Buggie111 (talk·contribs) – Howdy. I'd like to keep this short and sweet. After two years of editing Wikipedia (not two years of continous activity, but who's counting :p) and 7,000 edits, I've decided that the 'pedia would benefit from me having the tools. I've written twoFA's, a good topic and several other good articles. I'd mainly work in deletion, along with some other chores. And now, I leave it to you.Buggie111 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like short and sweet didn't do it :). I'd like to withdraw my request at this time, as I know have a certainity that I'm not ready to be an admin. What I see people want me to fix:
AFD/AIV etc. participation
Solid understanding of WP:IAR, a sense of creativity when following policy (gonna be kind of hard, Art was the only reason I wasn't an all A student :)...)
Copyright understanding
Proper tagging of CSD's
Sticking to my first words
I also won't be nominating myself again. I'll leave it up to someone watching me nominate me when xe feel it's going to result in a sucessful nomination. Thank you everybody, especially Kudpung, Zebedee, Fetchcomms and Fastily for clearly describing my flaws. See you later, Buggie111 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2011 (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: Not that many, thankfully. I was involved in an edit war at Ironwood High School earlier this month, where an IP and later a registered user attempted to re-add information to the article that, while fine for an article starting out, wouldn't conform to GA standards. RL and a slightly poor memory delayed my 3RR report, dragging out the reverts by the IP/user and me.
I usually attempt to back out before reporting a dispute between me and another user. On the talkpage of IHS, I stated that the article could be left as is until I could fully return to active editing. On Death of Muammar Gaddafi, where I was in a dispute with another editor over the content of a paragraph and approaching 3RR, I told the editor that I would leave the paragraph as is because I didn't have as much experience as he did in the field. Other editors later removed the paragraph.
A: I for some reason thought I made more(I said I had some memory problems above :p.) There is this and this, but even IMO, it's not enough. I've changed my nom statemnt and answer to "dabbling in other chores
5. I noticed your edit summary when transcluding this [1]. Are you employing a figure of speech there, or have you run for adminship before? If you have please provide a link.
A: Just a figure of speech. My apologies if it confused anyone.
6. Imagine you're an admin and you're patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion; you see the following new articles, their histories only contain two edits (one made by the article creator and one by the tagger) and they do not duplicate any existing English Wikipedia topic; so what do you do? [2], [3] and [4]
A: The first page would clearly be a mistagging, as it isn't about people, web content, animals or organizations. I'd subsequently tag it with either the correct speedy tag (assuming this was a different topic same mistaggging scenario), PROD it (once again, assuming different topic, same tagging scenario) or, in the case of this topic (which is notable), expand it with info from this site.
The second page is notable due to the second novel winning the Prix Mecedis. If this was another "Jane Doe wrote this which won this", I'd find out more about the award, her first novel (it said it was her second) and go from tehre.
On the third page, I'd check the CNN link and see of what caliber (so put) the murder is. Is it a prominent politician? If so, I'd expand with info from the CNN article, and consider moving to Murder of Prominent Politician, pending info on the motive. Is it a murder that recieved (inter)national coverage? If so, I'd move the article to Murder of XYZ and open an AfD. If it's just a plain old QuickieMart murder, I'd delete.
6. I would like to get to know your performance better as a possible admin. The following questions will help me determine to give me a better insight on your abilities. You are a Wikipedia admin that has come across an IP vandal that happens to be vandalizing an article just after a dispute between editors has been calmed. A) What do you do? B) This vandal is consistently switching IP addresses, what do you so? C) Would you have a checkuser analyze the situation to find out more information about this. D)This user is consistently changing IP addresses and is now starting to attack other editors primarily the ones involved in the edit war, what would you do?
A:Warn the IP, then block after four warnings. I'd also cehck if the IP was editing the same topics as one of the users in the edit war, and open a SPI if it seems like the IP is a sock of a user (Assuming users were blocked).
B: I'd either go and use C depending on the range of the IP's (in one general location) or semi-protect the affected article for at least a week if the IP's popping up are all over the place. I'd also take blocking action if it's obvious that proxies are involved
C: See above.
D: I'd semiprotect the users' talkpages for a short amount of time, then re-protect if the IPS continue to harass the editors..
7. You are friends with a fellow admin, this admin is very reliable and trustworthy and very rarely makes mistakes. All of a sudden, this admin starts to block random users for no reason at all. He is adding and removing rights to users left and right. He has also begun to be very disruptive. What would you do?
A: I'd report him to WP:BN for tool removal and block him.
8. You come across a general IP or registered vandal. Their first edit is vandalism or disruptive material, please describe how you would go about this.
A:I would warn the editor with a 1st level warning and watchlist their talkpage and the article they vandalised. After 4 warnings, I would block the editor for 24 hours.
9. This is the last question for now. You are reviewing an unblock request, you notice the user has been blocked for the first time or it has been a while since their last block and appeared to have learned from it. Would you grant them a second chance?
A:I don't know if you meant it, but you described two slightly different situations:
First time block: (assuming it's a registered user): I'd check to see the cause for the block, how much time has been spent on the block and how much is left. I'd also ask the user if he has done any other work on other Wiki's. If I see that the work on other wiki's has been good an/or six months has expired since the time of the block, I'd unblock. If it was a domestic (home adress) IP, I"d do what I stated above. If it's a school/organization block, I'd inform the unblockee that even if they are godo editors that the rest of their organization would act the same way. I'd tell them about making an account and how much time is left on their block.
Repeat block: I"d go through the above steps, but would take it a bit differently after the fact-checking. If it's, say, a second block in 3 years, I'd follow the above. For repeat offenders, I'd analyze their block, their attitude before the block, and the amount of unblockrequests. If it's been a long tiem since blocking, but not close to expiration, and the user has been civil etc. (basically the same as the first tiem blockee should do), I'd unblock. If it is just a protest unblock request (I wanna be unblocked cuz yur smelly), I'd review the talk page history, and, if there are other unblock requests like this, remove talkpage acess.
"Blue Yellow Green Inc. is a company that is dedicated to research.[1][2][3][4][5][6] It is the largest research company in Oregon, and has been awarded the ABC Award for Quality and the ZYX Award for dedication.[1][3][7] It is criticized because it often considered smelly!!!!!"
Google only shows 1,500 hits on the subject, yet nearly all of the Google results say "BYG Inc. is the largest research company in the state of Oregon" or similar statements. The article is currently tagged as a ((db-hoax)) article. There are two editors to the article, one who created it, and another who said "it is smelly!!!" (only one minute after creation) The writer of the article then removes the "smelly!!!" vandalism. The seventh source links to a Facebook page promoting the company; however, it lists the CEO as "Bobby Zinner," which upon a quick search of the company's official website, is not the actual CEO of the website. Further content is added to the article, citing an eighth source with more false information from the creator. However, upon further inspection of the blog, reveals it to have been created in a city in Brazil, not Oregon. You check back at the first Google search, and it is revealed that there is another source that says that the company was fake and promoted Brazil; however, it is a MySpace page; while you stumble upon another webpage (called blueyellowgreenresearchco.org), claiming the company had shut down. However, the MySpace page was created after the .org site. What would you do? (I've used this question in several RfAs.)
A:Firstly, I'd check if there were any reliable sources about the topic. If there were, I'd replace the poor sources with better ones and decline the speedy. However, if their wern't any, the false CEO name, vandalism and generally hoax-like info added would cause me to delete. Buggie111 (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. You have stated three times in this RfA that you have a poor memory / memory problems. How would this affect your work as an administrator?
A: Not that much. Might forget which sandbox of mine I wanted to expand, but not farther than that. It's really just a joke that was taken at face value.
12. To part-borrow a question you once asked on an RfA: Don't want to be sticking my nose into personal business, but how would you explain the bursts and hiatuses in your editing?
A:Gladly. Hiatuses are as follows: 6-10 to 8-10=summer vacation. 1-11 to 3-11=crunch time for National History Day. 6-11 to 8-11=summer vacation.
13. Give a few examples/categories of articles that may be included on Wikipedia despite their not having qualified on GNG and despite their not having a hope to qualify on GNG in the distant future too?
A:Articles whose deletion may have negative effects throughout the media (I remember seeing some rants on the web about the deletion of Star Parker, I used this rationale on the AfD of Murder of Deriek Crouse. (I will be adding more to this in the morning.)
14. Would you recommend an immediate block too in your answer to question 7 or would you limit yourself to recommending tool removal?
A:Yes. Sorry for not making that clear.
Additional question from Katarighe
15. What about reviewing unblock requests for unblocked users?
A:Yes, I'd participate in that. Question 9 covers it as to what I'd do in a specific situation.
By that, do you mean that admins can't remove the bit from other admins? I remember reading that after Robdurbar went rouge that was added to admins' powers, but that they'd be desysopped after removal automatically. Buggie111 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid if admins had a desysop button I haven't yet found it. I'd certainly abuse it :) Desysopping rights only got given to 'crats a few months ago. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They say that memory is the second thing to go when you grow old. Answer amended. Buggie111 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your answer to Q1 is a bit vague – PRODs, AfDs, or CSDs – but it isn't of major concern. I've always seen Buggie111 as civil and patient, and content creation is always a plus. HurricaneFan25 — 21:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I have a few concerns about your AfD votes they aren't particularly serious. You seem like a competent editor who understands the most important part of wikipedia well, i.e. content creation. With your intelligent answers to the questions and your sense of humour (often sadly lacking at WP these days...) convince me you'll be an excellent admin. On a side note, I'd like to say that this RfA contains some of the most irritating and unhelpful questions and, quite frankly, stupid opposes I've ever seen. Harland1 (t/c) 03:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buggie111 is a good editor who I think can be trusted to use the tools sensibly. Some of the above answers to questions seem a bit under-developed, but the questions are also awkwardly phrased and there's no expectation that new admins will be an expert in all areas of admin-ship when they first get the tools (that's what the new admin school is for) as long as they're level-headed and cautious, which I think is the case here. Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nick-D. While I agree that the question for number one isn't that great I doubt that Buggie111 would abuse the tools. I'm in the opinion that administrators who are clearly experts in their subjects should become administrators. Kudpung oppose is concerning, but the other opposes I'm confused about, and oppose two is bordering on absurd. Secretaccount 04:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I always had good dealings with this editor so I see no reason to oppose. --Kumioko (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Clearly a dedicated contributor and will likely do a very good job. I have to be honest and say that Kudpung's oppose does concern me somewhat, but I think Buggy will internalize it and be more cautious in the future. For that reason, I'm supporting this RfA. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support You know..., I have not !voted in RfA or been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I am very alarmed by the fact that you can now nitpick anything you don't like about the candidate just to oppose now. In 2007, you would not see anyone opposing a candidate for running RfA before christmas, or not archiving talk pages. Kudpung is the only person here that gave somewhat of a reasonable reason to oppose, but it's nothing too serious for me to oppose. 山本一郎 (会話) 05:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for something that would lead me to oppose, but couldn't find any that resonated with me. I think Buggie111 will make a good sysop, nevermind xe's worrying answer to q13. Furthermore I feel compelled to cancel out Snottywong's assumption of bad faith and otherwise ridiculous oppose. Merry Christmas! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Fetchcomms below, please do pay attention to copyright, especially regarding the NFCC (Wikipedia internal copyvios, while unacceptable, are less worrying). That said, your answer below shows that you are willing to accept your mistakes and learn from them, so I won't retract my support. Thank you for fixing the other pages, good luck in your RfA, and Merry Christmas! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, good. Caution is generally preferable to over-confidence. Deb (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Ed!(talk) 18:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Good editor who has less non-automated edits. I appreciate his questions and answers really well. I really see that there is no reason to oppose with that. I think that user can run himself for a sysop this time. He won't misuse the tools but he can use them sensibly. He is a long-time editor and has been to Wikipedia for 2 years. Yes, he is good and he can use the tools more caution. Get him a mop for to do so. Kindly regards --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have worked with this user and I think he wouldn't abuse the tools.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Lowish edit count, but there's no way he would be an untrustworthy administrator, but rather a responsible and competent one. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support.'– SJ + 14:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like your friendly userpage. Your answers to the questions above show to me that you understand adminship. I think that the people who oppose you for lack of experience in admin-related functions have a valid concern, and while I do think it would have been nice for you to have more experience, for me you are on the low end of enough. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I evaluate RFA candidates, the first place I look is talk page history, so I can evaluate your history as a communicator. You've chosen to not provide a talk page history to evaluate. That's your right -- it's your talk page and you're allowed to delete its contents -- but this practice would make you difficult to work with as an administrator. Townlake (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a comment about my archive? I have added a link now from my main talk along with a search option. Buggie111 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Hope to see you back here in a few months. Best wishes. Townlake (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Deletions! The cornerstone of any nutritious WP:RfA! Here's Buggie this morning: three template notifications to editors of speedy deletion noms, evidently got from hitting F5 on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and all without any contact with articles' nominators (example: [[5]]). So whatever it is that Buggie defines as "dabbling" I really don't want go there. Scanty comprehension of admin role evident in the vague and iffy short and sweets to the first questions. Contributions to User:White Shadows' articles show almost no substantive edits to text. Ability to coherently express self in writing not proven: [[6]]. An entirely expected userpage. Plutonium27 (talk)
Clarification: re your contributions to the articles you named. Both were started by you - all credit for that - and you helped with fixing but the substantive parts of the articles are a long way from your beginnings both in substantive text and in referencing. I also noticed that some sentences and turns of phrase contributed by you seem beyond your usual abilities with clarity and fluency of expression. This is not any kind of accusation of plaigarism. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to understand your oppose. Do you mean I should start writing personal messages to creators of CSD articles? I use twinkle to automatically write the warning on their talkpages instead of trying to juggle two tabs at once. I haven't only edited articles "by" White Shadows, see Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895), which was written almost entirely by me. I don't understand what's wrong with my userpage. Buggie111 (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've decided to run your RfA during the time of year when the very least number of regular editors will be around to look into your history and vote. There are only two explanations for this decision: 1, you didn't realize that it might not be a great idea to start your RfA 2 days before christmas, or 2, you strategically started your RfA 2 days before christmas to minimize participation. Either way, I oppose. If I can actually find some time to review your contributions before the RfA ends, I might change my vote. Otherwise, try again during a better time.—SW—comment 00:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's partially case number one. The four periods of time in the year I can run my RfA are: Mid-March, Late May, Early August and now. Late May might not have enough time, early August is always after tow months of inactivity. That leaves mid-march and now. My apologies to all who feel that this time of year is a poor one to open RfAs. Buggie111 (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Actually, I just checked your AfD contributions and you've only contributed to a mere 22 AfD's. That is far, far less than what is required to fully understand the nuances of deletion, and I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who is so inexperienced at AfD's when their stated area of interest includes AfD. Come back when you've voted in about 10 times more AfD's. —SW—comment 00:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now -- You have done great work in Wikipedia, but but I don't think you're ready for admin just yet due to your lack of activity with less than 1000 edits per month. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 00:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
moved to support, i understand already with the user --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this user has some WP:COMPETENCE issues, possibly caused by an poor understanding of the English language. I've tried to talk to them about it several times to no avail. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following a review of his contributions, he has less than 100 edits per month, so I oppose this situation for now. This is nothing against you personally but I'm showing my arguments. I like his questions and his answers and I see a strong contributor to the encyclopedia here but he can do it. Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 16:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? I think you're addicted to your edit count because you think people will count it as a positive point when you run for adminship. The quality – not quantity – of a users' contributions matter more. HurricaneFan25 — 16:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not to increase edit count. I'm showing is main arguments and his understanding. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you have made a statement that makes no sense and demonstrates an extremely poor understanding of the English language. If you insist in participating here you are going to need to be able to make statements that can be understood by others. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Katarighe, until about early 2011, I shyed away from automated tools. My usage shows they are only 2% of my total count, about 187. Your's, on the otehr hand, are 28%, or about 2,700. My edits thus are much less per month. Buggie111 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I understood what you are saying about you becoming an administrator. I'm actually assuming you in good faith. You are actually active in 2 years. I think its actually not a joke but I appreciate what you are understanding and paying attention this to me. You actually have a clear history with the block log, no disruption and you're ready to go. I have no objection on your userpage and you've certainly been part of the Wikipedia community long enough to be an admin here and we can support you on becoming one. Kindly regards --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Having reviewed your recent deletions, I find your A3 tagging to be too fast, while others fall very short of the mark for an accurate criterion, and some pages, particularly attack, and vandalism/hoax, that should clearly have been deleted but where you only applied maintenance tags. (see list on talk page). I'm sure that these are only momentary lapses, but they are too many for recent patrolling and reflect on your ability to assess other patrollers' CSDs accurately and whether you will check taggers' tags before deleting. I also find that among your 20 or so !votes at AfD that a hit of 72.7% does not adequately reflect that you will be able to close AfDs with confidence. Where candidates have taken an interest in participatiing at RfAs, I also take it into my assessment and considering your own situation (16 edits to AIV) I'm rather surprised at the comments [7], [8] and this !vote. You have made valuable creations with your articles on battleships and you have demonstrate that you know what creation and mainspace editing is all about, however, I'm sorry, but I do not feel that you are ready to face the challenges of adminship at this time, but I would like to see you try again in 6 months or so when you have more clearly demonstrated your knowledge of deletion and AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User either has no regard for, or no knowledge of, the requirements of the CC-BY-SA. Portal:American football/Selected team/6 and related pages were created without attribution to the source text. A successful administrator must possess a strong knowledge of copyright on Wikipedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly confused. Must portal pages contain a CC-BY-SA notice on each page? Most of the feautred portals don't have them, yet copy word for word from other wikipedia pages. I was just following what I saw in other portal pages. Buggie111 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's technically right, though. CC-BY-SA requires attribution, no matter how other portals do it and what not. There is plenty of copyright violations from Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Anyways, I fixed the page Fetch linked to as well as 5 others. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My lesson learned. I'll get to fixing other pages ASAP. Buggie111 (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen any portal page go this far in attributing, and the FP requirements don't mention it. It's a bit unfair to hold someone to a standard no one else does, and I'd suggest proposing a change in the portal rules before opposing here. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the answers to the questions (eg: no block in question 7; rigid insistence on 4 warnings in the vandalism questions) and the Homer Langrill and onemorelesbian.com misses demonstrate you're not quite there yet. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to argue for the most part, but see #14 for your first point being adresseed.Buggie111 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the clean block log, have no objection to the userpage and you've certainly been part of the community long enough to be an admin. I'm not at all bothered by the timing of the run, and happy with the way you responded to the archiving issue. However Kudpung and Fetchcomms raise issues about deletion and copyvio and those are things where I prefer to see a couple of months editing before a subsequent run. On the deletion front I'd also point out that deletion is not necessary when a duplicate article can be made into a useful redirect. ϢereSpielChequers 11:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User lacks the requisite knowledge to be an admin - believes that tools can be removed by other admins. Hipocrite (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this time, with moral support. I see a strong contributor to the encyclopedia here, but I don't think you're ready for admin just yet. It's really the answers to the questions, which sound like they're a bit "rote" as if taken directly from reading policy pages, rather than displaying experience of having seen examples like those given. The obvious example is the "4 warnings" thing - there are plenty of cases where disruptive editors should be blocked with fewer warnings (or even none at all). Some of the other questions, in my opinion, really needed "It depends - if x, then I'd do one thing, but if y, I'd do something else" answers - some of the questions do not have fixed "correct" answers in my opinion, and I'd really want to see a bit more reasoning and explanation rather than just an attempt at a straight answer. It's just lack of depth of experience, I think - following AIV for a while will help you see the various ways vandals are dealt with, and following articles at CSD should help tighten up your deletion approach (though the latter will also show you some, erm, varied approaches from admins!) I look forward to being able to support a future run -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if the answers to the questions demonstrated perfect understanding & comprehension my own judgement would still cause me to oppose this candidacy at this time. Leaky Caldron 13:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for right now. Answers to questions show a working understanding of policy but not the creativity and vision that may be required under WP:IAR. Simply put, I feel confident that the tools would be used according to written policy but we need creative Admins more than we need AdminBots (who follow the letter of the policy but not the spirit). Along with the above comments, I'd like to see more participation in the Admin Sphere (like the AIV, AfD, RFPP, UAA and RM you said you'd dabble in) to get the experience to know when to Ignore All the Rules and when and which specific Rules to Ignore. -Achowat (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Concerns with experience, judgement, policy knowledge, and technical knowledge. I'm also concerned with your ability to communicate. Several times in this RfA, you made several substantial statements about yourself which you personally did not fully endorse. When asked about them, you gave less than satisfactory responses, and proceeded to amend those statements where possible. This is not the type of conduct I like to see in administrators. Watch what you say, and stand by it. -FASTILY(TALK) 21:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in line with comments above regards policy knowledge, low experience in areas you said you wished to use admin tools, inadequate answers. Not ready to be an admin at this time. Chzz ► 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis of inadequate experience. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fastily articulates my sentiments exactly.--Hokeman (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice editor but needs more experience, as enough editors have commented with documentation. Good luck in 6 months! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good content creation contributions, but not enough experience in admin-related areas. I am particularly worried by the intention to "dabble at AIV, AfD, RFPP, UAA and RM". The brief nomination statement doesn't help either. Axl¤[Talk] 19:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per relative lack of experience. And going forward, to amend statements made at RFA without using WP:Strikethrough is bad form, as well. This is one forum where editors need to easily see what was said, and what has been changed, in the candidate's replies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kudpung. He phrased it quite nicely- I can't support a candidate who says that he wants to participate in areas that he has little to no experience in. You have almost no contributions at UAA, RfPP and AIV, and have few !votes at AfD (with an accuracy that's a bit low for my tastes).--Slon02 (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. You have some good content-building experience and could make a fine admin someday. However, you have little experience in the admin-related areas you want to participate in, and it shows in answers to questions above (6A, 8, 10, 13), recent CSD actions, and copyright issues in Portal:American football. If you want to be an admin I'm confident you can get the experience needed for good judgment in these areas. I have no issue with the time of year you came here. Lagrange613 15:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see more depth in your the answers to the questions, particularly question 1. Prodegotalk 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to oppose. Has a serious problem understanding the principles of archiving talk pages. As an admin, his talk records will need to be readily accessible, with a link on the live talk page, and with somewhat fewer than chunks of over 450 messages that force people to wade through the page history. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to change to better solution, please see now. Buggie111 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, it's just an observation. I will be changing my !vote when I have finished in an hour or so.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to divide the archive into more than one huge and inaccessible page. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This user has good and bad traits that seem to cancel each other out. I can't decide if I should oppose or support for the time being. Perhaps someone could give me something that will let me give a definitive decision.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)
NeutralThis user is not fit to be admin per above.--Ankit MaityTalk • contribs 05:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Candidate certainly has good traits, but I have some issues over competence, especially with deletion, so I'm neutral. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 16:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am torn between opposing and supporting --MerryChristmasfromGuerillero 07:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you're a great editor and would indeed be an asset as an admin. That being said, an admin needs to know a great load of information (about deletion, copyright, etc.), some of which you haven't fully grasped yet. Please don't be discouraged, Airplaneman ✈ 18:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Head's in the right place and the motivation is genuine, but based on your answers, I think you need a bit more experience. I will say, though, that some of the standards you are being held to seem a bit high. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with your comment about standards --Guerillero | My Talk 18:44, 26 December 2011 (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.