Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Baseball Bugs

General user info

Username: Baseball Bugs

User groups: rollbacker

First edit: May 19, 2007 11:36:11

Unique articles edited: 3,990

Average edits per page: 7.16

Total edits (including deleted): 28,588

Deleted edits: 293

Live edits: 28,295

Namespace totals

• Article 10796 38.16%
• Talk 5774 20.41%
• User 230 0.81%
• User talk 6171 21.81%
• Wikipedia 4153 14.68%
• Wikipedia talk 798 2.82%
• File 352 1.24%
• File talk 3 0.01%
• Template 8 0.03%
• Template talk 3 0.01%
• Category 6 0.02%
• Portal talk 1 0.00%

Month counts

2007/05	534	
2007/06	1384	
2007/07	1345	
2007/08	1181	
2007/09	762	
2007/10	1025	
2007/11	622	
2007/12	851	
2008/01	1392	
2008/02	1291	
2008/03	1589	
2008/04	1170	
2008/05	1464	
2008/06	1328	
2008/07	1606	
2008/08	1259	
2008/09	1747	
2008/10	1307	
2008/11	1395	
2008/12	1708	
2009/01	1393	
2009/02	1343	
2009/03	599	

Logs

Files uploaded: 122

• Top edited articles

Article

   * 200 - History_of_baseball_team_nicknames
   * 178 - World_Series
   * 168 - Chicago_Cubs
   * 133 - Wrigley_Field
   * 110 - Home_run
   * 110 - Babe_Ruth
   * 105 - Yankee_Stadium
   * 67 - Bugs_Bunny
   * 58 - Black_Sox_Scandal
   * 55 - The_Natural_(film)

Talk

   * 667 - Barack_Obama
   * 297 - Sarah_Palin
   * 119 - Northern_Illinois_University_shooting
   * 114 - Atlanta_Braves
   * 107 - Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories
   * 90 - Shoeless_Joe_Jackson
   * 87 - Indiana_Jones_and_the_Kingdom_of_the_Crystal_Skull
   * 73 - McDonald's
   * 71 - Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
   * 70 - Chicago_Cubs

User

   * 134 - Baseball_Bugs
   * 16 - Wahkeenah
   * 15 - Baseball_Bugs/hidden
   * 6 - Baseball_Bugs/warn3rr
   * 4 - CalendarWatcher/Talk_Archive_3
   * 4 - Baseball_Bugs/warn1
   * 3 - Baseball_Bugs/warnsp1
   * 3 - 65.31.103.28
   * 3 - Soxrock
   * 3 - Theresa_knott

User talk

   * 694 - Wknight94/Archive_17
   * 514 - Baseball_Bugs/Archive008
   * 311 - Baseball_Bugs
   * 168 - Keeper76
   * 146 - Cinemaniac
   * 130 - Soxrock
   * 108 - Irishguy
   * 101 - Ebyabe
   * 68 - Kingturtle
   * 63 - Blackngold29

Wikipedia

   * 2945 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
   * 273 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
   * 63 - Administrators'_noticeboard
   * 56 - Articles_for_deletion/Eve_Carson
   * 46 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion_of_...
   * 44 - Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord
   * 34 - Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard
   * 34 - Editor_assistance/Requests
   * 32 - Articles_for_deletion/MKR_(programming_language)_(...
   * 32 - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Wikipedia talk

   * 517 - WikiProject_Baseball
   * 69 - WikiProject_College_football
   * 49 - Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord
   * 26 - Notability_(criminal_acts)
   * 15 - Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)
   * 12 - Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)
   * 9 - Requests_for_rollback
   * 8 - Articles_for_deletion/MKR_(programming_language)_(...
   * 7 - WikiProject_Superman
   * 7 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

File

   * 8 - 3RR_sign.JPG
   * 7 - BR19321001.JPG
   * 7 - Cap_Anson_WSP_19080422.JPG
   * 5 - WorldSeries1903-640-SEG-isolation.JPG
   * 5 - DiMaggio19501005.JPG
   * 5 - ParamountLogo1930s.JPG
   * 5 - ITawAPuttyTat1.JPG
   * 4 - Hi-Yo_Silver_barnstar.PNG
   * 4 - Rooftopbleachers.jpg
   * 4 - BabeRuth19321001.JPG

File talk

   * 1 - Adlai_Stevenson_statue_at_airport.jpg
   * 1 - Hitler_and_Franco.JPG
   * 1 - Scopes_trial.jpg

Template

   * 3 - Woody_Allen
   * 3 - RFCsoc_list
   * 1 - Chicago_Cubs
   * 1 - X1

Template talk

   * 2 - NHLBracket
   * 1 - X1

Category

   * 3 - Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Tecmobowl
   * 2 - Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Tecmobowl
   * 1 - People_of_Huguenot_descent

Portal talk

   * 1 - Current_events

(posted by — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Serious about Admin

In regards to the seriousness of this RfA, perhaps I am in a small part to blame. While it is true that only Bugs can speak for Bugs, I had approached him here some time ago about Adminship. He was polite, honored by the thought, and perhaps a little uncomfortable by my question. At that time he did express the opinion that he was viewed as a somewhat controversial editor, and did not expect to ever be seriously considered for the mop. May I also add that this entire RfA came about at a rather unusual time. Some 20 odd hours ago there was apparently a possibility of some vandalism to Bugs' Home and Talk pages by a group known as freeped. Page protection of his user space was discussed and considered. Starting this morning, there was a great deal of interest in the Obama pages - which has spread so far as AN, AN/I, and even the Wikipedia Help Desk. I would think that when User:Padillah, suggested the nom, perhaps it was not something Bugs had prepared for other than his usual editing and defending of the wiki. Very shortly after the RfA went live, there was a brief database outage, and discussion about it at IRC. I personally don't doubt for a second that if Bugs were given the opportunity to serve the community that he would do so in a dedicated, fair-handed, and sober fashion. While humor may be a deflection for criticism, I'm (either rightly or wrongly) sure that he would approach the responsibility with the forethought and soberness that the position requires. I hope this is an accurate reflection of events, and in some small way an assistance in predicting the seriousness this matter deserves. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, I am the editor that opened the voting section. I did this prior to Bugs' official "I accept"; but, only after I noticed that he had supplied serious answers to the opening questions. I also confirmed with Bugs that would indeed be accepting with complete seriousness. If I mistakenly opened the voting too soon, my apologies - that is my fault, not the candidates. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

My edit summaries are often minimalistic. If I made a wording change, I use "ce" for copy edit, as I'm not imaginative enough to explain further. I'm not sure what I was on about, on the View-Master article, but it's a fair complaint. The Limbaugh joke was lifted from a Doonesbury strip years ago. If I deigned to go to Limbaugh's page and someone had posted it, I would likely delete it. But that's a fair complaint. The recent ANI issue referred back to that spamming situation I talked about earlier, which in fact left me with cold feet about dealing with spam after that, but sometimes opportunities arise. Deletionism of information really gets under my skin. But as much as I may argue about it, I go with consensus rather than edit warring. The wars are of words rather than reverts. But your complaint on that one is also fair. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Actually, in the preponderance of cases, your edit summaries are beyond "minimalistic" -- they're nil. Suggestion: go to Special:Preferences, select "Editing" and check-off the last item: "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". This has helped me and I think it will help you. Admins need to use edit summaries all the time and they need to be intelligible to others. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   You've got me puzzled with that one. But I will make an effort to do better in the future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   I think you are thinking that since the edit summary has a /* section title */ in the edit summary that there is a summary, this isn't the case. I just looked at your last 50 edits, and only about 4 of them had manually edited summaries. I don't hold this against people as it took me way too long to start making real edit summaries. I was thinking "Hey it has a summary, it's ok."---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   Well, Shazam! That's it exactly. I had only been putting something in when there was no section title. That doesn't help me figure out what to invent for an edit summary. But at least it explains the facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   I did the exact same thing, which is why I suspected that is what you were thinking... I think I was even an admin for 6 months before I realized that *I* wasn't providing edit summaries! The edit summary is just a short summary so that it tells others whether or not they should take a look at the comment...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   6 months? Now I feel 2% less dumb. The optimal thing, then, would be to add a comment to the section header, as opposed to wiping it out as some do, so that the progression in the history is clearer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Definitely leave the section heading... take this edit summary from your RfA: (→Neutral: moving to talk page). Anybody who sees it knows instantly, that the comment was in the neutral section, and that something was being moved to the talk page. They thus know to expect a note on the main page and for something to show up on the talk page in a few minutes. If they were paying attention to this discussion, they might even suspect that the item being moved was this thread... as they would know that you and I are holding this discussion. The edit summary says a lot. Similarly, at ANI, it is EXTREMELY helpful because some people might not be watching the entirety of ANI, but rather a specific thread. Edit summaries can also be used as a call for additional information, again from your RfA: (→Support: Huh Julian, your question makes zero sense?). As Julian just made the post, I'm hoping that he saw my edit summary on his watch list and knows to come and check it out. People also know that it is more than just a copy edit, but something with a little more meat. Again, at ANI, it is helpful to know where the change occurred and what the subject was.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Replied. Sarcasm is really helpful –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL---see it worked!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You realize, though, that this encourages witty comments in the edit summaries. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG!!! and yes... but do recall that people do review those comments... especially when RfA 2 comes around... keep it civil and try to refrain yourself.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Refrain" myself? I thought the "Star-Spangled Banner" topic was being covered elsewhere. :) Actually, I feel a little bit like Al Franken. Every joke he told came back to haunt him during the campaign. If I'd known I was going to be a nominee, I'd I've started behaving sooner. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why you will never see him run...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. Recently he challenged Obama to a "debate". Like that's going to happen. Nothing but a publicity stunt. And where was he during the campaign - a campaign in which he said the GOP nominating McCain "would destroy the Republican Party". Yeh, especially with that kind of "support". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

User:Juliancolton/Blink So, seriously, enough with the "too young" opposes. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LMAO — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 06:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ← thinks Julian stole the blinkie thing idea from Jimbo's page ;)

Those who took the 13 1/2 thing seriously apparently also believed the stick figure just above it was my actual photograph. Hard to know what to think about that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Even if he was 13 and a half, so what? Enough with this ageism! I'm sure there are dozens of Admins who are under 18 (or were when they had their RfA) and contribute significatly to the encyclopaedia. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm getting the sense that there is plenty of ageism out there, but that's the least of it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I wish I could find the post - but essentially, there was a no humor posting or article somewhere that stated that an editor made it not only to admin, but to 'crat before he was 14.

All I had to do when I met Bugs, was look at his homepage, read a thread or two on his talk page - then look at some of his contribs. Ton of baseball stuff (of course), but the bottom line was that it was obvious that the 13 1/2 was tongue in cheek humor. I think too many people come to RfA to vote, and simply read what other people say - and maybe look at the users page. If you're going to vote, you should investigate, look at the contribs, see what the editor actually contributed to an article. In other words - if you can't punch your "Chad" out of the hole - you should not be voting (pun intended). If I hadn't investigated before voting, I may have voted for Obama or Gore - but I researched the subject first, and chose the candidate that most closely shared my points of view. Stats are posted on the talk page for a reason, to get editors familiar with the candidate. I just can't believe anyone would cast a vote without looking beyond their own nose. ... geesh .. shut me up. sorry for the rant, (but I do agree with the too much time at AN) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's no question some of the age stuff and other stuff is just parroting. I was warned that a lot of these guys come out of the woodwork just to vote, for the fun of it I guess. I'm working on a list of improvements gleaned from the useful portion of the criticisms and also the positive comments. You know, if it were 2000 again, and people could see what was going to happen, would they still vote for Bush in the primaries, or would they vote McCain? I was ready to support him over Gore if it came to that. Unfortunately, this year it was a different story, as McCain in 2008 was like Humphrey in 1968 - fatally joined at the hip to his predecessor. That's how things go sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue's oppose and subsequent discussion

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

   (Addendum) A very hilarious thing is that "some" people firmly believe that this kind of prank regarding age is universally understood (not so funny). English Wikipedia is not about "American's encyclopedia" or social network like facebook or a playground. People here do not seem to realize it. That does also show a degree of "maturity".--Caspian blue05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Did you also believe the stick figure just above the age bit was an actual self-portrait? Also, this nomination was kind of "sprung" on me. Do you think I should have rushed to "clean up" my user page to try to impress (i.e. fool) somebody? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Well, you've acknowledged taking a break from the RFA for a while is good for your peace of mind. This RFA is all about you, not me. If you're talking about being a "kiss-ass", ask an advice from somebody knowledgeable of the matter or experienced people.--06:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   So you actually believed that stick-figure was my photograph? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Currently you are well aware of the fact that your candidacy would not be successful. So saying whatever you want to say is a helpful for curing your self-exteem? --Caspian blue 06:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   My self-esteem is in good shape. What's askew is my sense of logic - how someone could think the 13 1/2 thing was serious, when right above it was a stick figure that was labeled as my picture. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   That's why you do think the candidacy is a joke and "fun thing". Besides, we have a history of low teens running for their RFA. I have no reason to suspect the history.--Caspian blue 06:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Child, you cut me to the quick. I do take adminship seriously. What I do not take seriously is people who lack a sense of humor and perspective. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}06:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   You earn a valuable lesson that your current perspective on "your way of humoring" is not that much popular and makes you loose your game here.--Caspian blue 07:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Popularity is of no interest to me, nor should it be to an admin. What matters is the integrity of Wikipedia. So I'll cut back on my participation in ANI. You generate a lot of drama there yourself. Are you willing to make the same commitment?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   ChildofMidnight is quite correct. Joking around, and making people get annoyed are far far~ away from maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Your above comment prove your lack of understanding of policies. Do not show your weak point nor make such personal attacks if you finish the RFA with some dignity. If you had not generated a lot of drama here and there, how could your current score be like this? Heed my advice.--Caspian blue 07:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   My "game", eh? Well, you still haven't figured it out. But that's OK. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} 07:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   A great deal of my time is wasted. Any bureaucrat can move this conversation to the talk page.--Caspian blue 08:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   You are on ANI frequently, and always seem to be angry. Heed MY advice, and learn to develop a sense of humor and perspective. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Not as much as you are on ANI. (that's why you are praised as a "drama maker") I'm happy to know that you heed my advice; "your retirement from ANI" will be a good asset to keep our integrity of Wikipedia. :)--Caspian blue 08:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   As might yours. The odd thing is, I don't recall ever having any dealings directly with you at all. But if you could cite some diff's, then I would stand corrected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   I give you a hint for the observation regarding you increasing more dramas and encouraging vandals;lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) and ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs). --Caspian blue 08:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Those user ID's do not look familiar at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Just for reference, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive521#User:غراوپ and غراوپ (talk · contribs · block log) and 162.83.158.26 (talk · contribs), socks of ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs) who appeared at this RfA.--Caspian blue 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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

   God, not this ageism stuff again... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 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^(talk) 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

   Also, his turn-ons apparently include faucets, televisions, and dimes. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 onlyninety-three and a half years old. I am actually somewhere in between those two figures. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's support, subsequent discussion

1. Support I moving to support, just because I like people who stir up crap around here. I'm tired of the admins who put on fake civility then stab anyone they want in the back. Bugs needs to bug out of the whole ANI crap, because it is a serious waste of time. He needs to work on articles. So my support might be a bit tepid, but it is support nevertheless. And 13 year olds should not be admins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   If 13 year olds shouldn't be admins, what about 9 year olds? Or perhaps 8? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 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! ^{NO! 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   WP:SARCASM –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   And yet there are still some who "hold out" against those evil adults :). Including me, aged 14. I would have to agree with Julian, some 50 year olds are still immature! Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:58, 11 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   Precisely. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   Well, reading this conversation was amusing. You guys need to get a real life, arguing about the acceptability of children as admins is, well, not really important. My comment was a throwaway because I fucked up in my vote here. Nothing else bears any relevance to my support for Baseball Bugs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Point taken :). Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not much older than 13 and a half and I don't think it matters how old you are. :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   I am actually well over 18. And I agree. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   Age should bother us but youth should not. If an editor is immature then RFA for all its faults is liable to bring that out, and in my experience whilst not everyone gets more mature with age few regress. But adminship is currently for life, so at some point we need to work out what we do when admins, crats and other hierarchs start to get dementia. WereSpielChequers 08:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

   Fear not. There is no history of Alzheimer's in my family. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

   Fear not. There is no history of Alzheimer's in my family. Did I say that already? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

   Sadly there is in mine, and statistics tell us that it would be reasonable to expect many of us to go that way within a few decades. So apologies for starting this tangent here, but I really do believe we do need to consider the issue of old age, and equally irrelevant to this RFA, I consider that those young wikipedians who self declare as such should not be put at a disadvantage compared to those who do not. PS to the candidate, optional RFA question. Carrot or lettuce? WereSpielChequers 12:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

   Lettuce is fine for a salad. Carrots are good, but separate, not in a salad. :b Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agism plus photonically-challenged

Great, now they are questioning his age and his invisible friend. What next? Padillah (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

At least he's catching the pro-rabbit vote. Maybe he should chase the pro-stick-figure vote too. Personally I can't find it in me to support a baseball, whatever his name is (dammit, too late, already voted support...) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It serves as an example of how humour doesn't work very well in written form over the intertubes. People take things too seriously/the wrong way/bizarrely/too lightly. If bugs becomes an admin, or if he does not, I hope that he learns from the fact that people have misinterpreted his user page, and apply that elsewhere. Misunderstood humour causes problems, and in potentially heated situations this is magnified to the nth. Regards. Fribbler (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Post Mortem

I know this RFA isn't dead yet, but when we wait until these things are over, it's hard to get a discussion going, so I got Bug's permission to start this thread now. If this one fails, then 3 months from now, what would it take to get support from the current opposition? I'm opposing now, but all it would take to get my support 3 months from now is for the candidate not to say bad things about people who are on the losing side of a dispute. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Refraining from disparaging comments such as this [2] might help, I guess. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that that would do little good. He could refrain from such events until he gets the mop, but it's still his nature to be one damn funny guy who makes snide jokes. Personally, I think it's a good trait. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a good trait in the right circumstances. Snidely making jokes when a user is on their knees awaiting execution at WP:ANI seems a bit cruel. Fribbler (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs summarized himself what he needs to do here quite nicely, and I don't really have much to add to that. --Conti|✉ 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A general avoidance of drama would help, as would behaving well because it's the right thing to do, not because he wants to be an administrator. This thread strikes me as rather silly, as all he really needs to do is read the opposes to understand what needs to change. AniMate^talk 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. While there were a lot of opposes, it's a bit like a football game (and probably baseball too). The result doesn't always reflect the game. BB doesn't have to change that much to be a great admin. All that he mentioned above combined with "don't kick people when they're down" is all the changes there need be. Then I would support wholeheartedly next time. Bon chance! Fribbler (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But why should a person have to deny who they are "in order to be a great admin"? I think he does just fine being who he is, and doing what he does. And the best part is that he is not in this for the "power" of being an admin. I used to have the equivalent of over a hundred "admins" working under me, and the ones who do best are often the ones who want the tools the least. And I would sack any of them who decided they were more important than any other user. Or who did not <g> at my jokes. Collect (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A person has to deny who they are to be an editor, let alone an admin. That's not a bad thing. I may believe apples are the only fruit and that oranges are the work of Satan, but I have to leave that behind on wiipedia. We may preach NPOV, but we are all very biased in real life. I don't vote for "may the best man win" when there's an election, or "the team playing the best football should win" when I'm at a game. But in wiki, we are neutral. We have to be what we are not, and for good reason. Editors need stoicism, and admins need it even more vitally. (Not implying anyone is POV, just saying that refraining from your natural instincts in a necessary part of wikipedia) Fribbler (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So it's you who's been adding unflattering pictures of oranges to articles. Deor (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You found me out! I tried to be NPORANGE but I must declare my Conlict of Fruits. I hate oranges. There, I said it. And that is the first step.....sigh...I'm a fruitist.Fribbler (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you're into fruits. But what about other potential foods? Perhaps you could share with the audience, some of your thoughts about the rutabaga, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I only know a few swedes but I like them :-) Some of my best friends are swedes.....I think. Vegetables don't translate over the water. Fribbler (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, the other name for rutabagas: Swede potatoes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My (Swedish) family used to serve rutabaga and call it turnip. I was 35 or so when I finally learnt that the turnip is a very different, and much better, vegetable than the Swede. PhGustaf (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought you were a member of the Beet generation? Collect (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have peculiar tastes. For example, I like Harvard beets, and Yale lox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a little beet myself, having just come in from work. Not quite dead beet though, thankfully. Hey, BB, don't take the opposes to heart, keep being you, but just tone it down a little, and think about the other guy sometimes when posting. You will make a great admin a short while down the line. Your own summary of what you need to change is pretty accurate, and shows great maturity and willingness to learn. No less than I would expect. --John (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what will turnip in 3 months. On second thought, taking the radishal approach, if I'm voted down here I will fight it to the death! On third thought, no I won't. I'm not allowed to fight anything to the death. Strict doctor's orders. So on fourth thought, if I'm defeated, I'll go back to doing what I do best: Keeping alive the memory of Henny Youngman, Myron Cohen, Jack Benny, Alan King, Groucho Marx, Woody Allen, and a whole host of Jewish comics that I can't even think of all their names right now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What John said. Just be yourself and give yourself a break from AN/I. You don't need to pretend to be someone you're not or bend over backwards to please people when they're wrong. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I seldom do. Unless they're carrying a weapon of some kind. :) I would do well to heed the advice of an old Paul Simon tune: "You don't have to lie to me / Just give me some tenderness beneath your honesty." That's the missing piece, sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I didn't see this thread until jsut now, I don't think BB should even consider running for at LEAST 6 months. There are some RfA's/RfB's where you walk away and think, "A little more experience here and a little refinement there, and this person should pass without a problem." Those are the people who come back in 3 months and fly through the process. They fixed the problems and no longer have those weaknesses. Some RfA's and RfB's conclude and there is little hope for the candidate ever passing in the near future. My RfB is an example of that... based upon the nature of the opposes, I don't think I'd stand a snowballs chance of passing another RfB for a LONG time---I think Bugs is in the same boat for RfA. The concerns are not policy knowledge/experience, but temperment. He needs to turn a new leaf and show that he isn't just putting on a front to become an admin. He needs to show that the comments here struck a chord and that he learned from them... and the only way that can happen is via time. 3 months simply isn't enough time. 6 months probably isn't either... and like I said, I say this as a person who is in the same boat.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw a number of "not now not ever" votes, so maybe we should start building the page now, to save some time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings here. Wikipedia has more admins than it has interesting intelligent funny people. If Bugs has to sacrifice too much of his carroty weltanschaaung (ignore the red line under that; I got it right), I'm agin it. PhGustaf (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an angle to this that the naysayers may not have considered. If I were to become an admin, there are certain restrictions that would put on me, i.e. I would have to act in a more "dignified" way. Without that burden, I can remain as-is... and remain the POV-pushers' and vandals' and mushrooms' worst nightmare. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you try again, then, push the "Make me an admin to get rid of me" angle hard. PhGustaf (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good strategy. Meanwhile, since no one thinks I can change my approach, I have returned to cruising ANI (Gasp!) with the self-restriction of seeing what I can do without trying to be funny. With or without the corny jokes, I can use what's available to help smack down the barbarians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I not only think you can change your approach, I thought it was a given that you would, early on in this RFA, and I was hoping others would see it the same way. I think from the level of opposition, I have to regretfully agree with Balloonman; wait 6 months rather than 3. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That will depend on someone putting me up for it again, and if it's too soon, I'll tell them to wait. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here's a barometer: They should wait until the baseball season is over, or until the Cubs are elimated from contention, whichever comes first (which, of course, could be Mother's Day, but let's hope not). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, the cubs are still in it?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Chicago? Is Chicago still in the league?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw

You should withdraw from this RFA before it becomes an even heavier hellfest, this is one of worst behaved RFA I ever seen in the years I been in the project, and it's by all sides, the sometimes stupidity comments opposers and you. Follow the advise given by some of the opposers, and myself, and try to avoid AN/I and contribute more to articles, and AFDs, and maybe the occational comment in AN/I, and you will be a shoo-in in six months. Secret ^account 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that if BB feels that there are more constructive comments that he can learn from coming, he should leave it open, but if it is going to be a dramafest for the next three days, the towel is right over there and so is the boxing ring, and A should be thrown onto B.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've had enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So is that a withdraw? Secret ^account 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I took it as such and have closed the RfA... no need for it to continue.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ack! what about 96-95??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why he should put up with this treatment for any longer. If anyone ever doubted what's wrong with this process this RfA will stand as a shinning example. No bit is worth this. Bugs, if you ever run again let someone else take care of the opposers. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with the above, RfA isn't about behaving but about being who you are and judged on your own merits. If he's overly rude, let him get opposed for it, but don't go pressuring to close it when he's actually got a leading margin of support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you were to allocate the neutral !votes to support and oppose, then you could almost call it 96-95... Bugs, when you decide to run again let me know. I won't offer to handle the opposers, but I will offer to !vote early. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to echo Cyclonenim, did it really need to be closed? He had a leading margin of support(by a little over ten votes I believe).WackoJackO 12:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is RFA purely a numerical vote? Barely over 50% support makes a successful RFA? Minkythecat (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly: a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail. Personally I'd have been happier if the closure hadn't occurred on the basis of Bugs saying "I think I've had enough", however at this point it's clear that Bugs has chosen to withdraw. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Minkythecat, I never said it was a successful RFA, I just said he did have a leading margin of support votes . However, he clearly did withdraw himself. Also, I guess you are right that he couldn't have passed based on the percentage requirement. WackoJackO 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)