveller appeared on the BBC, but it was his edits and contributions that got him promoted to admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it was fairly obvious that the Badger was making a lightly self-deprecating joke--clearly the journalist writing that article was bashing the idea of an encyclopedia that allows a wise and all-knowing badger to contribute. TSB has always had a good sense of humor about him/herself (in my experience), and I think that a healthy sense of humor about ourselves is important. :-) If TSB didn't intend to make a joke, I hope that will be clarified, since I agree that it's hard to see how that quote offers much evidence of suitability for adminship (unless it's that the article's description as "impressive" and written in part by TSB is a kind of endorsement, I suppose?). Jwrosenzweig 17:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to observe that I find some of the oppose votes to have particularly weak rationale. The Singing Badger has significant editing experience here prior to the widespread use of transcluded pages, and many who became accustomed to editing without them find them awkward. I believe that opposition based on the distribution of edit counts among namespaces is inappropriate. Those editors who are concerned about insufficient community participation would be better advised to review the nominee's contributions carefully, as I believe that he has had more than sufficient meaningful interaction with the community. Not everyone plays chess on the wiki or tries to build a consensus for policy changes, both things that rapidly build up edit counts in nonarticle namespace without necessarily making someone better qualified for adminship. I also note that the Singing Badger does not participate in IRC, and wonder whether the familiarity that comes from IRC participation is becoming a de facto requirement for adminship. It shouldn't be. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Reverting vandals and deleting rubbishy new pages would be my principal contribution.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am particularly pleased with the numerous lengthy articles I created on the etymology of solar system geology - see Geological features of the Solar System and Meanings of asteroid names. I'm fond of these because they create links between very different spheres of knowledge.
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've had discussions, sometimes heated, on Talk:Alexander the Great#On the three ethnically-based changes, Talk:Mimas (moon), Talk:Christopher Marlowe, on naming principles for asteroids, among others. I believe strongly in keeping my cool and attempting to use common sense and compromise to defuse rows.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Singing_Badger&oldid=22671855"