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

Baseball Bugs[edit]

Nomination[edit]

(talk page) Candidate withdrew per talk page at (93/82/14) close by User:I'm Spartacus!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) – A very knowledgeable user whose good humor has always kept him from getting too far down the rabbit hole. Any of the dealings I've seen have been rather even handed if a little short. Padillah (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want the supporters to know that I appreciate, very much, everything that's been said so far, and whether I pass this nomination or not, your kind words gladden my heart. And any negativity that turns up, even if it sinks my nomination, I will use as constructive criticism for the future. Thank you, all. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an incredible bit of karma if the final score turned out to be 96-95. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good for the 96. The 95 might be a little hard to get to. Depends on whether any of the neutrals switch. But we're still short overall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started to implement some of the comments listed in the No votes. Nearly all of the No's have been constructive criticism. I only see 3 of them that are vindictive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Watching for vandalism and other behavior that I see as harmful to Wikipedia. Offering advice to those who seek it, or pointing them in the right direction if I don't know the answer. Learning more about how things work technically, which is an ongoing process. In short, things I have already been doing for awhile now. I will say up front that I am death on spam [when I see it] and conflicts of interest [when I see them]. In a good way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It has been suggested offline that I should focus on the needed work, such as ABL, AIV, RFPP; so that is what I would do, to better develop admin skills, and leave ANI alone for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Aside from the work in item 1, I go back to the reason I came to Wikipedia in the first place - to provide an outlet for my desire to write and to inform about subjects I like, which my user name encompasses to a fair extent. One thing I've learned over time is to be much better about sourcing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: Many times. I've been here for several years, and have learned over time that humor works better than anger, although I can still display anger. One thing I don't do anymore is get into revert wars, because revert wars are futile. I take it to the authorities. Which I would continue to do. If I'm in a content dispute, my admin powers would be off-limits. I would make a better effort to be even-handed in the way I say things. However, even now, I am never vulgar or obscene. I've been blocked a few times, the last being in December of 2007. I think that indicates that I know better now, where the line not-to-cross is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I want to add, in reference to a comment made below, that I do indeed tend to be blunt and straightforward. I try to temper that with some humor. I also get as good as I give, i.e. I expect someone else to be straightforward back at me. I have almost never filed a complaint about anyone making a "personal attack", although sometimes I've been told I should because personal attacks are against the rules. But I try to take the source and the situation into consideration. I recall a recent, very heated argument with a user, one of the ugliest ones I can recall. Yet we kept talking and reached an accord and actually collaborated. Communication is key. Don't slam the door in my face and I won't slam the door in your face; we'll keep talking and we'll work it out. It's not about us, it's about making Wikipedia as reliable an information go-to as we possibly can. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:Ched Davis

4. If you came across an article which was in the middle of a content dispute, and you had previously contributed to the article content, which tools (page protection, blocking, etc) would you feel comfortable in using?, and which issues would you consider poking another admin to be the better course of action?

A: It would depend on the situation and the content, but in most cases I would either turn it over to a specific trusted admin, or report it on WP:ANI or whatever appropriate venue, and either follow whatever action they recommend, or let them take that action themselves. One of the recurring complaints on WP:ANI is admins interposing themselves in articles they are involved with in some way. If an admin has worked on an article, he might feel "protective" of that specific article and it could cloud his judgment. In general, I would try to avoid that kind of conflict of interest. I would make an exception if one side of the dispute involved some obvious gross violation of wikipedia rules, such as improperly sourced and potentially libelous statements about a living person. Then I would probably remove the statements and protect the page just long enough to try to get the parties to simmer down. If they won't, then they would get an appropriate-length block and then I could unprotect the page. I'm not sure if that's the recommended approach, and that's something I need to learn. But my cardinal rule is to protect the content and integrity of Wikipedia. I would also say that I would take the cautious approach on this kind of thing until I felt like I was doing things the right way. As with when I got the rollback privilege a year ago, which I iniitally use very sparingly, and have taken great pains not to abuse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MBisanz

5. Could you explain the circumstances behind this December 2007 block in more detail? I know AGK well and it is rare he would use such strong terms in a block log. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, it's too far back in the log to conveniently find, so I'll summarize as best I can recall. First, I was in a bad frame of mind, having just lost a loved one. But that's my problem, not wikipedia's. As I recall, I got into some heated debate about some insignificant semantics issue, and I just went way over the line and started insulting everyone who disagreed. I was kind of stunned that I was blocked for a full 5 days, but that time off was kind of an epiphany. As I patiently waited out the block, I said to myself, "Self, this is stupid, getting blocked over something like this. I am going to continue to speak my mind, but I am going to make an effort to never go so far as to get blocked again." And also to realize that if I'm outvoted like 10-1 or 20-1, I consider the realistic possibility that I might be wrong even if I think I'm right. So in the intervening 14-15 months, I have tried to stay on the right side of the line and focus on the right things. I'm not going to claim that I have always succeeded, but I haven't gone far enough over it to get smacked down again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from A. B.

6. You mention spam as an area of focus for you in question 1. Can you elaborate a little more? I work with spam quite a bit and I haven't run across you working on those problems other than this one vaguely unpleasant exchange in 2007 when ssome other editors and I were trying to clean up a massive spam/paid editing problem. A quick check of your deleted contributions for the last 9 months (visible to admins) doesn't show any speedy deletion nominations of spam articles. I find zero edits to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist as well as no edits to WikiProject Spam. Looking back over your last 2000 edits in user talk space, I see just one edit summary that mentions spam. There's nothing wrong with an admin who doesn't do any spam work; I'm just trying to square your "I am death on spam" comment with what I'm seeing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: An excellent point, and you're right, I have not done much directly about spam, and have very seldom nominated articles for deletion, so I am probably overselling that point. I think I did more of that kind of work in my previous incarnation, and there was an episode about a year ago that a spammer won, with support on the ANI page, that still gets under my skin - I referenced it just a couple of days ago. I also recall a serious tussle with a user named Tecomobowl, again in my previous incarnation, that had to do with him promoting his own website. You're dredging up unpleasant memories now. But while I am theoretically "death on spam", you're right that I have only sporadically done anything about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NuclearWarfare

7. I noticed that you have spent a lot of time at some of our more partisan talk pages, such as Talk:Barack Obama (~667 edits) and Talk:Sarah Palin (300 edits). While there is nothing wrong with this, I was wondering why I could not see these articles on your top-edited list of articles, the highest of which had 200 edits on it. Could you please explain what you generally do at those locations?

A: I go to wikipedia first when I want to learn about something, which is why you will sometimes see me arguing, very vociferously, for inclusion and against deletionism - and why my core philosophy hear is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. So, as is typical, I came to the Sarah Palin page to learn more about her after she was nominated for VP. I was appalled at the rank partisanship going on there (by which I mean Palin-bashing), so I engaged in a good deal of debate to try to keep the article neutral, although with very little actual updating to the article. I would say the same is true of the Obama article and other articles that generate controversy. I don't really like controversy all that well, but some things seem worth defending. The mother of all controversies I was involved in, actually, was the Apollo hoax page, again under my previous ID. That was another important learning experience. Anyway, that is why the articles themselves are not high on the list of edits. By largely sticking with just the talk pages, I can raise issues and occasionally be heard, and largely avoid the futility of edit warring. Last night was exceptional, though - and another user suggested what we probably should have done instead: nothing. Let the vandals have their way for awhile until the seas calm, and then fix things. Another important lesson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from KnightLago

8. I noticed this comment earlier today, where an IP on a highly visible and controversial talk page asked "Are Wikipedia Admins like Bugs allowed to resort to name calling?" And you replied: "If I am an admin, then I am allowed." Can you explain your thoughts here?

A: That was a vague attempt at humor. NO, admins are not allowed to resort to name calling. I was making fun of his assumption that I was an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. I also noticed this request for protection today, please discuss your thoughts behind it, and whether or not it complies with the protection policy. I note that the request was denied.

A: There was discussion, on ANI, I think it was, about whether to request semi-protection for the Obama talk page, which at that time was under siege. I think someone else actually suggested it, and I was the one that did it, in part simply because I had never used that page before (that I can recall), and figured it would be a minor learning experience. Later, someone closed it and said it had been done. Actually, it had not been done, and when I re-posted it, by then things were relatively calm and it was declined. I am more inclined now to think that dropping the shields and letting the WND assailants go nuts with the page for a few hours, as another editor had suggested, would have been the better course of action. Next time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Is this a serious request for adminship? The more I look, the more comments I am finding from today that seem to indicate otherwise. See here, where in response to a suggestion that you remove the userbox you have saying that you don't want to be an admin, you replied "Do you see anything in the RfA that says I "want" to be an admin? :)"

A: I assume the nomination was serious. I've been asked several times before and turned it down. This time I decided to say yes. If the plurality of my colleagues here think that I would be a good admin, then I will take it seriously and do my best to be a good admin. And if not, then no harm done and hopefully some lessons learned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Some of this discussion has reminded me of one specific reason that I've said "No" in the past, and that is that I perceive that the work of an admin is largely drudgery. Having stayed off the ANI page for the last 2 days, and seeing that it's the same with or without me there, I'm thinking that some drudgery might be just the ticket. As I said above a little bit ago, I would focus on some of that work backlog, and stay away from ANI. And still edit baseball articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from — neuro^(talk)

11. What is your reasoning behind your work at AN/I - why do you visit and contribute there so often?

A: Well, it wasn't particularly to get nominated for adminship, it was more to find out about "the way things work". I think it started with other admins telling me to take grievances there rather than engaging in futile edit wars and such. I've learned a lot from visiting the ANI page, and other editors are right that the risk of drama is high there. Sometimes I've gotten swept up in it. Sometimes I've been able to have some positive influence. Sometimes I've said too much. Everything I say is for a reason, but sometimes it's too much. But I have also found that I can help out sometimes, especially when someone turns up with a report of vandalism and doesn't know what to do about it, or the opposite case, where the vandal himself reports the problem and it turns out that he's it. So it's mostly to help when I can, and to learn. But when things get to be too frustrating, I go back and work on baseball articles, which was my original mission here as an editor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ray^Talk

12. If your RfA succeeds, do you intend to engage in admin actions on pages like Barack Obama where you have been actively involved?

A: As an admin, I would have no business doing anything in connection with the Obama page or any other page I've edited on, except normal editing. So the one-word answer to your question: NO. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Dank55

13. Do you have any thoughts on what Biblio's oppose might mean? (I'm not looking for the "right" answer, I'm looking to see if you've thought about these issues.)

A: He's expressing the fair concern that my behavior, such as it is, might get "worse" with more authority, and that ultimately I might crash and burn, i.e. end up with an indef-block, which is certainly a shameful way for an admin to go, but it happens. I can only say that I don't think it will happen in my case, that in fact I would take the job very seriously and even-handedly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Hipocrite

14. For the record, your age -> a. 1-14, b. 15-16, c. 17-18, d. 19-21, e. 22-25, f. 26-35, g. 36-45, h. older. To be fair, I am mid-f. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I am well over 18, and you can infer my generation from the types of topics I write about. My specific age, I will not say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from roux  

15. I'm going to be asking this of all RFA candidates now. I personally feel that openness to recall is essential in admin; what the community giveth the community must also be able to taketh away. In my opinion, MBisanz has the most robust, streamlined, and intelligent criteria I have seen, and we have just seen it work precisely as intended. What do you think of recall in general, MBisanz' version in particular, and should your RFA pass will you hold yourself to the same standard as MBisanz?

A: In a word, Yes. Working on Wikipedia at any level is a privilege, not a constitutional right. MBisanz was recently subjected to a frivolous recall attempt, but impeachment and conviction are two different things, and not one admin sided with the complainant, and dat was dat. While I think there maybe could be better safeguards against gratuitous recall attempts, it also occurs to me that placing my activities under severe recall scrutiny could help to allay the fears of many of the no-voters. I might even go further, and suggest that I should be put under some stricter-than-usual probationary period, the conditions of which would be determined by the group... The point being to prove that I can stand by my words and to give them the power to yank it any time if I let them down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from NGG

16. Age plays a big roll in an RFA. Usually an editor below the age of 18 must prove his maturity. How have you proven your maturity over your time on Wikipedia?N.G.G. 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: First, I'm well over 18. The 13 1/2 is a variation on a Warner cartoon recurring joke. I've been on here as a registered user for 4 years minus a day or two. I didn't really know what I was doing when I started. Over time I've learned a lot, and thought I had learned to reign in my sarcasm, but apparently not enough, so that's one of my to-do's. I've gotten a lot better at sizing up a situation and figuring out what's going on, which I think is important for an admin to be able to do. I've also learned a lot about where the line is regarding point-of-view pushing, which is something I try to stay away from and try to call it when I see it from others. I've learned that Wikipedia is not just about information, it's also about validation of that information. It is the reliance on proper sources which gives Wikipedia's content the integrity it has, a point which has been a gradual learning process over time. I'm also better (though far from perfect) at containing my irritation when things don't go right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• Links for Baseball Bugs: Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Baseball Bugs can be found here.
• That summary usage link doesn't seem to be working. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Several of the toolserver accounts seem to be down (some have been for days). Wikichecker for Bugs and soxred are functional. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editor fixed it, by putting the underscore between the two words. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Important - We'll see if this changes any votes. :) I assumed everyone would know this, but some might not. I do have a previous identity here, which I gave up in May of 2007 after another immature episode. So I've been here overall about 4 years (in fact this Friday will be the 4th anniversary of my first edit as a registered user). Between those 2 user ID's, I was blocked 4 times in 3 years, and not at all in the last year-plus... always over something stupid, naturally, or for simply "not getting it". I like to think that I am somewhat less stupid than I was then and that I "get it" better now. It can be a long process. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your previous account name? If you prefer not to disclose it, please explain why you decide to keep it hidden. Baseball Lola (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the previous user name is and always was conspicuously given at the top of the present user talk page, and linked elsewhere in the contributions. There was no attempt to vanish. DGG (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

USER PAGE[edit]

OK, I'm getting a lot of flak about my user page. I would like everyone here who cares about it, to indicate what's OK and what's not OK about it. DON'T CLOBBER MY USER PAGE. I'll take care of that myself, OK??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Keep the... ?
2. Keep the... ?
3. Lose the... ?
4. Lose the... ?
5. Change the... ?
6. Change the... ?

etc.

• I'm fine with it. Your user page exists for you, not anyone else. I use mine as a central list of links. Others use their pages for pictures, userboxes, barnstars, whatever. IMO, if you use it to have a chuckle, that shouldn't be a problem. Also, WP:SMI may be policy, but I think it is the most weakly worded policy out there as well as one of the least precise in terms of actual guidance. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I appreciate that vote of confidence. Barring any practical suggestions, of which there are none on the list so far, what I'll do is put something at the top that warns that there may be jokes and satire ahead, as a disclaimer for the humor-challenged. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need to be planning your userpage around anyones interests but your own. Surely people have better things to worry about than a banner (or whatever) on your userpage. My advice is do what you want with it, and as long as it isn't causing disruption other editors really need to mind their own business. Landon1980 (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, it's just a userpage...WackoJackO 04:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your collective words are enough to convince me that the critics' complaints are groundless. As a concession to the humor-impaired, I have added a disclaimer at the top of the page pointing out that some of it may be satire. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Why was this transcluded by someone who is neither the nominator nor the nominee? I'd like to see confirmation from BB that he intended this request to be live at this time. Avruch ^T 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confirm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I am the culprit here. I've replied on the talk page — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry about that. I was having some editing problems yesterday (around 3:00p.m. where I am) and I did not get a chance to return until now. Padillah (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, heading close to that 96-95 total, huh? MuZemike 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it's only Tuesday. A participation graph by day would be an interesting stat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should get a pretty graph from User:Neurolysis when it ends! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The graph will probably resemble this slightly used bridge I have for sale, to anyone who takes everything on my user page literally. Some assembly required: [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My graphs are on hiatus whilst I make a new style, but just for you I'll try and get it before this RfA is over. :) — neuro^(talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clear this up, Baseball Bugs is not actually 13 and a half^{[citation needed]}. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And he doesn't have a $100 way-back machine. (Hey, you never know what some people will believe). Padillah (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Damn - the hope of borrowing the wayback machine was the only reason I supported. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't give up hope. It's in the Wal*Mart repair shop, being worked on by the best technicians Wal*Mart's hourly wage can buy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wayback machine? Well he does share Mr. Peabody's penchant for bad puns… — CharlotteWebb 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to defend the dozens of people who took the "13 and a half" at face value (me, for example, before I got to know him better): it's very easy to fool people on Wikipedia. Partly because dry humor doesn't hold up well through the series of tubes, and partly because we get all sorts here, including extremely precocious teenagers. -kotra (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (and also because the rest of us are extremely stupid adults) -kotra (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been awhile, so I went back and checked. That comment is just below a stick figure that I said was a self-portrait. Presumably that was taken at face (!!!) value also? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For me, I just assumed it was a clever 13-year-old disguising their identity and making a joke at the same time. My point is: humor is impossible online, especially deadpan humor that sounds like you're being sincere but are actually making a joke. -kotra (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, someone suggested I should change some things on my user page. Maybe if I had known this was coming, I could have tried to pretend to be someone else. This came as I was trying to help defend the Obama page against the siege by mushrooms from the WND a.k.a. World Nuts Daily. As a result of all this, I have stopped defending the Obama page and stopped watching ANI. I am also systematically removing potentially controversy-ridden articles from my watch list. So the No voters get what they want, as I take their sincere points to heart, and the segment of the No voters (those 3 that I mentioned earlier) who frequently find themselves on ANI due to their own drama-creation will continue to show up there, only they'll be dealt with by others. There are plenty of other places to work here, and with spring around the corner, a young man's heart turns to The Grand Old Game. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I, for one, am not suggesting you change your userpage (or who you are) to get fewer opposes here. I'm just trying to get across that those of us who didn't catch that "13 and a half" was a joke aren't necessarily stupid or lack a sense of humor. Although, it must be said for the record that I am both. -kotra (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the funniest comment I've seen all day. I pass the torch to you! Meanwhile, see the next-to-last point on my checklist below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the torch. I'll use it to burn down some great public building. I think your next-to-last point is good. -kotra (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure wouldn't fancy being the 'crat involved in closing this baby. Gonna be controversial either way. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, it'll make an interesting question on somebody's RfB. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'll be damned, there is an upside to everything. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm seeing as the main useful criticisms and comments here:

1. Spend less time on ANI and more time on other work.
2. Don't lose the sense of humor, but temper it.
3. Try to temper the passion also; stop trying to fight battles that are unwinnable.
4. Improve on leadership and setting an example.
5. Continue to be straightforward, but less blunt.
6. Be a little nicer to the newbies.
7. Do better with edit summaries.
8. Maybe make it clearer what's a joke and what's intended to be serious.
9. Keep doing what they say that I do well.
10. REVAMP MY USER PAGE, after this is over with, to address some of the issues raised.

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question: Back when I took a shot at the mop (don't worry it was snowed in about three minutes) I was told to visit AN/I for a taste of what admins do and to gain experience with the back-end of it. This is also a suggestion at the admin coaching page as well. My question is why do I see all the "too much AN/I" arguments here? How are we supposed to determine what a "good level" of AN/I input is? Or are there other factors at work I'm not seeing? Padillah (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa. I don't know whether either of them realize it, but Baseball Bugs is in a dead heat with JzG for the dubious distinction of "most posts on the drama board" (source). I'm pretty sure they simultaneously compete for "most edits to any single page" but one would need a database dump to confirm this. Any takers? — CharlotteWebb 17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't surprise you to know that I'm inclined to agree with JzG's assessment of the situations much of the time. Neither he nor I "suffer fools gladly". That approach is what's called "drama" by those who prefer the more "coddling" approach to newbies, even when it's clear they are up to no good. It's probably useful to visit ANI as a learning experience, but what they're telling us here is to keep the passion down and just do what's necessary, as opposed to what we "feel like doing" sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I found this on the Baseball Bugs talk page. [2] Wheteher or not the Baseball bugs was joking, can we really trust this user not to have his account abused by his friend??America69 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "This evil twin/roommate/friend also happens to be invisible". I think we can safely file this under the "Bugs is 13 and a half and has a working Wayback Machine" category. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, when we give credence to "invisible friends" we've gone a step too far. Padillah (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How did we go to far. I think it continues to shine light on several of the opposing comments. America69 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You do understand that human invisibility is not physically possible at this time, right? I can only advize you not to take any statement supporting the possibility of human invisibility to heart. Padillah (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The "invisible evil roommate" is a parody of some of the often-used excuses by vandals trying to escape indef blocks: evil roommates, evil relatives, "someone used my PC while I was away from it", that kind of thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, 162.83.158.26, but would you mind not posting the same thing in the discussion, support and oppose sections? You are welcome to an opinion, but don't force it on everyone else by mass posting. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got Bugs's permission to start a Post Mortem on the talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from questions section. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)) I have no objection at all to Roux's question or to the candidate's answer, but if this becomes a common question, then people should have data to base their answer on rather than having to guess at what the community expects, and the only recent data can be found here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find his actual recall request, so it might have been deleted after it was defeated. Maybe I should be clearer about what I mean by "community": There's a list of users here who don't think I can do the job properly. So their opinions would carry a lot of weight if they think I'm abusing the authority. And being an "involved" admin, I would obviously be proscribed from taking any kind of action against them in any case, so they could be merciless without fear of reprisal (from me, anyway). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

1. Support (I'll assume the candidate has decided to accept since he's provided answers to questions). Bugs has the ability to be blunt, but he also has the ability to be objective. All the edit counts, experience, tenure questions are self-evident. I believe that Bugs will be a great admin, and will not abuse sarcasm and humor to perform a serious task of maintenance within article space. He's a mature, intelligent editor, with the knowledge and ability to provide even more assistance to the community if given the admin. bit. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Eminently fairminded, other than on the Yankees, and should be a good admin for WP. Knowledgeable about WP standards and practices, and not too quick to jump to conclusions. Collect (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Y All I've seen from Bugs in my limited experience with him is quality edits and I know he'll do a great job. Good luck.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Sharp, experienced, funny, tough. One of those editors that you assume is an administrator already. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - I have no concerns that Baseball Bugs would abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Has edited well for some time, values wikipedia. Fairminded, informed, aware of the effect of soft answers on wrath. Has the correct comprehension of the Yankees. PhGustaf (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongly support: a sensible, fair, and very calm editor. I've known Baseball Bugs for a long time, and I am very pleased to see him run for adminship. Acalamari 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Looks very well-qualified. -download | sign! 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - I'd be interested to see your answer to MBisanz's question, but I doubt it'll have an effect on my !vote. I've seen your work throughout the wiki, and I've been especially impressed by your participation at AN and ANI. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Support As per Acalamari and has been around since May 2007 a regular contributor and used rollback well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I've seen his work in various places, and I definitely agree that this user would benefit the project as an admin. Sam ^Blab 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Good user. I must say, I also like your userpage=). America69 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Switching to oppose.America69 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support iMatthew // talk // 00:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abstaining. iMatthew // talk // 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support; of course. Antandrus (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Super Strong Support. I've seen how he deals with certain difficult users in certain difficult situations, and his answer to those situations is humor, not personal attacks or incivility. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Good editor. I examined the diffs leading up to the December 2007 block and am satisfied by his answer to question 5; it certainly seems to be well in his past. — TKD::{talk} 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong Support. Let's put it this way: when I came back from my extended Wikibreak, I thought he already was one. Providing relatively well-informed input on AN/I, along with a bit of levity that is sorely needed these days, are only some of the excellent qualities Bugs has exhibited. Hermione1980 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support  Acerbic but almost always right. Fair even to those that attack him. Knowledgeable. Took a right turn at Albuquerque. Play Ball! --StaniStani  01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong support - I have had the utmost pleasure of working with Baseball Bugs on a number of occasions, mostly on the incidents noticeboard. His judgment is particularly good, as demonstrated when he said I was "a ruthless tyrant who takes no prisoners". — neuro^(talk) 01:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support He's gained enough of my trust to have faith that he will not abuse the tools. hmwithτ 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On another note, I agree with A.B. that you should turn on the edit summary reminder ASAP. I used to forget sometimes when I was a new user, but I've been 100% since someone told me to turn that on in my first RfA. It really helps. I also use pretty minimalistic edit summaries, and I'm sure I'm guilty of what I'm right now asking you to avoid doing, but it may be best to actually type something like "copy edit" instead of "ce". It's only a few extra letters for you, and it may keep multiple recent change patrollers from reviewing your change for vandalism. :) hmwithτ 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I will do that henceforth. As far as abuse of tools, I would like to mention that when I was given rollback a year ago, Arcayne expressed reservations about it. Being mindful of that, I think I have used it properly and discretely nearly all the time. Sometimes I've been too quick on the trigger, and then I rolled myself back and did a normal reversion with an explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Very strong support. It's been my privilege to serve in this asylum with Baseball Bugs. Vandals and general morons will need to watch their backs for sure. Finally someone else to block all the stupid User:Ron liebman socks. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Man, you are really on to me. Yes, that's it. My primary goal will be to hang Liebman's endless socks out to dry. Everything else will have to wait for spare time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support A great editor with a great sense of humor and a hilarious userpage (you might want to remove that userbox though as it may confuse people). Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Seems sensible enough to handle the routine tasks that constitute being an administrator. The block and the resultant issues seem far enough in the past. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I worry that this won't end well, given your sense of humor and willingness to stick your nose into topics that enrage other people. On the other hand, you're unquestionably bright and dedicated to Wikipedia, and you seem to have a good grasp of the ethics of responsibility ... so I'm hoping that if you crash and burn, you'll shine brightly first. Ray^Talk 03:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fear not, it will end well, no matter which way it goes. Either way, there will be lessons learned. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support — Overdue. Addendum — I find some of the opposing points concerning, but not to the extent that I no longer support. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support We need more candidness and willingness to work with hard topics and difficult people (in general). —kurykh 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Have had good interactions in the past, no one has raised anything that scares me too much. You do need to watch your sarcastic side when acting as an admin however. Please be careful with the bit. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Strong Support: I've had nothing but positive interactions with Baseball Bugs over the years, and I strongly support the adminship of this trusted and rather humorous editor. The experience not only with handling cases at WP:AIV, WP:AN and WP:ANI, and working with issues at WP:AFD, makes him one of the strongest contenders for adminship in a long time. To add, he's not really 13 years of age. seicer | talk | contribs 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thirteen and a half. That's a very important distinction. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

29. Support. Hah, sure. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support – I hope I am not making a huge mistake here, but the user seems more than capable of getting his hands dirty and bloodied working with tough issues that others are more reluctant in doing. It takes a different type of editor to do those deal with problem situations, just as it took a special cynical meatball surgeon like Hawkeye Pierce to make it through the Korean War. MuZemike 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support because Wikipedia cannot do without his powerful, paralyzing, perfect, pachydermous, percussion pitch. (And I say that as a Cardinals fan.) Deor (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Combative and tough but fair nonetheless. I've personally disliked his opinions from time to time, but he presents them cogently. Not afraid to jump into the fray or confront problem-makers at the core of the issue. Net positive. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Knows where his towel is. yandman 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, wondered when I'd see this user up here. Active, knowledgeable and likely to be a net positive with the tools. Bencherlite^Talk 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, sure. --Kbdank71 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support a LOT. I think too many people are getting confused between Bugs the editor and Bugs the admin. His ability to handle himself when required has shown me that he can understand the difference between these two people. When you oppose his nomination based on his editing contributions I feel that is a lack of understanding of the role of admins. Admins are not, and should never be expected to be, perfect. They will not agree with everyone on all edits all the time. Admins are to interject impartially into conflicts they are not personally involved in (a point Bugs has made quite evident in his answers above). To use engagements Bugs is intimately involved in as ammunition for a position that requires impartiality is more than a little silly to me. Padillah (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support "Not afraid to jump into the fray or confront problem-makers at the core of the issue." Right or wrong, users who resolve disputes they are not involved in should have the tools to resolve disputes they are not involved in. Dispute resolving admins are at a premium. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Moved to neutral - open to recall[reply]

38. I dealt with Baseball Bugs for years, and I agree with some of the opposer's that he's sometimes can be overaggressive and a pest at times in WP:AN/I, but they forget that he's usually right there (with the exception of the 2007 block, which was over a user ago). He edits in good faith, and his work in baseball articles are invariable. He won't abuse the tools, and I'm Supporting because of prior experiences, but try to avoid the hellhole of WP:AN/I as much as possible please, that what's dragging what should have been an easy promote RFA. Secret ^account 13:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support From his work on AN/I I see someone who is capable of handling the tools well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Has clue, has humour, knows policy. Practically the only reason he gets into issues at ANI is that people hate being told when they're wrong. Black Kite 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - An editor of great thoughtfulness and integrity. Badagnani (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Having supported a puppy, I see no problem with supporting a 13½ -year-old rabbit. I am concerned about the other half of his username, since it suggests an interest in a perversion of The One True Sport, but he seems to have good judgement...apart from the fact that he's willing to put himself through RFA in the current climate, which is almost certain evidence of poor judgement :) Or, to put it otherwise, Support per Hip and Secret (and probably others, but having only read the opposes, I don't know what the rest of the supporters have to say...) Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support EdBever (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support has good knowledge of problematic users, and we need admins that are regulars at ANI as much as regular new page patrollers, XfD sorts, and others whose knowledge and experience allow us to scale with the project and not reinvent the wheel each time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong support The editor has been going into the most difficult areas and trying to persuade people to behave better and work together by persuasion. That's what we want in an admin, someone who is prepared to TALK to people as a first option. Given that he isn't scared to get his hands dirty, he makes some enemies. But what do we want in an admin - someone who thinks being an admin is about pressing buttons and tools - or someone actually trying to explain policies, debate their application, provide REAL leadership. I don't expect Bugs to actually be appointed as an admin - but he is one of those who is already a leader in areas that many prefer to avoid. Dean B (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Whilst I was inclined to oppose BB for some things that are very cloudy/foggy in my memory (i.e. I'm sure he's said something to me that annoyed me), I'm delighted to support. 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of this support is being donated to the Anti-Ageist Foundation of Wikipedia. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I moving to support, just because I like people who stir up crap around here. I'm tired of the admins who put on fake civility then stab anyone they want in the back. Bugs needs to bug out of the whole ANI crap, because it is a serious waste of time. He needs to work on articles. So my support might be a bit tepid, but it is support nevertheless. And 13 year olds should not be admins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose, Neutral, VERY weak support: however, if it weren't for WP:DEAL it would have been oppose. I am usually an inclusionist for admin requests as long as they minimally have over 1,000 mainspace edits and are knowledgeable about WP policies. Unfortunately, despite his "sense of humor", I feel that he many times doesn't adhere to WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, or WP:AGF as can be seen here. I have looked at the history RfA's for many current admins, but have never seen any live up to the reasons for their naysayer's opposition. So for that reason I will cautiously give a support. My request to Bugs is this: When the admin tools are given, try to cut the humor to established users (that can understand it), and take care not to bite the n00bies. The community looks up to administrators; you're a WP grown-up now, not a WP adolescent. --It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. support Admin bit is no big deal (I thought I saw a puddy tat) Verbal chat 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. WOAH... he's 13?! - Except he's not, I've never met a 13 year old who could deal with these disputes as well as he did. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support I've had plenty of dealings with Bugs, and he's a good guy whose sense of humor keeps things light around here. Dayewalker (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - I often point out that we don't need more drama around Wikipedia, and that I am, in general, against things (and editors) that tend to increase it. My momma didn't raise no idiots, though, and of course I realize the drama will exist whether I "like it" or "encourage it" or not. Having said that, the interactions I have been witness to personally (rather than all the diffs on this page, and I've looked at some of both sides), I consider Bugs to be a net positive and therefore support. This does not indicate blind support for everything, but it certainly acknowledges that Bugs does some of the harder stuff around here, and it needs doing, even if it sometimes involves drama.  Frank  |  talk  02:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support = Bugs has several opinions that are opposed to mine, but manages to explain them in such a way that I comprehend them (even if I don't always agree) when I read what he's written. Also, we rabbits need to stick together. (Surgeon General's Warning: FM&C is only 2/3 rabbit, and is 1/3 deadly snake. Use with caution.) --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If Bugs is getting the rabbit vote, then he just needs to wait a little while while they multiply and he'll easily pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you're saying I could win by a ha... NO! I can't. It's too obvious. Even for me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You turned down the chance to make that pun? Who are you and what have you done with the real Baseball Bugs? Someone check for pods. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ("They're here already! You're next!!!")[reply]

    So you don't think I could win by a ha? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ever hear "Wet Dream" by Kip Addotta? "Boy, she could really drink. She drank like a... She drank a lot." Padillah (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

54. Support, tough he needs to be careful in his use of humour. Alot of the opposes seem to be based on misreadings of jokes rather than substantial misbehaviour, but an admin (or editor) whose jokes are read as insults isn't a good thing either. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Although I've had content disagreements with BB in the past, he's a reasonable and thoughtful editor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. At this point it's mostly a moral support, but I genuinely believe Bugs when he says that he will endeavour to be more measured in his comments in the future. And I quite firmly believe he'll stick to that whether this RFA passes or not. His answer to my question about recall also gives me a good feeling. I'm also supporting to hopefully negate at least one of the opposes that complains he's only 13. I mean seriously, try reading the whole thing, eh? //roux   05:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, some excellent work with WP:AN/I. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Weak support Won't abuse the tools. Likely a net positive. Lots of the opposes are strong and convincing. Protonk (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Mainly per Cyclonenim. I'm surprising myself by being in the opposite camp to Jenna and some of the others, but I've had positive experiences in my encounters with BB, also he has no blocks in more than 12 months. My involvement in the drama board is minor but we do need users there who will respond quickly and explain why replacing "African American" with Negro is really not helpful to the project. WereSpielChequers 10:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support: I'm familiar with this editor mainly through ANI and the Obama article (a WP:FA), and I've been impressed with the insight and humour expressed in both places. I have no reason to doubt that he'll make a fine admin. Also per Eldereft, LessHeard vanU, and *cough* HalfShadow. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support I've run into Baseball Bugs on a number of projects, and I know he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and is very familiar with policy. My only hesitation is the communication style, which admins need to be ultra-careful about. However, I'd already noticed Baseball Bugs adjusting this, and I think after this RfA he'll temper it still more.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. THF (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Cogent, dedicated, and human. I probably would not vote for BB as a judge in RL, but I might hire you as a mediator. As the latter profession is much closer to the functions enabled by the mop, I think trusting them to use the tools appropriately is the proper course. Baseball Bugs, I know your namesake has a penchant for cross-dressing, but please do not go rouge. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Smart, funny, and a valuable asset to the project. I'm confident he'll make good use of the tools. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - --Tom 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - Would make an excellent admin. The Cool Kat (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Strong Support - Thought you already were an admin, to be honest. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 17:09
68. Support Not afraid to say what he thinks. We need more of that. Unlikely to abuse the tools. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. SUPPORTHave encountered the editor on a couple of contentious pages (where I'm not always on my best behavior...) and he has been civil, and funny.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. A block is a block. Those blocks were in the past, but your edits prove worthy. I won't stand by and watch another editor slip by becasue of age. This has to stop.N.G.G. 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support FOR GREAT JUSTICE...AND A CHEESE SANDWICH!!! HalfShadow 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn it, you've got me hungry now. I hope you can live with this. — neuro^(talk) 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72. After reading the opposes, I say Absolutely!; we are haemorrhaging pro-active admins because of the burn out effects of tackling the difficult areas, and BB has the humour, self critical viewpoint, and backbone to do the difficult stuff (after getting to know the ropes). Will BB make mistakes? Hell, yes, because the only people who do not make mistakes do fuck all anyhoo. Should people get upset when he does? Yup, and BB will take it and learn from it. I came here to support, and by fuck I shall. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Some of the oppose votes contain some valid points, and a few are just downright vindictive. I believe that at the end of the day the project will benefit from Bug's having the tools. I may be wrong, but I don't think he will abuse them. Landon1980 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Bugs isn't perfect, but he is an excellent contributor with far more good points than bad. I have seen him do good work on difficult and controversial topics, all while maintaining a sense of humor that does a lot to make the atmosphere more congenial for everyone (well, everyone with a functional sense of humor). I think he will use Admin tools properly and well. Doc Tropics 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Oppose . Cubs fan. Have had some interactions with Bugs on various talk pages, and he comes across as someone willing to discuss issues relevant to improving Wikipedia and a good contributor. Never had any problems. StarM 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm... Are you really opposed to my being a Cubs fan? Or is this more of a "sympathy vote"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76. Support Has helped me out more times than I am man enough to ever admit. BBugs is approaching the level of Wikideity.(Can I get my money now BBugs?)--DemocraplypseNow (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As they told Condi Rice once when Mirek Topolánek was running late for a meeting, "the Czech is on the way."

77. Support maybe it's too late and futile (in this run at least) but I won't mind admin with an attitude; much better sterile, un-contributing button operators. And probably someone will (at last) explain to me what the game of baseball is all about (one guy throws, another strikes back, then what are the others waiting for ??) NVO (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, for their next turn at bat. That was the Ted Williams approach, anyway. Think of baseball as being like cricket with four wickets disguised as bags. That may help. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

78. Support I believe you will make a good admin as I have seen you demonstrate good knowledge of policy and guidelines. Basket of Puppies 04:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support as in "oppose some opposes" and "doing this as moral support since this one is clearly not gaining consensus." I like this guy, and I'm impressed by his work in article namespace because I understand that Wikipedia is about creating an encylopedia, not hanging at AN/I. But, I was troubled by this many opposes. Do I not know him as well as I think? Until ... I looked at some of the linked diffs and such.

    For instance, [3] I see Bugs perfectly happy to drop it and let go, but the other user won't. Here I see Bugs, for the most part, calmly and politely sticking to policy, which is apparently considered a BITE. I see some opposes from some notorious drama hounds that show the same pattern of needing remedial reading of WP:STICK.

    Perhaps this is where they get payback. But with opposes like this he deserves a moral support. I see a user capable of keeping his ground, keeping cool and keeping his head while all about him are losing theirs. Bureaucrats, close as a failure but for Pete's sake don't let some of these oppose votes count as they are based on nothing but excessively thin skin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I trust the bureaucrats will see the "Oppose because Bugs gave me a hard time." posts for the sour grapes they really are. Padillah (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

80. Support I like his approach and I don't have any serious concerns about him. Enigma^msg 05:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support There's a quote I like from one of Oscar Wilde's plays: The one advantage of playing with fire is that one never gets even singed. It is the people who don't know how to play with it who get burned up. Bugs has played with fire enough not to get burned any more. Looie496 (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to neutral Support This user and I have crossed paths and, while we have at times disagreed politically and otherwise, I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe this user shouldn't have the mop. For the record, I thought this user was already an admin based on the policy knowledge, etc that I'd seen. Oren0 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82. Support I highly commend his familiarity with policy, trustworthiness, and level-headedness. Humor, including about oneself, is the best antidote to the many toxins that seem to build up around here. From what I've seen, he's managed to keep it despite a plethora of dealings that would have drained it out of most people. Enthusiasticallly support. arimareiji (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support I've edited with this editor in the past and have found him to be a well rounded editor who would be a fair-minded administrator. His humor at times can be refreshing and has helped defuse some tense situations. Brothejr (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Cautious support, mostly per LHvU and the opposite of Tznkai (in that most of the people I usually agree with are in the oppose camp). Make him an admin, by fuck. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support This serves only to try and get the candidate to 96-95, as he's clearly not going to pass. Keepscases (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I only need 11 positives but 17 negatives. Where are the sockpuppets when you need them? I thought Liebman would at least turn up here (or maybe he already has?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86. Support because the user has a good sense of humor and has shown in the past the ability to keep a level head during heated arguments. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support From what I have seen this user seems helpful and hard working. Also, as long as his sense of humor is not used in a malicious way, it can be a good thing, and I support him. Although, like others have said it wouldn't hurt to spend more time editing articles in the mainspace(other than that everything seems good).WackoJackO 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Too many of our admins are like Wonder Bread without the crust. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Some people need to lighten up. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support, per OrangeMarlin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support I am going to add my support for some clear reasons here. (First, let me say, I will assume that whatever Buro closes this has an interesting "mess" - they will need to immediately remove any oppose !vote that says even partly that it's because of age). One of the most interesting things, and one of the reason's I have waited was to review Bug's responses to the oppose !votes. Sure, he has clearly tried to argue the opposes, but has done so using "real life" situations. Indeed, when he found any oppose !votes that he considered valid, he has already taken them as constructive criticism. Having viewed a number of his recent edits (especially at ANI), one can readily see that he has adapted/adopted suggestions. I think this shows an editor who was already strong in many regards, but remains willing to learn - he realizes he's not perfect, so is willing to listen. With his original strengths, plus the ability to adapt, I believe this more strongly shows his admin-ability. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Über-Support per everyone above  rdunnPLIB  13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support After observing how he handles himself, sensitive issues and his participation at WP:AN I'm highly surprised to find that he's not and administrator already. HAZardousMATT^toxic 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. Oppose -> Strong Oppose (per Nick[4] and the "nice interaction with him below) I think you have a good heart and a sense of humor. However, according to your user page, you're 13. (Addendum:if the candidate sincerely thinks of this RFA, he should've realized that that joke is not beneficial for the candidacy) I don't support any candidate under 18. Most of your time while logging in Wiki, you spend too much time at AN/ANI instead of building contents. I also happened to see you're inclined to make more dramas such as encouraging indef.blocked vandals to excuse their vandalism and your rant over goose's liver. Therefore I don't think you fit for the mop keeper--Caspian blue 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (Addendum) A very hilarious thing is that "some" people firmly believe that this kind of prank regarding age is universally understood (not so funny). English Wikipedia is not about "American's encyclopedia" or social network like facebook or a playground. People here do not seem to realize it. That does also show a degree of "maturity".--Caspian blue 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Discussion moved to talk. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per personal experience. The only time I've encountered him, he seemed uncivil and I didn't think he assumed good faith on an issue that I had back in December '08. Tavix (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Switching to Extremely Strong Oppose per Q8 Tavix (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I do recall that one. There was a complaint filed at ANI about your behavior, by another user, because you were renaming articles unilaterally and claiming "consensus" - consensus of 1- and basically getting everybody mad at you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It's up to 5 now actually. See WP:NCSP. Tavix (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong Oppose a professional drama monger. 3000 edits to ANI? Even if those edits did not largely consist of baiting (which they largely do), even if every single one were a pearl of wisdom this would be a completely unacceptable addiction to drama. --JayHenry (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect, I have a good few edits to AN/I (400 IIRC), but I do it because I like to help out, not because I like drama. Whilst AN/I is a dramahole, it doesn't necessarily follow that the users that frequent it must be 'drama mongers'. — neuro^(talk) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, but there's nearly a tenfold difference between your level of editing at the dramaboards and his. --JayHenry (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose. Baseball Bugs is a rare breed around here in Wikipedia. As such, I think it's easy to get carried away in criticizing the way he edits and handles conflict. Although most of the time he's made good judgment, there were a few times where I felt he crossed the line. I've seen the fates of users who contributed in a style very similar to the way he has, and they have not been pretty. As a result, I don't feel I can fully trust him. bibliomaniac15 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - I do not know or care how old you are, but your actions today alone are enough for me to oppose. I asked questions 8 and 10 to see if there were logical reasons for your comments. While I am all for humor, your comment about admins being allowed to call users names shows poor judgment. You did this on Obama's talk page, while Wikipedia was being criticized for the Obama article, while the talk page was being linked directly from the front page of Fox News. At the time when I saw the comment I actually pulled up your users rights to see if you were an admin. The majority of people visiting that talk page are going to assume by your comment you are an admin. This reflects poorly not only on Wikipedia, but on all the admins who do good work here. The comment at question 10, and your reply really seal the deal. The correct answer to the question was a resounding yes, not that you assume the nomination was serious. I do not believe you are taking this seriously. For the foregoing reasons I oppose. KnightLago (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think what he was saying was that he did not want the tools as such, he merely was happy to to be up for the community's consideration, but then again, it is entirely possible that I am wrong. — neuro^(talk) 02:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That is a fair statement. In thinking about this, it's entirely possible I would hardly use the admin powers at all, or that I would slowly work my way into using them as needed - exercising caution, just as with rollback. Basically, I've simply got some colleagues who think I would be a worthwhile admin. So if I get the job, I will do my best not to let them down. And if I don't get the job, I'll be fine with that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Per what used to be my Neutral (formerly #1) and questions 6, 7, 8. Also, per Biblio and KnightLago. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong Oppose - Does not have the temperament, attitude or patience to be an admin. His posts at ANI are atrocious. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strongest possible oppose - I've only seen the user at ANI. I have not looked into their contribs, their talk page, or anything else. What I have seen is why I am opposing. I figured that he was an admin. From his actions, he always seemed to me as not assuming good faith, quick to judge in an overly harsh way, condoning problematic administrative behavior, and doing everything that I absolutely oppose in an administrator. I always had in mind to run an RfC against him with a proposal of desysopping. This RfA actually made me happy because I realized that the user never actually had the sysop bits to go through with what I see as actions that would only damage this encyclopedia. Thus, I am opposing with the hope that he is never, ever, given ops because I 100% feel that this user cannot be trusted to use the tools in a way that is best for Wikipedia. This is from my experience viewing them only in their discussions and reactions at ANI over the course of a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If you guys who are mentioning ANI force me to read the archives, I may go blind. Diffs? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   There are a few diffs here and there on this page, but even the current WP:ANI page is fairly par for the course. Just look for Bugs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A search of the ANI archives for "Baseball Bugs" gave me this and this. If you want, dive right in. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you know how many baseless cases I have against me? Pre- and post-adminship? People tend not to work with you on issues post-adminship; they would rather just jump ship to AN/ANI and post whatever they can dig up, only to stir up controversy and drama. If we were to take every case that's posted with a grain of salt, the earth would be a barren wasteland :) seicer | talk | contribs 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Seicer - none of my concerns are in cases -about- Bugs. My concerns are in his response to cases about others. I believe he lacks the temperament required to be a neutral, effective, and proper administrator. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The one from last summer was on the subject of fair use and deletionism, which is a recurring complaint I have, although I understand the reasoning for the fair use rules better now than I did then. The other is the ugly situation I referred to in an early statement, in which Die4Dixie and I had really serious words and ended up on friendly terms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose. The candidate isn't ready yet. I've seen some of his talk page comments and am concerned that he doesn't yet have the judgement skills necessary to make a good admin. I think he'll get there, but it will take a bit more experience. Majoreditor (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose due to answer to Question 6 from Editor:A.B. Nominee seems to be caught in a non-truthful self-promotion. Also, not impressed with the 'ooppss! sorry, I'll try better" responses. I kind of remember Bugs from Talk:Sarah Palin but what I remember is a subtle sarcasm that was not helpful to the firestorm that existed. I think he needs to work on his humor...I think he would rather go for a good laff rather than a good edit. Also, a concerned editor uses the edit summary to assist future referencing and search. Summaries are important in seven places in Wikipedia. --Buster7 (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am death on spam when I run across it. I don't go looking for it as such. So you've got a fair complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coincidentally, I did a little spam reverting just today. It's not something I go looking for, but if it turns up (as it will on the baseball pages from time to time, when someone's trying to promote his own baseball card website, for example), than I will zap it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My oppose above is not about spam, it's about the deception. Your reply made it sound as tho you were a Spam-inator, when, in fact, spam is not on your radar. It's not on mine either. The issue is transparency. The issue is that an Editor seeking Administrative tools is who he say's he is. Too much quality time is wasted on the tomfoolery...by us all!!! Your focus seems to always be ... "where's the humor". It should be, "What can I do to calm the waters?"--Buster7 (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not true that spam is not "on my radar", it's just that I'm not on a deletionist crusade about it. I will delete it when I see it, as with these recent examples: [5] [6] I would also point out that spam dropped farther down on my radar, a year ago, after I was shouted down on the ANI page for opposing a spam-pusher on Superman music, a single-purpose account who was using that article to push his limited-edition CD collection. I was right, the opponents were wrong, and his spam was still sitting in that article the last time I checked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the words of the closest 18 year old...."Whatever!"--Buster7 (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That "whatever" was some of the attitude I ran into when I tried to stop the spammer on the Superman music article. In the case of a few minutes ago, the spammer continued after warnings, and was temporarily dispatched at AIV: [7] He was only given a 3 hour block. I would have given him the more typical 31 hours, but at least that chokes off his blatant abuse of Wikipedia for a little while. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is my final addition to this thread. My "whatever' is not meant to display an attitude. What I mean by whatever is that you are intentionally missing the point. Your attention is on a minor mention of spam rather than the bigger issue of lying. It is what it is!--Buster7 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And your accusation of lying is a bald-faced personal attack, and fortunately I am very tolerant of personal attacks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Meanwhile, that first spammer I mentioned, being a registered user instead of an IP, has been AIV'd to the Wikipedia Phantom Zone. [8] While I have a high tolerance for false accusations against myself, I have a low tolerance of spam when I see it; I'm just not on a crusade about it as such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And the IP that was an apparent sockpuppet or meatpuppet of that named user stopped after one warning, so was not blocked, which is standard procedure. [9] My usual approach to IP vandals, in general, is to do nothing beyond reversion if it's a single offense, unless it's really bad, and then I'll post a warning. If they repeat their behavior, then I take them to WP:AIV and let an uninvolved admin take care of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose. per NuclearWarfare - Fastily (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong oppose Has a strong tendency to add fuel to fires. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth pointing out that the above user stated that various editors (me and others) were being too tough on the army of assailants that World News Daily sent to besiege the Obama article last night. The above user has also been warned (not by me) about the probation rules on that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LMAO. Please provide a diff where I said that. Not sure what the Obama article has to do with your RFA, but I do think it's unbalanced. Now, about your temper and the many times you've feuded with other editors, doesn't that show a level of immaturity that is ill suited to taking on any sort of Admin role? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I said, "I find the hostility to new users and those who express concerns about the omission of any mention of notable controversies in the Barack Obama article troubling." Not quite the same as saying editors "were being too tough on the army of assailants that World News Daily sent to besiege the Obama article." But I do think this serves as a good example of your penchant to exacerbate and exaggerate. These signs of immaturity illustrate my point that you add fuel to fires and are exactly the wrong kind of editor to make an Admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a friendly note from one of those concerned editors: [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add that the user who posted that note, Neophyte, is now indef-blocked for disruption after resuming his attack-dog behavior once his 2-day block expired. He was the one who fired the opening shot, coincidentally or otherwise, in Sunday evening's siege on the Obama page, and the reason he caught my attention is simply due to posting "disputed" tags like this one [12] without actually justifying it on the talk page, which is dirty pool. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose per JayHenry. Hesperian 05:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong oppose per personal experience. Did not AGF, does not apparently seek to diffuse situations, or resolve conflict, qualities I'd say are desirable in an admin. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose I've done some digging, and from what I'm seeing (a lot of it highlighted above at ANI) I know that during a discussion I personally would not appreciate the attitude conveyed by him. Call it a sense of humour, but I wouldn't have time for it and must oppose as the last thing we need are more uncivil admins or admins that can't seem to balance their sarcasm correctly. Otherwise he's knowledgeable of policy, but I think he should come back after a couple months of demonstrating a more professional attitude. I also think this user would be too quick to judge at this stage. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose, sorry. Inadequate temperament. Húsönd 09:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Not right for the role. Mike R (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Regretful Oppose, I've never personally disagreed with this user, from what I can recall, but from the responses of others that I've seen on AN/ANI, they're far too divisive. While I think that the user has the right intentions, I fear giving them the tools would be a dramabomb waiting to happen. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
19. Oppose. On the plus side, candidate does come up with some good (read: bone-jarring) puns from time to time, which lighten up the atmosphere. On the minus side, candidate's contributions on AN/I skew very heavily in favor of admins in any conflict with editors. Candidate enjoys kicking editors who are blocked or are about to be, and likes to bait and poke editors who are already under attack (with predictable results). All in all, one of the most intensely annoying editors in the entire Wikipedia. With a name like "Bugs", it is perhaps understandable that every time I see his user name, I think of the buck-toothed actor in RoboCop whose favorite "line" was, "I'll buy THAT for a dollar!!!"--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be Bixby Snyder in It's Not My Problem! Helpfully, Mike R (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. I have a lot of admiration for the candidate's obvious intelligence, dedication and good intentions. This candidate hasn't failed; Wikipedia has failed the candidate, in the sense that everyone has cheered him on as he happily and wittily kicks people who are about to be blocked. It's great fun, but it hurts the encyclopedia, and I agree with Bibliomaniac that, on the current track, it's just a matter of time before it all goes wrong. RFA is the perfect time to give him feedback that will help him avoid future problems, and if this RFA doesn't succeed, let's see in 3 months whether he was able to absorb the advice. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose Probability of a drama bomb down the road is too high. We've got enough cowboy admins. Combined with user's stated ambivalence about adminship and potential to be a less than ideal ambassador to new users, not a big enough net positive to support. Phil153 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. 3,000 edits to AN/I is appalling. Compulsive overindulgence in such places is admittedly fun but tends to make admins and admin wannabes hardened, rude and reflexively hostile to new or confused editors with a legitimate gripe. My ideal candidate writes a lot, shuns needless conflict and does not support or associate with the "same old" crop of entrenched bullies and busybodies.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. I find it curious that there are many editors I respect in the support column, and there are many editors I have had conflict with in the oppose, but I must lodge my vote here. Adminship is increasingly about dispute resolution, management, and related peace making and problem solving. My interactions and observations of Baseball bugs have all suggested a tendency to speak when silence was preferable, to take sides when impartial mediation is needed, and to pursue humor and insult over calm. Peacemakers are in short supply on ANI, and I feel that promoting Bugs would add an admin problem not an admin asset to that arena, and that is certainly where he is most likely to go. --Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) As a matter of full disclosure, I have had some conflicts with Bugs involving User:Kelly and assorted drama.[reply]

    Addenda to the above: This is a fairly recent example of Bugs unnecessarily adding insult to a situation. It doesn't matter if what you say is true, it matters if what you say will help. --Tznkai (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That comment can be read several ways; I think Baseball Bugs was trying to be helpful, not insulting. Having said that, this is an example how, in the absence of facial expressions and tone of voice, humour can be interpreted in different ways, especially when editors are coming from many different cultures and using different local versions of English. I learned this myself the hard way off-Wikipedia several years ago. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would argue that whatever Bugs' intentions, he failed to be helpful and that a sufficiently wise, perceptive, or thoughtful person would have realized that before clicking the "save page" button.--Tznkai (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24. Oppose. Not a cool head. Good editor who should not be an admin. AKAF (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak oppose - Phil153 and AKAF say it pretty well. There's a lot that Bugs does that is very good for the project, but I'm not thrilled with the potential drama with him as an admin. Take some time off from ANI ... trust me, it feels good to get away from the place. --B (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have pretty much done just that since the Sunday night WND siege, and you're right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose Sorry, but as some have mentioned above I've just seen too many ANI comments that make me question if adminship is right for you right now.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - I like Bugs a lot. He spends an inordinate amount of time in the talk space and not editing (which I didn't realize until I looked over his contributions), which needs to change for Bugs to really help build this project. I'm concerned about the number of ANI edits. ANI is addictive, so cold-turkey is necessary. I am concerned about his age, although until it was brought up, I would have never known. I don't think someone who's only 13 should be an admin, but it wouldn't be a sole reason for me to oppose, and in fact, it has no bearing on my current oppose. I think some of the recommendations here, like Phil153 and B, are what should be addressed before I can support. Again Bugs, I think you're a great contributor, but get away from the drama, it isn't helping. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Restoring !vote, it's convention here at RfA not to delete !votes when your position was based on incorrect/incomplete information, but rather to indent it and strike it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27. Oppose per age I fear another controversial admin. Too divisive and opiniated on sensitive issues on high traffic noticeboards, from what I've seen. Majorly talk 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose - Doesn't know when to shut up and listen, or indeed, to stop listening and run away, as any sensible person would do with ANI. Nick (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose - seems to spend the vast majority of his time hanging out at WP:ANI, and barely a thread goes past there without a comment on it. Several instances of dealing with those whose opinions differ from his own indicate to me that he is not a suitable candidate for adminship. pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong Oppose. Bugs' recent behavior on AN/I in regards to me personally was appalling. Here's a dude who enjoys kicking editors who are under attack and there is no denying that. He's rude, immature and offensive. I can't and will not support this candidate. Oh and before I'm accused of being incivil or making personal attacks, I'm not. It's called honesty. Caden S (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Caden, could you provide some links for reference?---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Caden is referring to this ANI thread. Black Kite 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that Caden is stunning biased in this matter, being the said subject of the thread. Most people posting there agreed thast Caden's incivility was borderline, and Bugs did a great job at mediating that thread, as well as the other one linked in my support regarding ParaGreen13. Then again, I'm stunningly biased too, being the starter of the aforementioned thread. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CadenS is one of the more contentious users I've seen, and is currently on a topic ban, so his lecturing others about behavior is certainly interesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31. I agree that this editor's mentality may not make for a suitable admin. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Sorry, I believe it is irresponsible of the WMF to allow minors to edit, and they certainly should not be admins. This is not for me so much to do with maturity, as with how responsible it is to expose children to the personal and legal risks of editing wikipedia. Nothing personal.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose - not ready.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bugs isn't a minor. That's an "in joke" he's never fully explained. If you look at this edit history as well as quite a few of his comments it should be evident that, not only does he sound much more erudite than a 13 year-old but the math doesn't quite work either. Padillah (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing personal? How much more personal can you be than to oppose based on age, when you evidently haven't given the candidate the consideration of reading this RFA and realising he is over 18 ..... simply pathetic - and from you Mr. Glasgow who is normally so petty about accuracy it's truly stunning. Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NO, it is nothing personal at all. I looked at his userpage and saw he'd given an age of 13. I saw no reason to doubt his words, and no reason to read further since I will oppose any candidate under 18 on point of principle.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, but since it's incorrect, would you mind changing your oppose rationale? //roux   00:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm willing to cut Doc some slack, as he came to the defense of my talk page against a vandal who questioned whether I should be an "Admisitrator". [13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33. Strong Oppose I've given strong reasons to oppose people in the past, but I don't think I have ever felt as strongly about an oppose as I do with Baseball Bugs. His behavior at (and around) Law Lord's RfC makes it unlikely that I will be able to support him any time in the near future.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC) EDIT: A synopsis of Baseball's behavior at the RfC can be found here in Jennevecia's words.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose - in my experience, Bugs's contributions tend to be either exceedingly mature, astoundingly insightful breakthroughs; lighthearted but off-topic jokes; or sarcastic, unhelpful digs at others (deserved, often, but not conducive to a collegial atmosphere). It's this last part that worries me. I get the impression that he follows drama wherever it crops up so that he can make fun of it. Which is borderline tolerable for non-admin editors, but admins aren't supposed to have so much fun with Wikipedia. Admins are supposed to be respectful, sober, unemotional, humorless robot zombies (okay, I went off the deep end there, but I think you get my meaning). If Bugs, like he says below, would "tone it down" if adminned, I think he'd quickly find Wikipedia boring. -kotra (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose per Spartacus and Kotra. Willking1979 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong Oppose I ran into baseball bugs immediately after my very first editing experience here. I was treated horribly by him. Please take a look here and here(i am sko1221). For a brand-new person, this was a brutal welcoming. His methods of arguing a point are juvenile at best. I would not feel comfortable with the Wikipedia Admin team if this person was on it, prior to a good bout of therapy, that is.Sarah Katherine 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought the editor was using the article to push an agenda. I still think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Agenda or not, that episode had a bit of WP:BITE to it, and I think that Sarah could have been given a much warmer welcome. The referral to ANI was premature, and WP:DR would have been a much better approach. Not that I haven't been guilty of similar things, though. We all have room to learn and grow, and this suggests to me that BB is open to constructive criticism. I won't revoke my support, but I will join the be-nicer-to-the-newbies crowd. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And she got what she wanted anyway. Which I still think is PETA-POV pushing. And is why I took that page off my watch list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So you are disagreeing with the result of the Admin process. Intellect sans Compassion can be a dangerous thing, and not a good quality for Admin. Sarah sko1221^talk 21:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, as an editor, I disagree with what you got away with. Like most everyone else in the Oppose category, you are confusing editorship with adminship. They are totally different. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But if you are not different (less into using your baseball bat on people), it might be a better fit to remain an editor. Sarah sko1221^talk 02:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As an admin, I would be held to a higher standard. You had your chance to impose that standard, and you decided against it. So the next time we cross paths (hopefully never), keep in mind that you had your chance and failed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. Are you aware that you don't have to actually say everything that comes to your mind? I can see from this comment why people are finding it difficult to believe you are an adult. Good luck, anyway. I have learned a LOT about Wikipedia having met you, and i do sincerely appreciate that. Sarah sko1221^talk 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Don't slam the door in my face, and I won't slam the door in your face." ~ does this statement from you only apply to certain editors? It seems that you have just verbally slammed the door in my face. How am i to go to the Admin team with any confidence if you are on it, after declaring that? Sarah sko1221^talk 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

37. Strong Oppose. Ottava Rima summed it up well. There's been an improvement from 2007, when he was blocked twice (once for five days) for harassment; but he's still no where near the kind of editor this project needs as an administrator. His exchange with ChildofMidnight in oppose #12 is a perfect recent example, if posts to AN/I aren't enough. And User:I'm Spartacus! (your signature is awful by the way <3) brought up the only instance I recall having had any significant interaction with the candidate. Linked in that oppose (#34) is my summed up view of that situation. Sense of humor is awesome, but the addiction to drama is ridiculous. Non-admins don't need to comment on issues raised on admin boards unless they are somehow involved or in a position to weigh in with educated information. Poking, prodding and kicking editors involved in heated situations is unnecessary and inappropriate. The candidate is not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to feed his hunger for drama. I expected this request, as shown in the aforementioned link, and believe it's obvious that his relentless participation on admin boards has shown his desire to gain power on this website. Despite having told me "As far as my being an admin, I have no interest in the job, so you're safe." in late-December last year, here he is, just as I predicted. For all these reasons and those stated by others, it's a resounding NO. لennavecia 19:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the secret to getting you to come out of retirement to cite your words ;-) As for the sig, I agree... if people don't know who I am by now...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

38. Oppose - I have no reason to assume that this candidate will be able to radiate the calm and neutral judgment the community expects from an administrator nor is there any indication he will be able to control his use of the admin tools. Per all above who pointed to various examples why I think so. Regards SoWhy 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose. Recall promises are made ad captandum vulgaris and, given the historical record of recall attempts, have a vanishingly small chance of removing or at the very least affecting the behavior of problem admins. Skinwalker (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey! I am never vulgar. An' I don't speak Latin, neither. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ROFL. Ad captandum vulgaris = "in order to court (captivate) the masses". Vulgar as in "common" or "commoner", and is not intended to imply that you yourself are vulgar in the sense of spouting foul language. All obnoxious oppose !votes should have a little bit of Dog Latin, IMO. Skinwalker (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see - like the inter-lingual pun, Semper Ubi Sub Ubi. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40. Weak oppose - too much drama on WP:ANI. PhilKnight (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Switched from Support to oppose - I came here supporting, but today I went back and looked at some of the opposing comments. This edit made me have to oppose. This comment, made just a week or two before this RFA makes me agree with the comments above that we don't need more admins like this, admins that have made controversial comments, or have a temper. Had this happened early, I may have overlooked this, but this is too recent to overlook. Sorry.America69 (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this on the Baseball Bugs talk page. [14] Wheteher or not the Baseball bugs was joking, can we really trust this user not to have his account abused by his friend??America69 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The friend is invisible; I think it's safe to say that Bugs' account is secure. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Still I think that goes along the lines of why I oppose this nomination. But yeah, I thought so to.America69 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That comment was a parody of excuses indef-blocked users often use in a vain attempt to get unblocked; generally, that "someone else must have done it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

42. Strong Oppose. Absofreakinlutely not. Tan | 39 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you mind giving an "absofreakinlutely not" rationale? Or is this essentially a per X vote? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tan is just keeping a promise he made to me on Jan 9. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Like it matters; the beaurocrats aren't going to have a rough time with this one. Tan | 39 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

43. Weak Oppose Too much drama. Looking over his contributions to WP:AN/I, they're usually adding to the drama or really lame jokes that often derail serious conversations taking place there. Also, nothing makes me lean towards opposing more than when I see a candidate making unnecessary replies to oppose comments. AniMate^talk 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose - The user seems to act on ANI as an "admin-attack-dog", weighing in on discussions where an admin has been questioned or queried (the admins being blameless, Bugs acts unprovoked). Augmenting j'accusery and promoting witch-hunts. I would be concerned if this user got "the bit". Fribbler (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose for now Unhelpful jokes/sarcasm on WP:AN/I. I'd like to see you tone it down before I support. Kcowolf (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose too young/lacks maturity, unsuitable temperament etc. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, he's not really 13 and a half. In fact, he claims to be "significantly over 18". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Verifiable independent source plz? Until you produce one, I remain convinced he's only 13. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You can get a sense of my age based on the dates of pictures I've taken and then uploaded. For example, there's this one: [15] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL. Alas, ageism at RfA has reached the point that it's affecting minors who aren't even minors, but I couldn't have thought of a better comeback myself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

47. Oppose - too interested in politics, both real world politics and, more troubling, wiki politics. I fear he will just create more drama if given the tools. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose The bluntness and directness referenced above don't especially offend me, but that stuff can be too bitey to new folks. And, spending so much time engaging at ANI is a bad habit - one of those things where just because one can doesn't mean one should. That stuff said, I've had no bad interactions with the candidate; this is just one of those cases where not every good editor is necessarily a good candidate for the admin role. Thanks for volunteering all the same. Townlake (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose As bright as Bugs is and can be, this ain't the right job for him...Modernist (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong Oppose Very rarely do I oppose people at RFA. I usually abstain from RFA of the people who have left a bad feel. But this is not much to be ignored. The user severely lacks maturity and temperament of an admin and I am sorry to say that he is highly uncivil , and rude to new users, horrible at ANI and handling of conflicts is pathetic -- Tinu Cherian - 05:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Weak Oppose Don't normally oppose, but Bugs seems to occasionally fuel the fire, and doesn't quite seem ready. Best Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would happily support in a couple of months if you learn from your mistakes. Make sure you Don't loose your sense of humor! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been asked several times to do this, and after the attack of the World Nuts Daily mushrooms on the Obama article on Sunday, and my fruitless efforts to help defend it, a friendly colleague finally convinced me to accept a nomination. It's been a worthwhile experience, and if someone nominates me again in the distant future, hopefully it will turn out better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd imagine that I would support. Hopefully the outcome will be better. BTW, try and provide an edit summary ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

52. Oppose. Fans rather than douses flames. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose, per Jbmurray. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I don't vote very often (this being my first time), but looking at your comments at ANI and your talk page I really wouldn't want you as admin. Your sense of humor is rude and at times plain offensive. I don't want to see any of that in an admin. (EDIT: Dear God.) Antivenin 07:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a joke from Doonesbury from years ago, and I am on friendly terms with the person whose talk page I placed it on, who leans Republican. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia can be read by anyone. Though I now understand the context of your joke, I still think jokes should stay 'neutral'. Just my $0.02. Antivenin 07:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what a "neutral" joke would be, but I'm willing to hear an example. Anyway, I went to Google and found references to that joke all over the internet. What I couldn't find is exactly when the strip was. I'm pretty sure it was a Sunday strip from sometime during the Clinton administration, but finding the strip itself is proving a bit tougher. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't bother finding the strip. I believe you when you say it's Doonesbury. As for the joke, it's fine if it's something everyone can agree with. I know jokes are always at someone's expense but if it's something that offends someone (even if that isn't your intention, as I'm sure it wasn't) then it should be avoided. The majority of opposes out here seem to be about that. Tone that down and you should have a successful RfA. Antivenin 08:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think even Trudeau had a little disclaimer in the strip about having "heard it somewhere". Most of the opposes seem to be on spending too much time at ANI and not knowing when to stop pushing something. So I'll be working on those things. I've already taken ANI off my watchlist after the Obama / WND fiasco on Sunday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Great. If you can take care of those things you mentioned above you can expect a support from me next time you RfA. Antivenin 10:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Changing to neutral, as you realise where you are lacking and willing to work at it. Antivenin 10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

54. I don't care how old are you, your actions on ANI scares me. Will go Sideways with mop. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Calling the subject of an article a "baby factory" is simply unacceptable, and I can't support as long as comments like that are being made. --Conti|✉ 12:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment From the way I read that, he's actually using the term to suggest how the guy who objects to the entry would refer to her; I don't think he's using the term himself. HalfShadow 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Disagree. If it was what the "guy who objects" had said, he should have placed it in quotes, but lacking the quotes it could still be Mr Stephen's words. That is until you read the AfD in question. When you see the comments Mr Stephens and Baseball Bugs made in the AfD in question, I think it is clear who the is more likely to use the term "Baby factory."---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm guilty of putting words into the complainants mouth, although as I recall, her own mother said worse things about her. That's a distraction, though. The issue was whether there should be an article about the woman or not. I was arguing that the woman is more notable than the octuplets are, yet somehow an article about the octuplets is OK, and about the woman is not. Strictly an inclusionist vs. deletionist argument. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

56. Strong oppose per JayHenry, give AN/ANI/AE/etc a miss for a long time. Try WP:NPP [16] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Oppose, consistently bad attitude. Everyking (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose Does not possess temperament one would expect from an admin. Often funny, but can be a bit caustic and bitey at times. And (as noted by several users, including Jbmurray, comments on AN/I tend to inflame situations rather than defuse them. #Horologium (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Strong Oppose with this block December 2007. I think harrasing other users might come back to him and he start doing it again when he gets in editing disputes etc. So my answer is a Strong NO as of now GLFan151 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose Admins are supposed to cool down disputes, not heat them up. Captain panda 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose per other comments re: ANI contributions. Minkythecat (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Oppose Seems to have a fine temperment when not needed, but lacks discretion and calm when it is most needed, such as on contentious political articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Recognizing that concern, I have stopped editing political articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

63. Oppose Based on previous ANI behavior and comments, I do not believe he would make a good admin. spryde | talk 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Moved From Support to Oppose his age doesn't bother me, but the comments about the drama worry me. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Weak oppose Despite how much I enjoy reading Bugs' comments, his somewhat antagonistic and indiscreet approach to volatile cases makes me believe that any positive benefit he could deliver as an administrator would be overshadowed by drama and its negative effects both within and outside of Wikipedia. Sorry, Bugs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose per this comment left on my talk page after I warned him about 3RR. Admittedly, he quickly apologized on his own, but I don't see how anyone could react that way to a simple warning (albeit, I didn't include a smiley faces or a plate of cookies or anything), which I thought was better than a templated warning, since I knew he wasn't a newbie. Then, he says he's never been been warned prior to reaching 3RR before? Sucks for him, I guess. I thought I was being courteous. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You warned me for 3RR violation when I was only at 2R. That is not courteous, and as an admin or as a regular editor, that's not something I would do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So you oppose him for recognizing a situation as untenable and backing away? Hmm, OK I guess but that seems a bit odd. You warn him for something he didn't do and are surprised he gets offended? Hmm, to each his own. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    His explanation (not apology) here [17] reminds me of a Bob and Ray bit where they were conducting a spelling bee, and they buzzed someone before he finished, because "We knew you were going to get it wrong." Warning for 3RR when one is only at 2R is something I have never seen here, and it left me nonplussed. However, if the roles were reversed and Jauerback were running for admin today, I would have no hesitation saying Support, as it's clear he meant well, just that his approach was something I would not do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67. Oppose Based on ANI behavior as well. Biting newbies, a lack of AGF, and less than civil discourse. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume good faith until an editor betrays it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

68. 'Oppose His escalator has no off button. MickMacNee (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Very very strong oppose Have not even bothered to look at the user's contribs. He's bullying opposers on his own RFA. This is absolutly dispicable behaviour. RfA is a discussion, but rushing in and ridiculing people's opinions only entrenches that opinion more and enflames the situation. I've seen you at ANI and you seem to just enflame things. This is basically a not ever oppose, unless 18 months or so down the line you demonstrate that you are suitable to be an administrator.--Patton^t/c 12:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary, I do not expect or want anyone to change their stance because of something I say. They have made their viewpoints known, and they should stand by them. You are missing the point, or the purpose of my comments. You may notice that I have agreed with many of the Oppose comments, and said nothing about others, and silence implies consent. However, I do not "kiss up", I am not mousy, and I did not ask for this nomination, I merely consented to it, so I am not inclined to "beg" for it either. I am also not inclined to let statements that I disagree with go unchallenged. For example, the recent exchange about the spam issue, which led to a blatant personal attack, thus exposing more of the character of the Opposer. In contrast, many of the other Opposers are right on the money. Approximately 3 of the Opposers want me off ANI merely so they can more easily continue their own running soap operas on that page. However, many sincere users in all three sections have indicated legitimate concerns about my own behavior on ANI, and have pointed me toward good areas in which I can serve Wikipedia and avoid having to confront the drama queens, which is why I have stopped visiting ANI for the foreseeable future, and have also stopped editing political articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't expect people to change their opinion becuase of something you say why do you reply at all? Why did you jsut type out that huge paragraph? You seem to be quite belligerent and hostile towards people who don't agree with you, and i believe you would make a very poor administrator.--Patton^t/c 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because you expect me to kiss up and not respond, and I won't do that. Just like I don't expect you to, either. I expect dialogue, not dictation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No I expect you to acknowledge that you are currenlty a discussion enflamer and try to better yourself. If you had responded to this oppose by saying it would never happen again, you know exactly what I'm talking about and you hope to not do it again, I would have supported. But you didn't, you demonstrated supreme arrogance by not being able to let a discussion go by without getting in the last word, no matter what, even if oyu know you are wrong, and a cowardly attitude by not being able to accept your mistakes and learn from them.--Patton^t/c 15:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't believe I would have done this see [18] and [19].--Patton^t/c 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than stick up for your actions in reply to Friday, you should have said you understood why it was removed and you won't add any notices like them again. She/He would have probably ended up supporting too.--Patton^t/c 15:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but that type of plain talk is what I appreciate about Bugs. He wasn't arguing or "fanning the flames" except inasmuch as he flatly denied the other users assertions. Are you suggesting that reverting other peoples edits to your userpage could be construed as vandalism? Right wrong or indifferent a person should retain their personality and I resist any attempts to turn admins into "blank-slate button-pushers". To think that Bugs, or indeed anyone, should simply kowtow and do whatever someone says simply to placate the masses goes completely against why I sponsored Bugs. I sponsored him because I've seen him stick up for WP when it would have been easier to go with the maudlin approach and cave in. I want an admin that will administrate, not just block who I say block. Padillah (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what this is about. An administrator must be able to accept their mistakes and learn from them. That is an absolute necessity. The guy should have contacted him first, but once Bugs knew someone was offended by it he should have left it out.--Patton^t/c 16:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It comes from the interpretation that you advocate that once a user expresses distaste you expect the admin to capitulate. That's the feeling I got from statements like "...once Bugs knew someone was offended by it he should have left it out." Sorry, but I am not looking for admins to roll over once they find they have offended some user. There a re too many people on Wikipedia for that type of outlook, everyone is bound to offend someone around here. Right is right, regardless of whom is offended. Padillah (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone has a problem, they should talk to me rather than swinging an axe. I have very seldom participated in an RfA, so I don't know what the "rules" are, I'm just winging it. What I'm hearing from the complainant in general is some sort of "rule" that amounts to, "How dare you stand up for yourself!" There's more to it than appearing to defend myself, though. Many of the Opposers have expressed good and sincere criticisms. Some of them, however, appear to be operating from a personal agenda, and this kind of dialogue helps reveal that agenda, and can possibly make it easier for the reviewers to reach a decision one way or another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (Unindent) You are chronically assuming bad faith, accusing opposers of having alterior motives and attempting to bully them into submission. If you see a need to "stand up for yourself" if someone asks you to remove something from your userpage you have the wrong attitude to be an admin. The guy who edited your userpage should have talked to you instead of removing, but that's no reason to revert. And It's no the reason I'm opposing. The first sentence of this paragraph is why I'm opposing.--Patton^t/c 17:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I showed you the same level of good faith that you showed to me in your opening statement. And if the user who messed with my user page wants to talk about it, he's free to do so, and if he chooses not to, then it must not be that important to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is prima facie evidence of you doing this. Look at the your replies to the opposers. There is absolutly no evidence of opposers having alterior motives.--Patton^t/c 18:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's your opinion. Mine is that your opening paragraph is intended to be intimidating, and you're angry because I won't be intimidated, i.e. I won't "beg" for your support. Ultimately, it will be up to the reviewers to decide. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, I don't believe Patton's intentions were to intimidate you. It seems like a valid concern, one which quite a few other have. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's much much much harder to accept critism than argue that the person providing the critism is an idiot. Yes I know, but please, just stop arguing and take it. I woudl be really happy if you became a superstar user, with reams of FAs, beaureacrat rights and arbcom membership, but that's not going to happen if you behave like this.--Patton^t/c 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am taking it. I'm just not taking it quietly. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not? That's extremely arrogant of you.If you had said something like you would take my critism to heart I would have ended up supporting. Not taking critism quietly is a very bad quality in an admin.--Patton^t/c 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope you realize that the by simply saying none of this will happen and striking your bad faith comments you will get me to support. By arguing you won;t.--Patton^t/c 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'll make ya a deal - If you'll go to the top of the page, and add some comments on how I can improve my user page, I'll strike all this stuff. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Except I can't do the "striking" part right now, because I have to get to a meeting. But if you'll contribute to the list of improvements, you can do the striking yourself. Permission granted. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Except the concerns aren't about your userpage. They're about your behaviour.--Patton^t/c 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want an admin who will kiss up to you, then I'm not your guy, and we're done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70. Oppose Utter lack of temperment to be an administrator. A lightning rod for controversy. I do not forsee this ever changing. Interestingly, there's still a userbox on his page that says "I am not a Wikipedia Administrator..... I would not run if nominated............... and if elected, I would not serve." --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And another user just tried to "scrub" my user page. No, no "scrubbing" just because of an RfA. I yam what I yam. And I'm guessing you don't know what the source of that quotation is. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus, via Popeye?--John (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, not quite, but you're in the general neighborhood. Actually, it was George McClellan via Pat Paulsen. That was about the Presidency, but it's the same general idea. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, you mean the "I yam" part. I thought you meant the part about the userbox. You're even closer on that one. That was God talking to Moses when Moses asked Him what His name was, and loosely restated by Popeye. You got it. The boy wins a cigar. Or Segar. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. How did you mange to soak up so much pop culcha in a mere 13 1/2 years? PhGustaf (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep in mind that's in rabbit years. Did I fail to mention that before? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Segar !? [pun groan] ... anyway, adding the userbox was not a flight of fancy, but would appear to be a position you have held for some time.

    I perceive proper admin work to be a thankless job with no reward - except the knowledge that it might make Wikipedia better for the viewing public, which is all that really matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    An excellent answer. And your wit has not escaped my notice, as with the Marxist stance on membership. Your response to question 1 failed to identify why you needed the tools, until your offline prompt to amend it, I find both these facts troubling.

    I don't "need" the admin tools. Someone thought I would make a good admin, so they nominated me. Where would I use them? Well, an example would be where AIV is backlogged. I could maybe help out there. Maybe if there's some maintenance work needed, like deleting stuff that's been approved for deletion. That kind of busy work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71. I strongly oppose, but some of the reasons given by opposers are not compelling to me. I see nothing wrong with speaking plainly- if someone's behavior is a problem and they need to stop, it's OK to say so. However sometimes Bugs crosses the line from merely speaking plainly and starts actively fanning the flames. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was someone removing Bug's useless and juvenile joke banner from his userpage, and Bugs just reverted it claiming that his userpage was HIS and should not be messed with. This shows that he places more importance on his own whims than on making Wikipedia useful for others. That, plus the flame-fanning tendencies lead me to believe his temperament is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Ideally, we don't want any editors who behave that way, but we can't fix that problem. So we do the best which can, which is making sure we don't get admins like that. So, you can chalk me down firmly in the "not now, not ever" camp. Friday (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zapping stuff from peoples' user pages without discussing it with them first is inappropriate behavior and is rightly reverted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's quite a blanket statement to be making with no consideration of the usefulness of the content being removed. If other editors object to your userpage content strongly enough to remove it, there's a good chance it should be removed. Applying general ideas to every case without considering the specifics is a bad quality for an admin. Friday (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If they've got a problem with something, my door is always open to dialogue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is connected with the BRD principle, or bold-revert-discuss. That one user bolded, and I reverted, and now I expect him to discuss. If he won't discuss, then dat's dat. However, you're right that much admin work is situational. There's no rubber stamp. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All edits should be considered on its merits, and reverting on principle because it's "your" userpage, does seem to imply ownership issues. I stand by my edit. Those boxes are confusing, silly, not funny (to me anyway!) and will be harming your reputation. Also, simulating the interface is discouraged, see WP:USER. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No one owns any page. I have had many users tell me they enjoyed my user page, so the preponderence of opinion is that it can stay the way it is for now. If I were to become an admin, I would rewrite the page to focus on that role. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the overall point about the user page, though. Being an editor is one thing, being either a prospective admin or some type of leader is another. So I have added a list up top, to solicit opinions for improvements to my user page, in lieu of you clobbering it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Even now, he continues to troll AN/I. There's apparently no reasoning with this guy. A bit troutslap to the noms and all the supporters for wasting our time with such an obviously unsuitable candidate. I don't care how old he claims to be- he acts just like he's 13 and that's reason enough to oppose. Friday (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, come on now. BB is attracting a majority !vote in his favor. That is not enough to get him elected, but it is enough to take him very seriously as a candidate. As for wasting time, given the number of times you have contributed to this discussion, you are choosing to waste your own time despite the fact that this nomination has been effectively dead for quite some time. As for his "trolling" AN/I, any editor is welcome to join the discussions there, and I've seen many candidates get denigrated for not having experience in admin areas. I guess it is damned if you do, damned if you don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My work on that page today has been largely appropriate, mostly serious and constructive, and totally harmless, which is what you allege to want; including following proper procedure for getting a contentious user blocked by an uninvolved admin. I will continue to stand up for myself and will not be bullied by you or anyone else here. I never asked for this nomination, I merely consented to it to see how it would go. It has been a useful exercise all around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also point out that I might have more votes if I had bothered to ask people to vote. I merely put the link on the page and left it there, which is standard procedure. Overt canvassing, though, is against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If I Were an Admin (sounds like a song), I could be helping with the backlog on AIV right about now. There's only so much the HelpBot can do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And I don't expect you to back down to me, either. I expect dialogue. Probably the bitterest confrontation I've had in 4 years here was with Die4Dixie, but we kept talking and ended up on friendly terms. Dialogue is key to resolving disputes. Don't slam the door in my face, and I won't slam the door in your face. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72. Oppose per previous interaction on talk:Donald Duck. Garion96 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a content dispute between editors. Admins have no business using admin authority in content disputes they are involved in, nor would I. The one has nothing to do with the other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't oppose because of the content dispute itself. I oppose because of the way you acted in that dispute. Garion96 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And I didn't like the way the other guy acted, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And that is exactly why I oppose. Garion96 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's important to point out that that was acting as an editor. One of the biggest bones of contention on ANI is admins wielding their swords against someone they're in a content dispute with. Admins should NEVER do that. NEVER, EVER. On the ANI page, I've seen probably 3 categories: (1) The admin comes to the page and says, "I'm in a content dispute, what should I do?" (2) The admin comes to the page and says, "I blocked someone I'm in a dispute with, please review." (3) The admin gets called on the carpet for blocking someone he's in dispute with, and then you can see admins warring with each other. Option (1) is the way to do things. Option (2) is shaky at best. Option (3) is totally unacceptable. You want to talk about about bad leadership from admins? That's Exhibit A. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh sure, I do totally agree but fail to see the relevance here. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That you're somehow suggesting that a person acting as an admin would take the same approach as acting as an editor. In fact, when working on pseudo-admin type work, I'm usually businesslike, or at least I think I am. Maybe not, but I think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, there should be no difference. Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You've got it wrong. Admins don't do editing and don't get into content disputes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Come on, admins don't do editing or go into content disputes? Sure they do, they just shouln't use the tools in a content dispute they are involved in. But that was not the reason I opposed. Your conduct there was something I don't want to see in any editor, let alone an admin. Therefore I opposed. Garion96 (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And your conduct on that page was equally offensive. And certainly admins do editing work. They also do admin work. The two activities do not cross, or they won't be admins very long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw the talk in question, and it was poor conduct on both sides but Garion you started the arguement with some incivilty, and Baseball Bugs was on the defensive, and most editors would have done in that situation. Don't let past grudges show in this already hell RFA, and I want you do reconsider your vote. Secret ^account 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

73. Oppose, sarcasm and attempts at humor or wit does not have a place in admin's responses. There's nothing wrong with having some fun as long as it isn't rude or unhelpful, but being an admin isn't about fun, it's about taking on more responsibility. Basically, lots of people don't take Wikipedia too seriously, which is fine, but I think admins should take it seriously. (Also I'm helping you get to your goal of 96–95.) LonelyMarble (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I was missing my daily dose of iron-y. Padillah (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When I'm doing work that actually resembles admin work, I think I tend to take a serious approach. As you've noted before, they are confusing editor behavior with admin behavior, and they are not the same thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The extra tools admins gain may not be a big deal, and I'm not saying you wouldn't use the tools seriously. Whether a good thing or bad thing, editors and anonymous readers look up to admins as examples of what Wikipedia is. Admins' actions and responses, whether they have anything to do with admin tools, are put to a higher standard than regular editors, and this is why I say admins should be more serious. This may not be the way adminship was intended to be, but from my experiences and observations it is the way it is. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

74. Oppose. Don't get me wrong. I like Bugs and I appreciate his help. I just can't see how you get there from here. (In this case, "there" = Wikipedia admin, and "here" = self-appointed court jester of ANI.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Oppose I don't mind how old the candidate is, but I am opposing him because for stating that he is "only 13 1/2 years old" on his user page. Many new editors will ask administrators to help them and if they think that an admin is only 13 and a half years old, it is likely that they will decide not to request help from that user. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 17:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If I actually were to get adminship, my page would undergo a serious rewrite. Meanwhile, I'm not changing it to benefit the type of readers who think a stick figure is an actual photograph. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This RfA is unlikely to succeed, so I would suggest that you remove that comment before your next one. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a disclaimer at the top of the page, as an aid for the humor-challenged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76. Strong oppose. Candidate seems to have little understanding of/respect for non-free image policies. This alone is enough for which to oppose- the last thing we need is another admin who doesn't care about the fact we're a free encyclopedia. Three images have been uploaded in the last month, and none of them have anything close to a real fair use rationale. It seems clear the "rationale" has been added merely so that the images will not be speedy deleted, not as a genuine explanation of why they are needed in the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand the policy much better than I used to. I used to think it had to do with the legal concept of fair use. Someone finally explained it wasn't that, it's to do with Wikipedia's own policy, specifically that any image posted here essentially becomes fodder for the world. Hence the concern about giving free reign to uploading non-free images. Meanwhile, I'd like to know which specific images you're talking about, so I can do something about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your three most recent ones are the ones to which I was referring- File:Sportsmans Park Waxman P99994 crop.JPG, File:Sportsmans Park Waxman p998 crop.JPG and File:Sportsmans Park Waxman p93 crop.JPG. There is no explanation of what the images are being used to illustrate and why that needs to be illustrated (which certainly isn't obvious to me- why do they need to be illustrated so much? What specific point in the article is being illustrated here?) And why they are not replaceable (not as obvious as it first sounds- surely there are some earlier photos first published before 1923 that could be considered public domain?). J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aha. Those are needed to help resolve the contradictory information from different sources, about the outfield dimension signs at old Sportsman's Park. Mr. Waxman told me to use them however I want, as long as he's given credit for them. Is there a particular way that should be worded, then? I thought I had it covered - in fact I lifted the wording from his photo that was used (with his permission) in the article infobox. The ballpark was demolished over 40 years ago, and there would be nothing pre-1923 that could be used, since the signs didn't go up until sometime around the late 1930s. Fair use is the only way, and this is really more like "free use with one condition", however you would classify that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I will reply on your talk page, to save cluttering the RfA with unneeded comments. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

77. Oppose. There's too much of an attitude for me to trust him, and I couldn't even begin to link to all of the instances of that. I really think it would just make for a controversial adminship. DreamHaze (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Oppose -- Per above, the editor needs to learn from his past mistakes. A admin should no polices well and how to handle situations without an attitude.--₮RUCӨ 21:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Oppose Professional dramamonger. On top of that, the last thing Wikipedia needs is more 13 year old admins. Jtrainor (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After all this discussion, if you still believe that 13 1/2 stuff, are you really qualified to be voting here? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, that one got me to LOL... Jtrainor, without rehashing the issue, you might want to strike your age criticism...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I should assume good faith and assume he was just being funny. As opposed to myopic or otherwise debilitated. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I think we are seeing an example of what deep research some !voters do into RfA candidates. Too funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reminds me that I need to admit that I'm almost 4...in dog years, of course. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, see, that's the thing... I should have made it clear from the get-go that 13 1/2 is in rabbit years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

80. Weak oppose. I just cannot support an editor for adminship where there is this much drama. Administrators represent Wikipedia and to be a successful one, you need to handle tough situations. Age has nothing to do with my decision, by the way. Malinaccier P. (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Strong oppose Age has nothing to do with this. You generally cite opinion before policy in cases at ANI (where you spend far too much time) and at AfDs and other places I've seen you. Posts like this show either ignorance of, or blatant disregard of policies and guidelines such as this. As per A.B.'s question, your lack of cleanup in the fields that you say you'll work in is notable. I've never seen anything from you (opinions or policy interpretion) regarding spam, promotion, external links, etc, so I have no idea how you'll be able to handle these. Judging from what you say about articles in general, I have to say that you would let the flood gates open a little too widely for Wikipedia's own good. Themfromspace (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's why I asked him those questions. Incidentally, another editor concluded the film in question is notable. It's a slippery issue, and I would rather err on the inclusionist side. However, when I run into spam or self-promotion, I usually take the deletionist side, although I'm kind of gun-shy about that after having been shouted down at ANI a year ago when a self-promoter suceeded in promoting a limited-edition CD of his. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I struck out my "strong" oppose per your comments above. You should try to work with spammers a bit more, even if it is a thankless job and they often times harass you for removing their links. Interacting with these types of users who feel that their site is entitled to be on Wikipedia should season you up for the admin post in which you'd be dealing with them a bit more often and with more authority. Themfromspace (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't that the spammer harassed me - it was that he got support from others and shouted down my objections on the ANI page. There's no point in trying to defeat spam if they're officially allowed to get away with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, there was no "working with" the spammer. He was there to sell his product, and he succeeded in getting his advertising posted. He was a red-link who did no other work, and disappeared once he got what he wanted, thanks to the help of other, complicit editors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82. Oppose It will be a net negative in Wikipedia based on the candidate's attitude on this RfA alone.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Moved to opposeJust scanning your work, but especially your user page, which may have prejudiced me, makes me cautious about supporting this RfA. While normally I do not not support anyone who has been here a "while" and put in a "good" amount of work, I have concerns about your general maturity level, and whether you would be so suited for adminship. In addition, I have another concern, which I shall ask in the form of a question. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Reaffirm" neutral, still leaning oppose. I'm in the mentality of A.B. right now; "I am worried that you will be one of that 5% of admins that cause 95% of our admin drama." I'll wait a while until I can think this over and decide then. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administration is an important responsibility, and whether I get the job or not, I will make a serious effort to tone down the rhetoric in the future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it over while offline during the past hour, and I'm moving to oppose. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to opposeWhile I really think you've put in an excellent amount of work into the encyclopedia, I find the December 2007 block mentioned above unsettling as well as the points brought up by NuclearWarfare and A. B. Additionally, I agree with A. B., that you may be part of the "5% of admins that cause 95% of our admin drama". I would strongly support you if it were not for the issues mentioned above. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over the reasons given above, and well, because of the above arguments, I am moving to oppose. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral for now, leaning to oppose. A variety of things unsettle me. Almost no use of edit summaries. My own vaguely unpleasant interaction with you in 2007; that's insignificant enough and old enough to not be a big factor, but it did get me to look at this RfA more closely. This Rush Limbaugh joke earlier this month which shows poor BLP judgement for an admin; I doubt Limbaugh or most others care much about it, but we do need to bend over backwards on anything BLP-related. This recent exchange about an ANI case -- I don't have the full story, but what I read doesn't look great. I am worried that you will be one of that 5% of admins that cause 95% of our admin drama. Hopefully, as this RfA unfolds, I'll be more reassured. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   moving tangental discussion related to edit summaries to talk page.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Good arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson, but weak argment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson (a case of WP:JNN). So one good, one not so good. Regarding the block log, on one hand they were all back in 2007; however, the two blocks were for harassment and I have a zero tolerance of harassment. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A Nobody, you have the same AFD discussion linked twice. Which one is incorrectly linked? Horologium (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral based on personal experience. Will probably eventually switch to support, but found the editor a little overbearing in our discussions at Nolan Ryan. However, I'm probably going to conclude he's a net positive.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I've only really come across Bugs at ANI, where he makes a lot of contributions, and displays plenty of knowledge, both of procedure, and of historical admin actions. As I've mentioned in other RfAs, I think humour is important to an admin. All that being said, I can't judge how Bugs will work on the non-ANI sections of the admin role that he said he will focus on, because I can't see much evidence of working at and around NPP, CSD, RPP, AIV etc. --GedUK  15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Of those you mention, by far the most experience has been at AIV, usually on a when-I-see-it basis, such as a few minutes ago when yet another User:Ron liebman sock was dispatched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It's responses like that, that demonstrate such good knowledge of past troublesome users that really tempt me to moving to support. I will think on this a bit longer. --GedUK  15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   So far today I've dealt with at least 3 Liebman socks, so I'm getting plenty of practice at AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Only 1 known Liebman sock today. Maybe he's tapering off, for Lent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Neutral - I see Bugs around a lot at ANI and similar locations; his sense of humour has earned a chuckle from me now and again, but some of his comments when he's being more serious make me hesitate to think he'd do well with the tools. His comments in this discussion make me wary of having him able to work on deletion discussions - referring to "deletionists" whose "whose mission in life here is to destroy rather than to create"... that kind of viewpoint concerns me. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral, (but a weak one). Don't wan't to "step on the rabbits' (big) feet by voting oppose" and neither want to "kiss them with my support" for just one lo(o)n(e)ly reason: I'm not really sure how his humor would affect his adminship but if he makes it, he (the carrot-eating-funny-thing) will have my support and maybe even a fresh carrot off and on.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral Recall is a hideous procedure that makes the encyclopedia worse. Neutral per pledge to be "open" to it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral Changing to neutral from oppose. Reasons given above. Antivenin 10:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral — My interactions with Baseball Bugs in the past have been positive, but the opposes listed above are too heavy for me to support at this time. — RyanCross (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral per Tony Fox. I like BB very much, having worked with him a good while back on the Apollo moon hoax article when he was still Wahkeenah. We do need more admins who are real people rather than clones. I wish I could support him. However some (not by any means all) of the opposers have made good points. I am confident BB will learn from these and I look forward to !voting support in June 2009 or thereabouts. --John (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral (switched from support). After looking through the opposes in more detail, this user seems to cause a lot of drama and has had a few too many questionable comments/moments. Oren0 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral I'd like to support since I think your intent usually seems to be right and you do lots of good work, but there are just too many examples where your wording could be considered to be adding to the problem rather than helping toward a solution. I like your positive attitude toward the constructive criticism presented and hopefully down the track I'll be able to support a future RfA from you. Camw (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your constructive comments. I'm getting lots of good advice on my approach to things. I've never been formally subjected to an RfC (which is what this has kind of turned into), so there is lots of food for thought here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an RfC... there is no expectation or sanction at the end of the process... only whether or not you should be promoted to admin. But I am glad that you are listening to the comments... take them to heart, and come back again in 6 months or so... I say 6 months because based on the nature of the opposes, I don't think 3 months will be enough time for you to address the concerns. 3 months is the general guideline when dealing with lack of knowledge/experience/minor mistakes. 6 months is more apt when dealing with character/personality issues---you have to make the changes and then demonstrate that the changes are not temporary. 6 months, based upon the opposes here, is a probably a minimum.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The content is kind of like an RfC. I've observed a few of those, and they can get pretty bad, but that stands to reason given the likely outcome. This is more of a "pass/fail" kind of thing. 6, 12, 18 months - that will all depend on when or if someone decides to place a nomination again. I never sought this, and I will continue not to seek it, but if someone asks after a reasonable interval, I'll read through this megillah and see if I want to put myself through it again. :) A longer time period is probably advisable for another reason: The 3 editors who just want me off the ANI page so they can have more fun using it as their contentious playground, the odds are good they will be banned eventually. And since I'll be staying away from ANI (unless I have a case to file), I shouldn't make any new enemies that way, and the slate should be fairly clean. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Sentimental Neutral Baseball Bugs was one of the first editors I ever worked with on Wikipedia in a collaboration, along with W. marsh, nigh on three years ago in dealing with the Matt Leinart Vandal. I cannot support, but I cannot oppose, and I thank the user for helping me in getting involved in the inner workings of Wikipedia. Keegan^talk 04:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take that as a nice way of saying that you learned from my mistakes. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. Neutral I try not to read the ANI page regularly to the point where I can pick out distinct personalities; I don't want to be able to pick out personalities on the ANI page. I think it should be for sincere discussion about editor and article problems, quickly and efficiently handled, not drawn out with all the hurt feelings and demands for apologies from users with fragile self-concepts. Baseball Bugs defies my efforts because he pipes in to add what appears he thinks is humor to discussions, giving him a distinct personality when it is not warranted. I understand this; I am a hoot to be sure, and some of the hardest lessons I have had to learn is that being a hoot is called for in limited circumstances. I get the impression that this is the only way Baseball Bugs can relate to people. He may not be 13 1/2 years old, but having that on one's user page and supporting that belief with behavior does not instill confidence in users. I would not go to him if I saw that. I would not think he would be able to understand my issues. I have had no interactions with this user, however, and remain neutral instead of opposing his RfA. This is a rough RfA to read. Mine was a rough RfA to read. I hope Baseball Bugs takes the commentary and uses it for sincere reflection, coming out a better editor for it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not realistic to expect admins to ignore individuals as if they've never seen them before, nor is it appropriate... nor do they, in practice. Troublesome users become widely known among admins, and the especially bothersome ones (like the one starting with g and ending with p) are legendary, so to speak. I tend not to remember names all that well, as evidenced when someone says, "Don't you remember this discussion we had 6 weeks ago?" No, not really, show me the diffs. But through repeated exposure some of them begin to look familiar. I have many baseball articles on my watch list, which seems daunting, but when checking it I've got a pretty good sense from experience as to which user edits to trust and which ones to check on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    An interesting response. I had to read it a few times, and I am not sure it corresponds to my comment. Though, in another way, it unintentionally does. The "g and ending with p" comment I had to guess was Grawp. Why not say the name? Surely he is not like Voldemort, who must be referred to as "He Who Must Not Be Named". I think you were speaking informally, as a *wink* aside. This is my point: communication at ANI should be brief and to the point, done, move on the next. Instead it is full of chaff (insult) chaff (I'm funny) chaff (you suck) honest protest chaff (I demand an apology) chaff (this place sucks and I'm leaving). Perhaps we should just initiate a strikethrough campaign to get rid of all the chaff at AN and ANI. What energy could be used then to improve articles! --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, for one thing, it's a pain to type those strikethroughs because the way I learned touch-typing, on an old standard typewriter with far fewer symbols, you have to come to a full stop and then use the Columbus system. And because this is a plain-text editor, you can't just hit a "strikethrough" button somewhere. I didn't want to mention any vandal's names due to the policy WP:DENY, but so much for that. :) I mentioned the one I've run across. The other one, luckily, I haven't. I think part of your point is that ANI has kind of become the dumping ground for all manner of complaints, drama, malcontents, etc., and in fact there has been discussion about trying to fix that, but it's easier said than done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 13 March 2009 (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.