Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cburnett

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cburnett[edit]

final (33/1/1) ending 06:36 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett is a consistent calm editor who would make an admirable admin in my estimation. Among his 9873 edits is considerable work on the STNG list; where I first took notice of this contributor. - RoyBoy 800 06:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
Accept :) Cburnett 07:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Absolutely. —Xezbeth 07:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I can't see why not. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. A good editor who has shown a great commitment to this project. Rje 12:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Technology/math related edits look acceptable, there's some admin work too. Pavel Vozenilek 13:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Cburnett does quite a bit of work in math articles, especially probability related (so not just movies :) I had once a disagreement with him, but he was very curteous during the debate, and said in advance he would follow any decision the community will setlle on. Oleg Alexandrov 14:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Fair and balanced editor. 23skidoo 15:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. A committed editor who shows interest in helping to tackle VfD? Yep! Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. - RoyBoy 800 18:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Contributed a lot to probability/statistics articles. --MarkSweep 19:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. As of now, I do not see how Cburnett would currently benefit by having access to the admin tools. Currently, he seems to not be very active in the janitorial tasks such as VFD, CFD, TFD, and RC patrol. Also, this user seems to spend more time in the movie and TV areas instead of working on a wide range of subjects. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Support, as long as you promise to help out on the janitorial tasks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian (t) (c) 23:51, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Yes, of course. PAR 01:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Stongly, does incredible work and do check back on article and suggest compromises instead of simply deleting new ideas, that is the kind of work that makes Wikipedia what it is. Continue the good work! --Astrowob 01:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Sure. ugen64 03:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, Hey Cburnett remember your "WTF" comment? It showed me that you are very serious about this project. I think you'll be a good asset for Wiki as an admin. Tony the Marine
  17. Support- JCarriker 09:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support- — ciphergoth 12:32, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  19. Support. Meets my admin criterion. --Kbdank71 18:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. Andre (talk) 20:01, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Adm58 01:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. He's a Star Trek fan. Oh, and I've seen Cburnett's good work around. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support---Jondel 09:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Kingturtle 17:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. I don't think it's needed at this point, but he has my support. Always been reasonable. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. What Ben said. If we can't give the mop and bucket to one of the most level-headed people on this site, we shouldn't give it out at all. - Lucky 6.9 04:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  27. True, he's a Star Trek fan; but I won't hold that against him. Support. -- Hoary 07:30, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  28. Support. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 14:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. I've yet to run across Cburnett's name on an edit and felt that it was a bad edit. Seems to be level-headed enough to be an admin. Kelly Martin 17:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. No reason to think admin powers will be abused. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. I seem to have a habit of posting at the wrong area. JuntungWu 14:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. A calm and very good contributor. Just what we need. --Neigel von Teighen 20:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Does not meet my admin criterion, jguk 07:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

# Cool. JuntungWu 11:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. could you explain why you said cool? Kingturtle 17:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. If you look at his contributions you'll see he made four admin votes with the exact same post "Cool. ~~~~" except I was the only oppose vote....so I'm just as confused. Cburnett 18:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's most likely an error; I left him a message on his talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oops. I voted at the wrong place. Sorry for the confusion.... JuntungWu 14:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. While I recognize and appreciate the range of Cburnett's contributions here, and I appreciate his ability to remain reasonably calm in disputes (both of these things are very important), I am undecided on his suitability for adminship. In my very limited contact with Cburnett, I feel as though his interpretations of Wikipedia policy are a little too loose--that the policy documents do not always say as much as Cburnett believes they do. I am not sure whether or not my concern is important enough to cause me to oppose, especially in light of Cburnett's obvious positives, but I thought I'd register my hesitancy here. Jwrosenzweig 21:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Would you mind expanding on where you feel Cburnett is loose on policy, perhaps an example? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    Cburnett, in a conversation with me, used [1] to defend the inclusion of a picture at Wikipedia on the grounds that getting rid of the picture was censorship--I (and another editor) pointed out that the section he was referencing allowed for the removal of "inappropriate content", to which he didn't respond. I felt that he was relying too much on the heading of the section in question, and not attending enough to the language of the section itself. Not a horrifying interpretation, surely, but in the absence of much other contact with him, it makes me worry that he may not be reading policy documents as closely as I'd prefer. Jwrosenzweig 06:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I guess I don't recall the exact article this discussion took place over. The only thing that comes to mind is the Kate Winslet picture for Titanic (1997 film). I was, by far, not the only one claiming censorship on that discussion. Cburnett 06:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    Your memory is certainly correct--and I agree that, not only were you "not the only one", but you were one of the most calm and polite. This is a personal hesitation on my part that is not intended to cause people to radically re-assess your work (which is evidently very good, given the other votes). It's just me voicing my opinion because I felt withholding it for whatever reason wasn't entirely honest. Jwrosenzweig 14:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your candid feedback about this candidate. Image nudity issues are definitely a murky contentious area. I find most of the images that have come under debate are gratuitous and objectify the human in the picture, so my POV on the matter is likely at odds with Cburnett. All things considered though, he appears reasonable and has other qualities that incline me to support this adminship. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 14:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Note to Zzyzx11: A lot of my edits do relate to movies and TV, but I'm a couple months away from having my third engineering degree and I do contribute to those related articles. I toned down my participation in *FD votes because my votes generally fall inline with the other votes, so I shifted my attention to articles. I still skim them and drop a vote in when I think it's needed. I would increase my participation if I could *do* something other than vote and argue/discuss. Cburnett 07:36, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Alright, as long as you help out on the janitorial tasks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Cburnett currently has 9901 total edits: 7688/415 to articles/talk, 597/11 to Image/talk, 361/244 to User/talk, 236/72 to Wikipedia/talk, 86/59 to Template/talk, and 124/8 to Category/talk. —Korath (Talk) 21:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gotten into my share of conflicts with Cburnett and I've seen some of the downsides of his self-assuredness, but he's got a good heart about the whole thing. I can see his adminship being a boon to him and to Wikipedia, as long as he works a little more on working through problems instead of relying on his experience and vast editing as reason for disallowing continued conversation. --TheGrza 23:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that C needs to take Wikipedia a little more lightly. If I took everything that people have said to me over three years of work seriously, I'd get a heart attack. Otherwise, a fine contributor. "Antonio Outspoken as Rodman Martin" 1:10, Apr 25, 2005 (MST)

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. I occasionally dabble in VFD, IFD, RFD, etc. and wouldn't mind doing some of the work on behalf of all that. My watchlist recently tipped 4500 articles and I usually sift through the bulk of the changes spotting vandalism and such, so I wouldn't mind dipping into page protection and such.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I haven't started too many articles specifically to develop as good articles. I rather like the layout of List of Star Trek: TNG episodes (which unfortunately drove away Cyberia23 because he, IMHO, doesn't care to work with the community (see my talk page if you care)). I also wrote most/all of estimation theory and did the bulk of Buildings of Iowa State University including the images. Ah, and I started Template:Probability distribution which has picked up User:MarkSweep & User:PAR to standardize the probability distribution pages with good plots like at Exponential distribution, Beta distribution, and Normal distribution. I haven't found a good online resource for probability distributions, so I think creating a good set of articles on them would be very beneficial.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I am a very opinionated person — just ask anyone who knows me or read my talk page. I *try* to keep a level head; justify my position; and try to reach a compromise, but that doesn't always work (if you know how, please tell me). (I'd be surprised if Cyberia23 or TheGzra don't speak there mind here.) I stay as far away from insults as I can: I'd rather edit and carry good discussion than argue.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cburnett&oldid=1138649373"