Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pumpie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Final (1/29/0 - last checked: Schnee 18:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Ends 19:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Per his request, nominatining him again... seems like he could be useful Chuck F 19:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I would like to become an administrator since I've been here almost a year at Wikipedia, so please vote. - 20:46, September 17, 2004 (UTC)


  1. Chuck F [assumed from nomination]


  1. No, no, no, for obvious reasons: look at his talk page and contributions. I believe that Pumpie is enthusiastic and sincere about contributing to Wikipedia, but it's readily apparent that he knows neither what he's doing nor what he ought to be doing, despite many attempts to teach him. I do not think he has demonstrated the skill and good judgement necessary for the use of sysop powers. —No-One Jones (m) 20:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pumpie seems to have trouble communicating with others here. Rhobite 20:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  3. CryptoDerk 20:08, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely not. Pumpie has absolutely no regard for other editors and constantly causes more harm than good to Wikipedia, whether intentionally or not. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pumpie for details. —Stormie 20:19, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  5. No. -- Schnee 20:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. If he's such a genius, he ought to know better than this. Isn't he the one behind all those horribly translated articles? Everyking 20:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. No. Has no regard for other users. Merely pumps out very poor translations of articles on other Wikipedias with no regard to the original or to converting them into grammatical English. His many many contributions are in incredibly poor English too. This just creates lots of work for others. Look at his last sentence below: it's not even grammatical. His answer to question 6 below is disingenuous (see his talk page and the RfC page). I doubt strongly that he has a high IQ or is a genius. I have no confidence at all that he would exercise proper judgment as a sysop. jguk 20:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. See comments. uc 20:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. I think he's really trying to improve, but he's not there yet. "I'm brilliant" is not a helpful response to questions and concerns. I understand that translation is not easy and respect his attempts to improve, but I'm concerned that his English skills may result in misunderstanding of policies and difficulty in communicating those policies to others. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. In spite of assurances that he's a "genius", his poorly translated location substub-with-taxobax articles don't reflect his alleged brilliance. In spite of numorous requests that he stop making empty articles and concentrate of fixing his own mess, he continues to create work for other admins. Honestly, I wonder if Pumpie is not committing subtle vandalism. He should be rejected like he was last time (in the history of this article.) Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I should add that I think this is his ninth RfA, but it's probably the first where he's been nominated. Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    According to his talk page, he requested the nomination on irc -- Chris 73 Talk 00:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Aside from the fact that I think his work is shaky, I don't see his answers on the generic questions to be very encouraging. He can do that sort of thing now. If he's brilliant, I'm the Queen of England. Mike H 22:43, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Adam Bishop 22:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Plop 22:56, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Strongly oppose. Sorry. I have tried to reason with this guy in a calm, rational and friendly manner and he simply ignores all attempts at contact. So have others and he ignores them as well. As I write, he's posting more of those malformed geographic substubs. He's also oblivious to the fact that he's currently on the RfC page. I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his intentions are good, but I simply can't do so anymore. - Lucky 6.9 23:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. I have tried to work with this user many times in the past, and though I know he works hard, I'm not sure how having admin access would help wikipedia at all. I am unsure of his ability to follow Wiki policies, and question his willingness to communicate with or compromise with other users. Sorry, Pumpie. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 00:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. Strongly oppose. I've tried to communicate with Pumpie multiple times (see his talk page), and it has always been unilateral. He refuses to participate in constructive discussions about his work. Also, I think that the storm of "machine translations" (or really, really, really poor human translations) is part of his plot to become an administrator. He'll probably soon realise that it was not a fruitful tactic...(Pumpie has self-nominated for adminship half-a-dozen times over the course of a year). — David Remahl 00:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  18. Hell, no. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:12, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  19. David Cannon 00:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC). How long is is since we last voted on this one? Even Al Gore knew better than to run again after losing only once, and Pumpie's lost ... how many times is it? Pumpie, put your shoulder to the plogh and do some GOOD quality work, and I'll vote for you in six months. How's that?
  20. I tried to think of a unique way to say no, but I have to admit, everything that can be said about this request has already been said. Shane King 00:24, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Agree with Shane King, he said it already -- Chris 73 Talk 00:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Zero evidence of change since last (self-)nomination. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
  23. Oppose for many reasons, already stated by others. SWAdair | Talk 06:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  24. Strongly oppose. A prolific but disruptive contributor, he could at this stage become even more disruptive with administrator rights. olivier 07:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  25. "Having a high I.Q." and wanting to "fix links" aren't exactly convincing reasons for adminship, at least for me. Also, he doesn't seem to be good at communicating with others, judging from the animosity that he's generated and from his lack of contributions to pages outside the Main namespace. Maybe someday, but not now. --Slowking Man 07:17, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  26. I'm having trouble assuming good faith with this user because I find it hard to believe that someone could really fail to understand the numerous (numerous!) attempts by a diverse range of users to communicate with him. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  27. I also no longer extend the benefit of doubt, nor assumptions of good will. What he has been doing is not brilliant at all, unless the aims are to bog down the project in a paroxysm. It is not whether he is English-fluent that's at issue, but whether he is self-aware enough and disciplined enough to understand his limitations and to not attempt things that he cannot do. Geogre 14:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  28. Emotional and intellectual (if not chronological) maturity is of primary importance in evenhandedly administering a sysop's editorial functions. And constantly restating that he or she is brilliant implies (to me, at least) that Pumpie feels somehow the rest of us aren't. Fire Star 18:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  29. No way. --Lst27 (talk) 23:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)



Based on my own review of Pumpie's contributions and the contents of his talk page, I do not share other's strong feelings about his work. There is no requirement that editors at en. have English as their first language. Pumpie is contributing informative articles. I believe the presence of articles such as Ovrya, Greece is part of Wikipedia's uniqueness, and I value them, even though the English is a little uneven. I also believe that Pumpie is being unfairly criticised for conducting, manually, some of the same tasks that were once performed by the ram-bot. The ram-bot was divisive in its day and deletion debates still flare up from time to time. I don't think it is appropriate to criticise Pumpie here at RfA for carrying out, in good faith, essentially similar edits.

My concerns about Pumpie, regarding adminship, are limited and objective:

  • His best work appears to be in areas unrelated to adminship duties
  • It is unclear that he has the necessary depth of community involvement, in discussions, talk pages, and the like
  • There is the appearance that he may not have responded to community concerns in some cases

I wish Pumpie the best and hope that he will continue to contribute to the English Wikipedia.

uc 20:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some of his articles may be informative, but some contain inaccuracies or misinformation. I believe this is because he is attempting to translate articles from languages of which he has little knowledge to languages of which he has little knowledge, which (as one might expect) makes a mess. Examine the histories of Puteaux and Courbevoie for example. I spotted those two because I know enough French to tell that they bore little resemblance to the corresponding articles on fr:, but I don't doubt that there are others; German-speaking contributors have complained to Pumpie about his mistranslations of articles from de:, and I don't doubt that someone fluent in Portuguese or Italian would find similar problems with the articles he takes from pt: and it:. —No-One Jones (m) 21:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Yes
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I will try.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. Try to update some main pages in other wikipedias and other languages, and to protect pages from vandalism.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Translating other Wikipedia pages into English from French.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I reverted a few pages from vandalism and the other two I did not do.
6. 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. Sometimes, especially some spelling errors.
  • I want to become an administrator, one reason is I have a high I.Q. level, and I obey most of the rules and also I am brilliant, and second I will fix links and no lower than three links from a page. Pumpie - 19:56 (UTC)