Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball

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

Wiki Greek Basketball

Final (1/38/4); Closed by bibliomaniac15 on 18:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself because I believe I could do a very good job of this. I can help contribute more this way. It seems like every day Wikipedia more and more needs help. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Whatever is needed by the site. I am sure that others can make suggestions. Tell me where the site needs help and I will oblige. I am willing to help out as much as is needed. My IQ is 197, so I can do anything.

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

A: I like to add pertinent info to help the site expand where it needs to. I believe this is a key for Wikipedia, although others may disagree. I am a very good contributor and I am worthy of this post. I can be trusted.

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: Yes, I have had certain users be very difficult with me. Some of them are extremely rude and out of line and honestly a few of them I have no clue how they have not been banned from the site. But other than a few bad apples I think most people want to help contribute in a positive manner. As for dealing with problems, I think that users should not be reprimanded unless they are vandalizing or truly trying to harass others. However, I also believe that Wikipedia needs to pay a little more attention to users that run illegal bots, and are simply here to pad their edit counts with posts like "bad spelling" and other such nonsense with bots. Finally, let me just say that I can handle this job properly and fairly. I deserve a chance on this. I really do. I am being very unfairly tarnished here. Actually, some of the comments are a disgrace. I would be an excellent admin, probably better than the ones making rude remarks against me.

Additional "Rain Man" question from Coffee

4. What is your theory on quantum physics in relation to RFA?

A.

5. What is the square root of $3.14xJimbo$?

A.

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

6. To help us to ascertain what kind of admin you would make, here is a hypothetical situation - please indicate how you would deal with it, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which sections of which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification:
You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this?

A:

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

7. What is your opinion on cooldown blocks?

A:

8 If you try for RFA again (since you will not pass this time), do you think you can obtain the requisite humbleness necessary to become an administrator?

A

General comments

• Links for Wiki Greek Basketball: Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Wiki Greek Basketball can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

1. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.

   For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.

   The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.

   As an admin, you will inevitably have to...

   1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
   2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
   3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
   4. Negotiate a compromise.

   Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.

   Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.

   If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. iMatthew ^talk at 03:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm. iMatthew, Wiki Greek Basketball has some 34,428 edits over the past two years. I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTNOW. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please note: This RFA has already been closed per WP:SNOW, and the candidate has elected to let it run it's full course [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

Support - I am not sure if this is allowed or not, but I will support myself in this. If it's not allowed then I am sure that one of the people here will remove it. Anyway, the comments here are somewhat childish. Wikipedia has really been going downhill lately (at least from what I have seen) and it needs as many quality people as it can get. You should be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you. I am not in the least bit impressed by some of the responses of some of the members here. Some of you really judge people and make the decisions in this manner? How is this even in the slightest bit effective? You criticize for comments made to others? Seriously? Like I see some of you are questioning things I said to the user Downwards (talk)? Is this a joke? Do you not even know this guy? What do the admin really do if they have users like Downwards still on this site? In case you were all too busy to notice, Downwards is in the top 1 percent of most hated contributors on this site. Literally dozens of members have been chased off this site by him and not once has anything been done about it. So excuse me for some comment I might have said to him once. Anyway, I am not in the least bit deterred by comments here. I am willing to help the site as an admin and I am more than capable of it (even despite some off the wall comment about my "English skills"). I see also some of you say you don't like my answers or you did not like how I was vague or whatever. Well, I was simply honest. But once again, it proves that honesty always gets you in trouble. Whatever. I will continue to contribute to the site when I can regardless, but it does show that this site has some issues. As I said, some people act like they are 12 years old with some comments they make to others. The sad part is they don't even seem to grasp it. With that being said, I thank those of you who made positive comments and supported me. Thank you for that. --Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am indenting this, as you don't need to show your support for yourself - if you didn't support yourself, you wouldn't submit. The reason why people have mentioned your comments is because you are expected to be able to justify your actions, and to do so in a calm, reasonable way. You have shown no interest in the "admin" areas of Wikipedia - and can give no reasons for why you want to be an admin, or what you would do if you were an admin. With regards to Downwards, without commenting on the case in particular, I would suggest that you go to WP:ANI and bring your case against them there - complete with diffs showing that they have 'chased off' dozens of members - and proving that he 'is in the top 1% of most hated contributors on this site'. Having said all this, I am glad that you are going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia - I look forward to seeing your contributions which show how this site could be raised above the "high school maturity level" that you mentioned - perhaps you could provide some links to some of the work which you have done which show this already? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you see how these comments could be seen or taken as immature? This is exactly what I mean. As for Downwards, he has been reported numerous times and nothing is done about him. Quite typical of some problems with the site. I know myself and at least 5 others asked for him to be reprimanded and nothing was done. It was just ignored and he continually makes rude comments to people. He will revert, revert, revert and leave edit summaries like "F... you" or "piss off dumb a..". Of course the admin seems to never have the time to intervene even at such actions being reported. Perhaps, just maybe perhaps, this has something to do with the fact that the process of selecting admin seems to be some kind of a popularity contest or a matter of personal opinion, rather than merit based, which in turn is causing a lack of quality admin or at least the real required number. Not to say everyone seems to be doing that as some here have been quite reasonable in their comments. But then again, clearly others have not. It's actually quite ironic that some would use comments made to Downwards as a reason not to grant me a position. That is considering that if admin was doing their jobs right that guy would have been banned years ago. The subject of civility comes up, but I am a very civil user, so that really puzzles me quite a bit. --User:Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to this thread again, as I thought that I'd said everything that I needed to, but I have just spent some time looking at Downwards history. Yes, they were blocked in the past - but looking through their contributions to Wikipedia, I see an editor who appears to be doing a good job of tidying up. You have had a problem with them for about a year - but just because they disagree with you, that does not make them 'bad'. The comments that they have left on your talk page may have been brief, maybe even a bit sharp - but I do not find that they have said anything actionable to you. They have pointed out that in certain areas, capitalisation isn't required (and if you look at the manual of Style you will see that they are correct). From what I can see, your issue with Downwards appears to be content dispute-related - and I can't see evidence of dispute resolution here. Your last comment to Downwards (apart from yesterday) was in March, which is one of 6 edits you made to their talk page. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't find evidence of issues between the two of you since March - 9 months ago, and even those were relatively minor (capitalisation of names for example). As an admin, you would need to look at recent actions of an editor, not old ones. Looking at Downward's talk page, I see no complaints (other than yours) since March - I would AGF here.

With regards to your comment above the process of selecting admin seems to be some kind of a popularity contest or a matter of personal opinion: to become an admin on the English Wikipedia, you need to have the trust of the community. It's not a matter of "popularity" - I have seen people support a candidate that they do not particularly like as an individual, but who they know will do a good job. You can trust someone, even if you don't agree with their opinions. I know editors here who I respect as editors (who might even be called friends), but do not feel that I could support them if they submitted an RfA. As to personal opinions: that is what this is all about - what we personally think about a candidate. If you were to have supporters, they would be using their personal opinions to explain why they support you - or would that be invalid too?

There is no checklist for adminship. However, if there was to be, it would certainly include contributing to AN/ANI/ANEW/xfD and CSD/PRODs - I see almost no contributions in these areas. Such a hypothetical checklist would also include demonstrating that you understand the policies and guidelines in use on Wikipedia, as well as showing that you can deal with conflicts and disputes - which I do not see evidence of. I'm not sure what "merit based" criteria you would use, but on Wikipedia the "merit" is the trust you have gained from the community. If you have that trust then you will gain sufficient support at RfA, if you do not have that trust, then you won't. Wikipedia is a community, and the community decides who it will trust to use the admin tools, and who it won't trust.

This is my last comment on this AfD, but I felt that I should explain the above. Keep up the good work on articles! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You only confirmed everything I said. The sad part is that you seem unable to comprehend it. I will state unequivocally that I would be a better admin than you. So by simple logic I should be given a chance. --User:Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'd be a better president than Larry King, so I guess I should be president then? Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

hear hear. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. I think this user will complement the current admin corps nicely. Also, during slow days, he and I can shoot the shit about Olympiacos B.C..--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Candidate's temperament isn't suitable for adminship.  Frank  |  talk  02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Multiple concerns. Virtually no edits in the Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, or user talk spaces. Almost no participation in XfD, CSD, ANI, or any other admin areas whatsoever. Answers to questions seem to indicate that this user has little understanding of what admins do. Also, the answer to Q3 is frankly offputting and suggests temperament problems. You seem to be a dedicated content creator, but if you are interested in adminship, I'd recommend taking some time to become familiar with the "behind the scenes" areas of Wikipedia. I'd also like to see some contributions of quality content (good or featured articles), and not infinity and one basketball stubs. (edit conflict) — æk^Talk 03:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose You have 38 edits to the project space... including 5 to this RFA. You need a lot more contact with the back-end aspects of Wikipedia before becoming a sysop. Maybe someday, but not today. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Strongest Possible Oppose per Frank's diffs regarding attitude and no experience in Wikispace, despite having over 30k edits. You look like a good article builder, but unfortunately adminship is not for you at this time. (ec) Furthermore A3 gives me the impression that candidate might be heavy handed with the tools with editors who they deem as causing trouble. ArcAngel (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   After finding this edit, it seems clear to me the candidate is power hungry and is willing to use that power to get their way on trivial things such as sports position naming. In the same edit candidate is borderline civil and is apparently willing to ignore consensus to push their changes in articles where they are not needed. ArcAngel (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Bradjamesbrown. Willking1979 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Candidate's answer to Q1 bothers me. Besides, he has made too few edits. BejinhanTalk 04:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose per edit count and issues raised by Frank. I wonder if more can be done to highlight the futility of this sort of thing before it gets this far. Şļџğģő 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Terribly uncivil. Also nearly all edits are to the mainspace, almost never participates on talkpages. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Q1 and Q2. Doesn't seem to be good enough to become an admin yet. ConCompS (Talk to me) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose per Frank et al. Wizardman 05:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Very Strong Oppose The diffs provided by Fred paint a very clear picture of what we would be in for, especially this one: [2]. Wants the position for exactly the wrong reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose If you feel this way, giving you the tools is obviously not going to help the project. You may disagree with policies etc, but considering yourself the only educated person in a sea of immature people is, to put it mildly, lacking in judgment. -SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose, concerns about temperament, and experience. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. per above. Serious issues with temperament and experience. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose, and then some. I honestly can't figure out in what way you might be a capable admin—you don't know what areas you want to work in, you have little experience in the WP namespace, and you have trouble getting along with others. I don't see anyone (including you) mentioning how you've reached consensus with anyone, anywhere, at any time. Your weak English language skills could be worked around, but when you brag about how good your English is, I don't believe you see there's an issue here. In this edit, you wrote "I was banned for weeks from the site," but I've seen no mention or explanation of why you were banned (much less blocked).

    In this edit, you wrote "I don't understand this site at all... But the site is something like a high school maturity level." Others here have said WP:NOTNOW, but based on what you've written, I'm not sure that you'll ever be ready. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

16. Extremely Strong Oppose Normally with a candidate standing at 0/15/3, I would opt for 'neutral' to avoid pile-on, but the fact that this candidate's temperament and attitude seems wrong (comments like this didn't help), the fact that they have almost no experience in Wikispace, the fact that they have no idea what they could do as an admin (according to Q1), the fact that when SNOW was offered, instead of taking it (when they were already standing at 0/9/2) they decided to continue with this RfA (when no one had supported them in 3 hours - which shows that the candidate has not seen how RfAs like that always end up)... I could go on. The candidate bemoans the "high school maturity level" of Wikipedia - looking through their contributions, I didn't see anything to indicate that (despite 33K+ contributions) they have added content of a higher level. I also don't see much in the way of major edits - lots of little edits (many of which should have been labelled as minor), and lots of stubs created. Let me emphasise here that I think that their contributions to the articles are good, and very welcomed. Adminship however? I'm sorry, definitely nowhere near ready at the moment, or in the foreseeable future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Amending my oppose to extremely strong oppose. Difference of opinion is one thing - I have no problem with that at all, sometimes I have changed my opinion as a result of other editors' arguments, such as at xfD - insulting people who disagree with you is totally different. Well done, WGB - this is the first time that I have used a qualifier for an oppose. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

17. Absolutely not. The strongest oppose I think I've ever given at RfA. Insulting everybody in their own RfA, plus the other links that have already been posted clearly demonstrate the exactly wrong temprament for adminship. GedUK  09:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Strongest possible oppose The incivility brought up here is frankly shocking... your temperament is blatantly the opposite of what we want in an administrator. The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 10:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
19. If the candidate is not able to accept the opinions given by the many users above me here, without resorting to the comment below and accusing those posting here of saying they're lying, then they have no place on Wikipedia, let alone assisting the project in the role of administrator. I strongly urge the candidate to withdraw and reconsider their behaviour and the comments that have been made in the Oppose section. I'm also concerned that this RfA appears to be a result of some sort of disagreement, rather than a genuine wish to help with the administration aspects of the project, this potentially being the case as indicated by several diffs above. Finally, I'm struggling to see any comments here in the Oppose section that don't show even a basic level of civility. Civility doesn't require everybody to support this request for adminship, giving an honest appraisal of a candidate is not uncivil. Nick (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should read the comments a little more clearly if you think they are perfectly "civil". If people talk like that in person, they might get their teeth knocked out, but on the net they can insult to any level they want without any worry. The anonymity of the internet does not change rudeness and arrogance, but it allows you to get away with it. Not one single thing posted in the oppose section about me is even remotely, not even REMOTELY true, nor accurate. Sorry if that bothers you, but I am not afraid to call out lies being said about me when in fact they are being said about me. I would expect any level headed person to understand that. I see this as what it is. Some of the people here are rude, immature, arrogant, and generally uneducated. That's fine and it is the simple fact that most of the population is exactly that way. But don't expect everyone to reap praise on such individuals. I hope that helps clear things up a bit for you. Regardless of all that, did you ever consider asking me something? You know that is what a logical person would do. Perhaps you have some promise, as you did not just outright insult me and level false accusations towards me as most here did. Honestly, it's a bit sad how many here seem to act towards me for whatever dumb reasons. It certainly does not show well on the site, but actually it does explain a lot. It's quite obvious to me that being a good person is almost an automatic disqualify for this. It makes sense. In life the jerks (and psychos for that matter) are always in charge, or at least that seems to always be the case everywhere. But still, if you are going to be a jerk then you should not be all offended when someone else does not appreciate it, and you yourself should not be surprised that I would not be happy at being treated like crap by all these jerks here. If you have any suggestions for a better word than jerk please suggest it. But that's basically the best word that comes to mind from the statements I see in the oppose section. Then they put a little smart a.. comment like "keep up the good work" or "thanks for your contributions to the site", right after leveling a bunch of untrue garbage insults at you. Quite frankly, that's bush league. --User:Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Firstly, this is not directed at any one particular message in the oppose column, but to all of them that are above this post. I strongly disagree with everything being said about me, which is 100% false, untrue, and is pure speculation and has no basis in reality whatsoever. Furthermore, as of yet not one person has given a single legit reason as to why I should not be granted an admin position. As for comments about "temperament" and "civility", so far there has been an extreme lack of that shown by some of the commentators, not by me. To those that are trying to be insulting - Do not think that you are being clever with stupid remarks like "strongest possible oppose," or "I can't possibly imagine how you could help," etc., etc. because you are not being clever. It's just childish. "When I was a child, I played as a child. But now that I am a man, I have put away childish things." --User:Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose: The open incivility toward PhantomSteve resulting in an audible sigh. I will quote the following from above as a concern of future incivility; ...I am a very civil user, so that [user not being banned] really puzzles me quite a bit, and compare to the diffs on the Basketball pages linked by Frank demonstrating... incivility. One good mention (kind of); the "popularity" competition view of RfA! "Popularity" apparently confused for "experience". It's not popularity, it's that experience in "admin-related" areas and discussions at XfD show logic, knowledge of policy and guidelines, civility, knowledge of the encyclopedia, etc etc. Editors will look through contribution histories for those things. These are lacking, as PhantomSteve mentioned. ...Well, this is my trying to be reasonable about this. I'm pretty much "per everyone", otherwise. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Figured I'd add some more "actual" objections, since the candidate may consider previous posts "100% false". Despite hundreds of edits to some articles, a total lack of use of their talk pages. Practically zero user talk, so there's no history of interactions to look at... and that candidate's edits to this page are more numerous than all others in "Wikipedia" articles combined. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    You say I have no talk posts, yet I have the magical triple 6. You say I have no user talk edits.....why is this bad? What it means is that I am able to make many edits and usually almost never have anyone have issue with them. It means I am much better as an editor than the normal member. Besides, I have 111, not none as you falsely assert. As for the Wikipedia edits I fail to see the issue there either. Editors are asked to have 3,000 edits before they apply? Well if I have over 50 just in the Wikipedia section how is that lacking compared to a total of 3,000 overall? I am sorry, but nothing you claim holds water. It's just a bunch of personal conjecture. You need 3,000 edits overall and I have 666 on talk and you just say I have none on talk. That certainly does not add up. --User:Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Technically being eligible for RfA is meaningless (since there are no official requirements). Never said you weren't allowed to be a candidate. I'm just agreeing with the essentially-unanimous consensus opposing it for a long list of reasons.. A lot of the posters here have "realistic" RfA guidelines on their user pages or on subpages. I suggest you read those. As for 'Wikipedia' edits or user talk edits being lacking, I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't already understand. Handling ANI disputes? Proof of dispute resolution experience? No one requires a vast knowledge in every area, but not having any user interaction or knowledge of policy to look at means persons can't rate you abilities or knowledge. I was being extremely generous on criticism compared to much of the above, so I'm not entirely sure why you felt a need to pick on me... though I could compile a list of diffs that show incivility or other unusual actions if you really wanted. The incivility alone is more than enough grounds for an oppose, and the fact you engaged in some on the RfA page and on your user talk during it? You're just going to invite trouble for yourself if you dig your heels in on this, so I'm going to repeat the wisdom of others and highly suggest you bow out of this with at least a little dignity intact. I'd rather not have to look at any RfC that sparked from actions by a candidate on their own RfA. Anyway, I'm shocked I let myself get baited back here even once and blame the headache, and if you don't understand how you might be baiting people into attempted arguments, I don't know how to explain that to you, either. You're not going to get anyone here to fall into an incivility trap. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

21. Just, no. The arrogance and attitude problems are clear just from the candidate's demeanour on this page, let alone delving into his contribs.  GARDEN  12:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Pile on Oppose - Extreme maturity issues, I'm to the thinking that this is definitely a minor, or someone who has no idea what maturity means. -Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose Users is too aggressive while talking to others, and the self-admiration in this rfa-"I'm better than everyone else" attitude is concerning. --Zvn (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
24. Yeah! Let's make WP:100 oppose and no support!!! Chutznik (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
25. OpposeThis editor has not shown enough knowledge of policy in his edits or in answering the questions to be trusted with admin tools. While I would like to see more editors with extensive article work on RfA, there must be an indication that the tools will be used correctly, which isn't the case here. Mrathel (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose. You'd think someone with a 'supposed' IQ of 197 would know how to pass an RfA. -- œ^™ 14:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Strong Oppose - Decent content contributions, but the user appears to have the disposition of a child. Comments here smack of arrogance too. No thanks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose per the users history and the RFA itself. you IQ means nothing, Remember "Stupid is as stupid does". Perhaps you should end this per WP:SNOW and try again later?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Wiki Greek Basketball has indicated that they wish for the RfA to run full circle. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 15:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    The more humor the better. ;-) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

29. Lump of Coal Keepscases (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
30. There is nothing either in this RfA nor in the candidate's contributions to indicate that they are suited to the task fo being an administrator. Shereth 16:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose - Sorry, there are too many issues, notably your lack of experience in Administrative areas of the project and civility concerns. Jeffrey Mall (talk • be merry) - 17:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Very Strong Oppose per civility concerns and lack of project space experience. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Default oppose for any future RFA attempts if my questions aren't answered. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

33. Strongest possible oppose + 1 - lots of civility concerns. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 17:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
34. Strong, strong oppose I think we know why, I'm not going to re-summarize what has already been summarized.  fetchcomms☛ 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose only editors with IQs over 9000 are suitable for adminship. Prodego ^talk 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    No means to be rude, but my IQ is about 130. I assume that 9,000 really means multiplying an Einstein brain by 60, eh? This could help! :-) Schfifty3 17:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    OVER 9000. –MuZemike 18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, I wasn't aware of that! Thanks. Schfifty3 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

36. Oppose. Uncivil for the diffs given above, arguably arrogant for his answer to question 1; not the temperament for an admin. Ironholds (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
37. No thank you, due to the obvious incivility. I had to check if this was genuine and I'm still not sure. But please try again later. Merry Christmas/new year/whatever holiday you're having. --candle•wicke 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
38. Oppose - I almost never, ever say this, but this is probably one of the very rare examples of someone I doubt could ever be an administrator. Usually I offer some piece of advice about something that a person could do in the future to get my trust but... I got nothing. -- Atama頭 18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning towards oppose - Well, this just bombed your RfA :(. I won't vote as I don't want to pile on, but you don't have my support as of now. If you'd still like to become an administrator, please show more experience in administrative areas. Also, please watch what you say. Maybe next time. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral - By the looks of things an extremely productive editor, albeit not enough behind the scenes work to be considered a candidate for adminship. I'd like to request a WP:SNOW closure. I think the message has been delivered. WFCforLife (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Done, and rejected by the candidate: [3] Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral - This person seems to have a big grasp for basketball-related fields on the wiki; I appreciate that. However, I expected Q1 to be more specific in what areas the candidate wants to work in. A quick look through his contributions show only a few comments to AFDs and ANI. Perhaps if the candidate could put some more time into participating in administrative areas and remain civil, then I would give a hearty support. Schfifty3 06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   I am very civil, what do you see wrong with my civility? Anyway, thank you for the kind remarks. You are able to recognize a good user, unlike many others here who seem to lack that ability. Thanks. --User:Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   Your comment right there genius, tells all. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   (To WGB) You're welcome, and I wish you best of luck with future contributions! Schfifty3 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

4. This is just another case of WP:NOTNOW. An new user editor is requesting adminship too early. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   Um, 34502 edits since February 2008. How exactly is this a new user? GedUK  12:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   Agree, this is a WP:NOTEVER case. I've never seen an RFA candidate be so rude and condescending. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   After reviewing Ged UK's comment, it seems I overlooked Wiki Greek Basketball's edit count. Much of the oppose votes are based on his temperment and the fact that this user doesn't have enough edits to the mainspace, but the user has a lot of edits overall to other namespaces (such as User Talk: and Wikipedia:, etc.) –BuickCenturyDriver 07:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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.