Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buggie111 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Buggie111

[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (5/12/3); ended 15:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. Mike V • Talk 15:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Buggie111 (talk · contribs) – Editors of the English Wikipedia (and invited guests), I have the pleasure of nominating Buggie111 for Adminship here on the English Wikipedia. Buggie111 has been around the project for upwards of six years, and in that time has amassed a number of edits to across Wikipedia on a wide variety of subjects. He is a former Military history Wikiproject Coordinator, and as such comes into this RFA with a background in housekeeping and routine maintenance tasking, which is useful for administrative candidates here since it better prepares them to hit the ground running such as it were. Buggie111 self nominated for adminship back in 2011, but this request was withdrawn at his request after it became apparent that the community thought him unready to handle the tools. In the time since his last RFA, Buggie has worked to address the issues raised, and it is in difference to his editorial capabilities and his sense of judgement that I offered to nominate him for adminship. While his edit count will show a drastic reduction in time spent here over the last few years, the time in question corresponds with his time in university, which has been a leading reason why editors have been active here schizophrenically since the project was first created back in '01, and given that he has expressed an interest in becoming an admin at a time when the administrators corps badly needs experienced editors willing to step up that I am certain that he will be asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you, happy to accept the nomination. One thing I'd like to mention is that the absence corresponds to high school, not university. However, I am near certain my courseload in the upcoming years will be manageable and will allow for, among other things, the responsibilities of the mop. Buggie111 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this went nowhere fast. Now I know what it's like to be a Denver Broncos fan.Going to have to withdraw at this time.

Before I go, I'd like to express my surprise, to put it nicely, at the fact that the opposes here aren't about inexperience/errors in my deletion work, but are about inactivity. Mkdw , I see nothing in that link about maintaining activity. Although I had doubts about this nomination back when TomStar approached me last month, I thought that the fact I was active in 2010-2012 (with significant contributions and a solid grasp of deletion) would be more than enough to demonstrate knowledge and experience to the community so that we could move on to the real parts of RfA, such as opposing based on signature color and talk page archives. However, I've gotten several quasi-canned opposes about lack of activity, linking me to NOTNOW. Bums me out a bit that, as VegasCasinoKid mentioned, some people consider me a new editor with little judgement. I understand that policy does change over time, but at a pace that wouldn't be hard to catch up to. It seemingly isn't as easy as setting aside a few hours to re-read the notability guidelines, WP:V, and the like.

I still intend to return to the project in both maintenance and content areas (obviously at a lower rate than May 2010), and within a few months will talk over a third nomination with Tomstar, ed, as well as a couple of editors from my first RfA. As for now, I've got to go and work on this commitment thingamajig. RfHolyMatrimony has high standards, and I've got to practice. Buggie111 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I feel comfortable taking part in both CSD and AfD (which is what most of my non-content edits have been), and I believe that I have sufficient experience there, as well as a good knowledge of WP:N and related guidelines. I would continue to participate in these areas as an administrator.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) and SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand are two FA's I put a lot of time into. Battle of Caldera Bay is what I was last working on, and a project I should finish. SMS Zrínyi, SMS Árpád, SMS Babenberg, SM UB-50 are some other articles I have worked on, along with other users.
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: I honestly don't know. I'd mention the two incidents I talked about in my previous RFA, but they look quite minor in hindsight.
Additional question from Mkdw
4. Do you believe being "active" (as described at WP:RFAADVICE) is an essential part of becoming a sysop? Please explain why or why not.
A:
Additional questions from Ceradon
5a. Most of the opposes are based on your recent activity. Fair enough. But before I jump to any conclusions I have a few questions around the most complicated facets of adminship: blocking, protecting, deleting; and perhaps a question or two on your philosophy of Wikipedia.. First one: User:MagnoliasCafe creates an article, Magnolia's Café. Over the course of a few days, the article has been deleted (A7) and recreated by the user, deleted again (A7 + G11), and now you've stumbled on the again recreated article. Nothing is on MagnoliasCafe's talk page besides CSD notifications. The article qualifies beyond question under A7 and G11. Yet.... MagnoliasCafe has uploaded extremely high quality images to Commons (FP-level quality). The images are self-sourced and freely licensed pictures of scenery around the café and foods and drinks served there. What steps do you, as an admin, take?
A:
5b. You stumble across a fierce edit war. User:IAmRightBelieveMe has been using sockpuppets (2-3, maybe 4) to further their stance and edit the article, and another group of editors revert IAmRightBelieveMe and his sockpuppets at every step. Yet, it appears the IAmRightBelieveMe is correct, and has provided countless reliable, independent sources to support their stance. The users that are reverting IAmRightBelieveMe and his sockpuppets appear to be the ones that are editing tendentiously. They have only provided sources to biased or unreliable sources to support their view and refuse to discuss with IAmRightBelieveMe the matter, beyond "Fuck off into hell; this is our turf." IAmRightBelieveMe is obviously frustrated and the tagteam abusing him seem to be out for blood. What steps do you, as an admin, take?
A:
5c. A user (IP) replaces the content of an article on a famous female actress with: "i'll blow her head off when I find her. a shame wikipeadi doesnt give contact info for me 2 find her more easier." What warning do you issue? At what level warning do you block? Similarly, it appears that a robot is vandalizing Wikipedia. Every time one account is blocked, another is created (ostensibly on a proxy). The bots all do the same thing: replace the links on random pages with names of Indian government officials. (say [[representation theory]] with [[M. Venkaih Naidu|representation theory]]. What course(s) of action do you take?
A:
5d. Explain in your own words what is meant by ignoring all rules and how it should be applied. Have you ever applied it before? (Describe the situation and why you had to IAR) When should and shouldn't it be applied? (Describe a particular situation) How often do you plan to use it as an admin?
A:
Additional question from Opabinia regalis
6. I was also inactive for a very long period of time, and IMO the extent to which things have changed is often overstated. But of course the community isn't static. What's changed the most since your last period of higher activity?
A:

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Before we rush to close this, it's important to know this is not a new editor but someone who knows policy and has experience with editing. Don't let the long inactivity period fool you into thinking this person forgot about with WP is all about. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Strong Support as Nominator No doubt in my mind that you will be an outstanding admin. Best of luck in this rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I've had many interactions in the past with this candidate, and they're a great and levelheaded editor with real content contributions. That said, the lack of recent activity is a major issue. I believe that Buggie won't have an issue at RfA after six to nine months of consistent editing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ..Recent behaviour. This will likely close for being opened WP:TOOSOON but keep up the good work and you'll eventually get more support. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - an experienced editor (5 years +) with a good contribution record as far as I can recall. My assumption is that the intent is for them to contribute more in the future so I'm not really sure why recent activity is considered an issue. At any rate surely given the declining number of admins we need anyone of good standing with the appropriate skills, knowledge and attributes regardless of whether they have a life or are a Wikiholic? Anotherclown (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral support and do come back with significant recent activity. I tend to delve into the most recent year of activity, excusing old mistakes and looking for indications that adminship will benefit the encyclopedia. Your past looks pretty good. I look forward to actual supporting net time (this is a token this time since you already withdrew and this RfA is pending formal closure). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 14:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose, Buggie111 is currently not active enough on the project for me to review any significant recent activity. Unfortunately, I can’t support someone for the mop with less than 150 edits over the last year. I’m not looking for thousands upon thousands of edits, but a reasonable amount of activity in admin-specific areas does need to be present before I would be able to give my support. Nakon 04:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    28 edits in the past year, not including March 2014. The count is 77 if you include March 2014 and March 2015. Mkdwtalk 06:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opppose Ditto. It is very, very difficult to judge a candidate with such a sparse editing history – or logged actions for that matter. In fact, we're looking at a total of thirty edits in the past 365 days... At that rate, you're barely preventing your admin rights from being procedurally revoked due to inactivity. Give it some time and show your commitment then I'm happy to give the candidacy more consideration. — MusikAnimal talk 04:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose basically per those above - You've barely edited at all this year..... Admins don't need to be on here 24/7 but they do need to be on here quite alot and unfortunately you haven't been very active here, As a friendly suggestion I suggest withdrawing as this isn't gonna pass, All's I can suggest is edit more here and retry in a year or so. –Davey2010Talk 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davey2010: For God's sake man its been less than hour since this got here. Don't toss out the "best to withdraw" BS until after 24 hours have gone by, give the rest us who speak English and are asleep at 11:00 in the evening a chance to get on here and see this. Jeez... TomStar81 (Talk) 04:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The fuck's your problem?, For once I gave some rather nice advice without sounding like a total bellend!, I'm entitled to my opinion ... Don't like it?...Log off!. –Davey2010Talk 04:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The editor has only about 50 edits in the last year, and about 500 in the last three years. Their edits have been declining steadily for six years. Recommit solidly to editing the encyclopedia, Buggie111, and I will be happy to reconsider in a year. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I would need some serious convincing and assurances that this editor has even a remote understanding of what is happening on the English Wikipedia, let alone be a sysop. Further, 28 edits in a year (some months no activity; not including March 2014), and expects to run a successful RFA raises a flag about judgement and expectations. Really hope the candidate thoroughly thought this through... Mkdwtalk 06:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I have a high opinion of Buggie111's many contributions to Wikipedia and supported their previous RfA, but am afraid that their very low level of activity over recent years means that I cannot support their nomination at present. I hope that this indicates a return to active editing :) Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As a further comment, I disagree with the suggestions voiced here that a year's worth of regular editing would be needed to establish Buggie111's suitability for the admin tools: given their impressive history (including making around 10,000 edits and creating 789 pages and never being blocked), this seems excessive. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Like others, I am concerned about 30 edits in the past 365 days. That's just not enough activity here to warrant the admin toolset, and betrays a lack of judgement in submitting an RfA. Get properly active and come back in a year or so - good luck! — sparklism hey! 10:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Agreed with Nick-D's points. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Only two AfD !votes this year; none at all last year. One !vote in 2013. I agree with other opposers; Buggie111 is not active enough, especially in admin-related areas. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. If he had a few hundred more edits in the last year it may have been different, but simply not active enough. Kharkiv07Talk 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. As alot of others said he just isnt active enough right now. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. The user is not active enough for a sufficient need for the tools. With his recent activity, if he needs to do any admin tasks, he can ask an admin. If he becomes more active, though, I will consider supporting the next time around. Epic Genius (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. User has done plenty of good work here, but I'm concerned of limited activity. Thus, neutral as it is. Jianhui67 T★C 04:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It seems that this RfA is somewhat doomed to be closed as WP:TOOSOON. I'l wit until my questions are answer before I go anywhere though. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'll take a limited amount of good activity over a large amount of mediocre activity any day of the week. And the activity I see is pretty good, honestly. But since the candidate withdrew an hour ago, well... Neutral it is. Good luck moving forward, Buggie. Don't be in a rush to get the tools - they are not all they are cracked up to be. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:59, 17 March 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Buggie111_2&oldid=1142577028"