Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 10 March 2009

Baseball Bugs

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (50/42/7); Scheduled to end 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Baseball Bugs 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be an incredible bit of karma if the final score turned out to be 96-95. Baseball Bugs 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 and conflicts of interest . In a good way. Baseball Bugs 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 14:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

A: Aside from the work in item 1, I go back to the reason I came to Misplaced Pages 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 20:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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 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 Misplaced Pages as reliable an information go-to as we possibly can. Baseball Bugs 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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. 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions from KnightLago

8. I noticed this comment earlier today, where an IP on a highly visible and controversial talk page asked "Are Misplaced Pages 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 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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 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 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Question from — neuro

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 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Question from Ray

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 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 20:18, 10 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)

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 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• 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 Bugs&lang=en here.
• That summary usage link doesn't seem to be working. :( Baseball Bugs 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Several of the toolserver accounts seem to be down (some have been for days). Wikichecker for Bugs and soxred are functional. — Ched ~ 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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 00:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Discussion

• 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 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I confirm. Baseball Bugs 00:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe I am the culprit here. I've replied on the talk page — Ched ~ 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • 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)
• Hey, heading close to that 96-95 total, huh? MuZemike 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And it's only Tuesday. A participation graph by day would be an interesting stat. Baseball Bugs 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You should get a pretty graph from User:Neurolysis when it ends! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to clear this up, Baseball Bugs is not actually 13 and a half. –Juliancolton 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  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)

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

• 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)
  • On the other hand, it'll make an interesting question on somebody's RfB. –Juliancolton 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

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 ~ 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 /C 23:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Sharp, experienced, funny, tough. One of those editors that you assume is an administrator already. This flag once was red_deeds 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - I have no concerns that Baseball Bugs would abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
8. Support Looks very well-qualified. -download | sign! 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

12. Support; of course. Antandrus (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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! 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 01:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)

    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)

    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 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

    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 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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 /_{Contributions} 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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\ 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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 03:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Fear not, it will end well, no matter which way it goes. Either way, there will be lessons learned. :) Baseball Bugs 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

24. Support — Overdue. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
27. Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)

    Thirteen and a half. That's a very important distinction. :) Baseball Bugs 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

29. Support. Hah, sure. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
31. Support because Misplaced Pages 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)
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 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. Knows where his towel is. yandman 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support, wondered when I'd see this user up here. Active, knowledgeable and likely to be a net positive with the tools. Bencherlite 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support, sure. --Kbdank71 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)

    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

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 13:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
41. Support - An editor of great thoughtfulness and integrity. Badagnani (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
43. Support EdBever (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. Scarian 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    If 13 year olds shouldn't be admins, what about 9 year olds? Or perhaps 8? –Juliancolton 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Huh? If he thinks 13 year olds shouldn't be admins, then I think it is safe to say that applies to people even younger than 13? I suspect you misread his comment?---I'm Spartacus! 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I have no opinion on the general appropriateness of minors as admins, as it would seem to be a case-by-case judgment. However, it's clear that, at minimum, an admin should be able to read and write English (for this site, anyway), and be able to use a computer. That should at least weed out the kindergartners, with the exception of some very exclusive schools. Baseball Bugs 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    WP:SARCASM –Juliancolton 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Back in the good old days, we had many excellent admins who were minors. Age isn't an issue; maturity is. Hermione1980 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    The good old days - the early 2000s. So what happened to them? Other than finally turning 18? Baseball Bugs 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Burned out, for the most part, unfortunately. Hermione1980 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Burned out, in their teen years? Yikes. Too many slings and arrows. Baseball Bugs 21:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I meant wikiburnout, not necessarily real-life burnout, which are definitely two different things. :-) Hermione1980 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I understood that. Still, it could be good training for a career in politics, or corporate life. Baseball Bugs 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps the issue is that minors are stereotyped and disregarded, and are forced to leave. Regardless, I have indeed noticed that adults are fast becoming the predominant "species" on Misplaced Pages. –Juliancolton 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've had some good discussions with minors here, including some who were admins. And some were jerks. I would say the same for the adults. It's case-by-case.. Baseball Bugs 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Precisely. –Juliancolton 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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! 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
49. support Admin bit is no big deal (I thought I saw a puddy tat) Verbal chat 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I think you have a good heart and a sense of humor. However, according to your user page, you're 13. 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 a 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)

   Yes, I know we've had this debate before, but often age has no or little correlation with maturity. — neuro 01:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   God, not this ageism stuff again... –Juliancolton 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   Hahaha, shit, I just realised he proceeded to say "I found a Wayback Machine at Wal*Mart for under $100. I've been everywhere, man; I've been everywhere People talk about what sign they were born under: Krusty the Krab" - I can tell Bugs is deadly serious when he lists his biographical information. — neuro 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   And don't forget the self-portrait! — neuro 01:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   Also, his turn-ons apparently include faucets, televisions, and dimes. –Juliancolton 01:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   Please take away such unrelated jokes under my vote. Even if he was 26, my vote would be the same.--Caspian blue 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   I believe a few of the baseball pictures he's posted are more than 13 years old. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   You're on to me! Yes, I am significantly over 18 in human years. The 13 1/2 is a variation on an obscure Warner Brothers cartoon reference. Baseball Bugs 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm only thwee and a half years old. Plus ten.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   There ya go. And another variation, in Baseball Bugs, the pitcher for the Tea-Totallers who says he's only ninety-three and a half years old. I am actually somewhere in between those two figures. Baseball Bugs 16:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)

   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 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   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)

4. Oppose. Baseball Bugs is a rare breed around here in Misplaced Pages. 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

   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 02:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   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 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)
7. Strong Oppose - Does not have the temperament, attitude or patience to be an admin. His posts at ANI are atrocious. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

   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)

   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 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)
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 Misplaced Pages. --Buster7 (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    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 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

    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 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    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)

    Baseball Bugs 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    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)

13. Oppose per JayHenry. Hesperian 05:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. Nja 09:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose, sorry. Inadequate temperament. Húsönd 09:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Not right for the role. Mike R (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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 13:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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

20. I have a lot of admiration for the candidate's obvious intelligence, dedication and good intentions. This candidate hasn't failed; Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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.

    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)

    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-Misplaced Pages several years ago. --A. B. 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    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)

24. Oppose. Not a cool head. Good editor who should not be an admin. AKAF (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)

    I have pretty much done just that since the Sunday night WND siege, and you're right. Baseball Bugs 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

    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 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    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! 20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

    Caden, could you provide some links for reference?---I'm Spartacus! 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

    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)

31. I agree that this editor's mentality may not make for a suitable admin. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)

    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)

    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)

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! 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! 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages boring. -kotra (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose per Spartacus and Kotra. Willking1979 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)

    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! 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)

    Hey! I am never vulgar. An' I don't speak Latin, neither. Baseball Bugs 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    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)

40. Weak oppose - too much drama on WP:ANI. PhilKnight (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
42. Strong Oppose. Absofreakinlutely not. Tan | 39 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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)

"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)

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 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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. 00:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   moving tangental discussion related to edit summaries to talk page.---I'm Spartacus! 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Good arguments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson, but weak argment at Misplaced Pages: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 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)

   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 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   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)

   So far today I've dealt with at least 3 Liebman socks, so I'm getting plenty of practice at AIV. Baseball Bugs 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)