Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bongwarrior

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

Bongwarrior

FINAL (56/6/1); Scheduled to end 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) - Hello, I am Bongwarrior, and this is a self-nomination. I have been actively editing for about eight months, and I was a voracious Wikipedia reader and occasional IP editor before that. Most of my efforts are focused on neutralizing vandalism and WP:CSD tagging. Outside of those areas, my main interests are sports and music related articles. I am requesting adminship because I spend a good deal of time on RC patrol, and it would be useful to be able to immediately delete attack pages and nonsense pages, block usernames that blatantly violate policy, and block vandals when necessary to prevent further damage to the project. I have a good understanding of policy, I stay calm and civil at all times, and I will remain committed to helping Wikipedia, no matter the outcome of this RFA. --Bongwarrior 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Although I will probably branch out in the future, in the beginning I intend to stick with the areas I am most familiar with:
  • WP:UAA - Blocking usernames that are clearly violations, and removing usernames that clearly aren't.
  • WP:AIV - This is usually watched pretty closely already, but an extra pair of eyes couldn't hurt, especially in the early morning hours when I am usually active.
  • WP:CSD - This tends to get backlogged on occasion, so I would likely spend a good bit of time here.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I don't have any featured articles to my credit, but I have made solid contributions to Pittsburgh Pirates, my hometown team, and I was able to improve the layout of Richard Wright (musician). I've also uploaded a few album covers that were needed, and I try to make whatever improvements I can during the course of my regular RC patrols.
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: Yes, but nothing that made me lose any sleep. Most recently, I was involved in a disagreement regarding the UAA instructions. I thought a "wait until edit" reminder would help cut down on frivolous reports; apparently I was in the minority, so I dropped it. Vandals also like to drop by my userpage to show their appreciation for my work. It's flattering, in a way.
Additional question from xaosflux:
4. You state that you want to focus on some specific admin tasks, branching out to others in the future. You have been regularly active at WP:AFD both in making nominations and participating. If this is an area you would branch in to administratively, would you take it on as a third-party, while still being an active participant, or something else? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I probably would move on to closing AFDs, and I've already closed a handful. As an administrator, I would continue to take part in deletion discussions. However, I don't envision closing discussions that I have participated in, as it may present a conflict of interest. --Bongwarrior 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Optional from Mercury
Would you be willing to explain the meaning of your username?
A: Certainly. A bong is an apparatus used for smoking marijuana. A warrior is a fighter, or one who is engaged in battle. Since one who has recently used a bong is probably quite docile and not in much of a mood for battle, I find the juxtaposition humorous. --Bongwarrior 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lame Question from User:Pedro

6.Do you really, really promise to do work at C:CSD given the horiffic state of it? If so, what would be your actions on encountering the following article text, tagged with {{db-bio}};

James Jones is a world renowned criminal, famous for killing lots of blokes because he's gay.

And believe me - you do get plenty of stuff like that! Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Yes, I promise. I hope this isn't a trick question, because it looks a little too easy. I'd double check the history, then delete, either as an A7 non-notable bio, or as A1 no context. If the article's creator had made other similar pages, I might give him or her a friendly article creation warning, if it was just the one article I probably wouldn't bother. --Bongwarrior 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't a trick question. And I concur that this would fall under A1, (A7 maybe although the assertion of "world renowned" (my spelling!) could trip that) and also a possible G10 attack. Either way it's one for the bin. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, guys, technically, saying something like "world reknowned" would be a claim to notability... :P GlassCobra 10:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: The policy is to never undo a block without the consent of the administrator who issued the block, and I absolutely intend to abide by it. If I saw a block that I considered questionable, I'd try to discuss it with the person who issued it to get their reasoning. If I'm still unconvinced a block was an appropriate response, I'd try to get some different perspectives on the matter from one of the admin noticeboards. --Bongwarrior 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. - a (really optional) question from Rudget Contributions. What would your advice be to an adoptee (wheter or not you have or desire adoptees) you may have, that is engaged in an edit war on a certain article you knew nothing about?
A: My advice would be to take it to talk, and possibly to give that article a rest for a little while and work on something else. I'd also make sure that they're aware of the three revert rule. It's also important to keep everything in proper perspective. It's just the internet after all, and we all get paid the same no matter whose revision sticks. --Bongwarrior 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

  • For non-admins' edification, this editor has about 3,000 deleted edits for articles, etc. that were speedy, vandalism (not his/hers), etc. Carlossuarez46 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three thousand? Wow. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • query.php reports 14,369 edits, as opposed to wannabe_kate's 11,673. Of course, that pales in comparison to some other people. :D east.718 at 01:36, 10/30/2007

****Er, warning: don't run the Cydebot query unless you really really care. Talk about eating up bandwidth... Keegantalk 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • N/m, it's the XML extension. I didn't notice that. Keegantalk 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now, now, no "my edit count is bigger than yours" talk. :-) Carlossuarez46 19:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • My edit count is bigger than yours, doo dah, doo dah. Sing along guys! — H2O —  08:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this should be grounds for opposition by any stretch of then imagination, but I would like to suggest a username change. Its not a violation of the policy, but I cringe at the media hilarity that would ensue if someone high profile was blocked (or a controversial page delete/protected) by an admin called "Bongwarrior". I'm still going to support this RfA, but I hope that if you think of another name you wouldn't mind editing with you'll consider a trip to WP:CHU... WjBscribe 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll be like Essjay all over again! wikinews:Bongwarrior deletes Bong, claims to be at war. — H2O —  02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Strong Support My interactions with editor, as well as seeing what they do around here are reason enough. Add the fact that Bongwarrior remains constantly civil in the face of numerous incivilities from vandals, and his persistence and dedication to the project make my support very strong. Jmlk17 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, an excellent vandal fighter.-gadfium 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support excellent work at CSD and fighting vandlism. Carlossuarez46 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Has been doing an excellent job patrolling new pages for speedy deletion criteria. We need more people to delete articles like Pooooooo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nicoles butt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Ass bandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and to report bad user names like User:Turdmuffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support per Mikka's cutting and pasting the same "no police" message into every candidate in opposition. Seriously, this editor looks like a fine contributor, and seems like they would use the mop well. K. Scott Bailey 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support Excellent record in fighting vandals and has been very active in the last 5 months.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Excellent track record of fighting vandals, intends to work in focused areas. Article writing is not a good indicator of the quality of admin work. east.718 at 01:36, 10/30/2007
    I managed to repeat the above comment almost verbatim without reading it... wow... east.718 at 01:37, 10/30/2007
  8. Support Excellent track record of fighting vandals. Marlith T/C 02:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. If your editing of mainspace articles is preparation to be an admin, there may be something faulty in the way you set about writing articles... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools given to him. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I can't say I'm a huge fan of your choice in usernames, but, to each his own. I've seen you around, and, you seem like you won't go nuts with the bit. Plus, we need more admins. You've got my Support :) SQLQuery me! 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. support Fights vandalism = yes Stupid2 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Could have sworn this guy was already an admin! GlassCobra 06:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - November is almost upon us. Neil ☎ 09:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Class Neil. Pure class. :) Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support like what I've seen from this user. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support seen this user around. Unlikely to abuse tools. NHRHS2010 talk 11:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I think this user can make good use of the tools. I encourage the detractors below to consider what this place would look like if we did not have vandal fighters. This encyclopedia demands teamwork to accomplish our goals. I'm glad to have dependable vandal fighters and am happy to support their noms. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support In line with an earlier support vote cast earlier today on another RFP, we need more admins on CSD and RC Patrol right now, and will need even more very soon. Bongwarrior has the experience, and demonstrated reliability to gain the mop. Hiberniantears 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support You look to be a credible vandal fighter and most certainly deserve the mop. Icestorm815 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I'm getting bored of re-iterating this, and no doubt the community is getting bored of reading it. Great article writing is important, but the number one thing on Wikipedia is not new or expanded content - it's our readership. We've got over 2 million articles for crying out loud, all be it stubs as many of them are, and we need more people with policy knowledge and a wise head to delete the rubbish, spam, attacks and copy vios that flood in, and manage the creators of those articles accordingly. Hats of to the great writers here but the janitors are becoming just as important now. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No reason not to trust the candidate. Their experience is more than the minimum desired. VanTucky Talk 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Been handily reverting vandalism wherever it is to be found, moreso on my own project pages. Reason turns rancid 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support opposer's points are just plain silly --Pumpmeup 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Seems reasonable, and is willing to help. — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Opposed by two serial vandals. Good enough for me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, we can always use more vandal-stoppers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, good reasons for wanting the tools, and indeed civility in the presence of incivility around these parts is something to be admired. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  29. Support. Seen him around on recent changes and new page patrols, always struck me as doing a good job. Speedy tagging seems pretty good, based on the lack of declined speedies I could find. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Great vandal fighter; would make good use of the tools. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. support - I disagree with Mikka, we do need folks with the clean up tools, who by preference do the clean up work. It only becomes "police"-ish when we are incivil to each other, and to the vandals/spammers. --Rocksanddirt 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - very strong candidate. I like what I see. Jauerback 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, as an RC patroler myself and as a witness of the amount of vandalism that keep plaguing us, I see no reason why not to afford this editor the tools. 20:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support - Have interacted with this user on one or two occassions, and would certainly support them in becoming an admin. TheIslander 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I also disagree with Mikka. --Kbdank71 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I haven't been here that long, so my input may not matter, but from what I have seen during my New Page Patrols, Bongwarrior would make an excellent admin. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Whenever I look through New User Contributions, this editor always seems to be there. Bongwarrior is a dedicated corrector of vandalism, and I think he would be even more effective with the administrator tools. --Kateshortforbob 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. It makes me sad to see people opposing because of lack of mainspace contributions, which are utterly nonessential for a potential admin. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. The only thing I can find negative is the name Bongwarrior...kinda odd, but nothing to oppose adminship over. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I have crossed paths with Bongwarrior on an number of occasions and think he would make an excellent administrator. Into The Fray T/C 00:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support - only good interactions, and in the face of some particularly nasty personal attacks has remained lvl headed throughout. Khukri 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Hmmm nice name.. but other than first impressions of the name, all else is ship-shape. Phgao 02:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Ready. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Candidate has indicated that they will attend to the speedy deletion backlog – Gurch 06:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Knows what he's doing. WjBscribe 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - excellent vandal fighter, will make good use of the tools. Tim Vickers 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. There is nothing that leads me to believe this user will abuse/misuse the admin tools. Good luck.--SJP 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strongest Support - obviously dedicated to Wikipedia. A key strength IMO. An excellent candidate. And to be honest, I never did really have to actually have to ask that question, did I? Rudget Contributions 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support John254 23:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support--MONGO 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Of course! How could I oppose someone who tagged the "Acalamari" article for speedy deletion? :) Heh, heh; Bongwarrior is a good user who will make great use of the tools. Acalamari 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support Very good user, determined to fight vandalism, and funny, too. I know he will do a good job when he's an admin. -Goodshoped 05:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support experienced user, the opposer's arguments are weak to be considered. You are ready, good luck. Carlosguitar 06:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Great vandal-fighting user. Recurring dreams 09:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I think we need volunteer police here. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Agreed with user above. Heights(Want to talk?) 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Insufficient contribution of actual encyclopedic content. Fighting defenseless teenage jokers is not what builds the character of an admin. I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fighting defenseless teenage jokers is what maintains the integrity of the encylopedia. I'd say that is of at least minor importance. AvruchTalk 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Avruch. We need more vandal-fighting admins who patrol WP:AIV, Newpages, and Recentchanges. They will be able to delete pages and block users quicker than normal users requesting for those things. --wj32 talk | contribs 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely concur. The number of opposes using the exact same rationale (with minor wording changes) is around 10, I believe, unless Mikka's been canvassing more since yesterday. It's unfortunate that an admin would display this type of behavior. K. Scott Bailey 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Mikka. The lack of good old article-writing worries me. Try creating some more pages, get a few articles certified as Good, and at least nominate an article to be Featured before coming back here. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage you to reconsider. Mikka has blanketed 9-10 RfAs with an oppose, using the same specious and pejorative "professional police" reasoning. We need good admins here. I think Bongwarrior would be one, based on his vandal fighting alone. K. Scott Bailey 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage you to ignore this disgusting feat of WP:AGF. I vehemently diusagree that we need "good admins here", and thus my vote. `'Míkka 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You "disagree that we need 'good admins here'"?!? How can one POSSIBLY assume good faith when you continually display bad faith, both in canvassing MANY RfAs in a short time with the same tripe about calling these good editors a potential "police force"? How is THAT assuming good faith?!? K. Scott Bailey
    What exactly does a featured article have to do with block, protect, deletion? Consider balance. Keegantalk 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Watbleby 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Above user has been blocked as a vandalism only account, this being the only edit which isn't clear vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Insufficient evidence of interaction with the community. You appear to be an interested and effective vandal fighter, but I expect more than that from admin candidates. Right now less than 2% of your edits are in Talk/Wikipedia talk and from browsing them it appears that a majority of even that small number are strictly vandal reversions. Keep doing what you are doing, as a vandal fighter, but I'd like to see you get more involved in the community before adminship. Dragons flight 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Article writting is not needed for adminship in my oppinion. To me it is not nearly a good enough reason to oppose someone. I have come to believe that it is better for someone to be just a article writter, rather than just a vandal fighter though. Have a nice day:)--SJP 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt, will you please give a constructive, or at least semi-constructive reason? That comment is of no help. I am not saying that you should not oppose because of it, instead maybe actualy also leave something constructive. Cheers!--SJP 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Would prefer to see some more solid contributions, if you feel you deserve admin then you should just wait until someone offers to nominate you, then I would feel more comfortable supporting.--Snakese 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering this is coming from a account registered on the 28th October, I hope any opposers would hold this comment in low regard. This user has made outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and to deny that is a great tragedy. Rudget Contributions 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Bongwarrior" is an unprofessional, inappropriate username. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. Every so often an administrator's actions are viewed as notable by outside media sources, and if they publish a news report talking about what "Wikipedia administrator Bongwarrior" did, we all look like idiots. --Cyde Weys 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangely, I agree with this sentiment, though I would not personally oppose for it. You should definitely consider getting renamed, Mr Bongwarrior. --Deskana (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Baung Krieger" is "bong" in Thai and "warrior" in German. Nice inter-language bypass of any potential controversy. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think one should ignore the username because it can be changed, and I feel that this is rather discriminatory. Bongwarrior is a good username, not everyone has usernames that great, but they are still recognized for their efforts. I feel that one should not be discrimanatory when it comes to one's username. It doesn't make sense, its the person, not their username. Heights(Want to talk?) 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will give the matter some thought, but I would be pretty unenthusiastic about a username change. Saying I need a more "professional" name to be an admin seems to be saying that adminship is a big deal. And, I happen to like the name. But, I will try to do what's right for the project. --Bongwarrior 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Can you give some examples of you taking part in policy discussions? I looked over you WP space contributions, but was unable to find any. I'm not suggesting that admins must have written reams of plolicy cannon, just want to see your understanding of the way things work. - CygnetSaIad 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but my contributions to WP:AFD, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, and others should show a pretty fair understanding of policy. If you mean I don't spend a good deal of time trying to rewrite policy, then you are correct. --Bongwarrior 00:22, 30 October 2007 (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/Bongwarrior&oldid=1087653421"