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

Final (49/37/17); closed by Pakaran at 17:15 December 13 2009 (UTC)

Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) – Hard working, kind, thoughtful and smart editor who has spend copious amounts of time since last RfA working on the areas which were suggested to improve on Basket of Puppies 15:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: New Page Patrolling-Speedy Deletion I hope to be able to further my involvement in new page patrolling by being able to delete pages which decidedly fell within the criteria for speedy deletion.

• Vandal Fighting-Blocking vandals After issuing the appropriate warnings, blocking vandal only accounts and issuing short term blocks for IPs. As well, I hope to be able to semi and fully protect pages from active and ongoing vandalism. (See below for more.)

• Edit warring-Page Protection I hope to sparringly use the protection features (Semi and Full) in order to help with edit wars. At the same time I will attempt to help mediate in order to solve the crux of the warring.

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

A: I am most proud of New Waveland Cafe and Clinic, which achieved Good Article status after a lot of hard work. Additionally, I have do a nightly new page patrol and have been very successful in tagging articles that were clear copyright violations and also articles that were vanity pages. One of the most important contributions I have made, I believe, is browsing WP:ANI for new threads opened in concern of other editors. I have made a real effort to ensure that all parties are notified of the thread by checking for such notification and adding the appropriate notice to their user talk page. I believe this is extremely important as editors should be notified promptly of administrative threads opened in regards to them.

In addition, I feel that this effort of content dispute resolution is one of my better ones. The article in question is extremely contentious and has a previous ArbCom case against it. I was able to gather all the concerned parties together, discuss the disparate views and come to a consensus. I am extremely proud of this.

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: A recent and rather minor conflict that occurred happened when an editor took issue with how I was self-clerking WP:ANI. I took an honest and appreciative look at how that editor viewed my contributions and changed them. That editor told me he appreciated how I quickly made a change and the minor conflict ended.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

4. You have indicated a desire to both protect pages and resolve disputes that prompt request for page protection. How would you handle this scenario:

• User#1, a newbie with only 5 edits on a two day old account, changes the release date for an upcoming film. There is no source cited for the previous date or the new edit
• User#2, a more experienced editor, reverts the change as unsourced, saying he saw the date somewhere but doesn't have the link handy just now
• This goes back and forth a few times, with snarky remarks in edit summarres, but no discussion on the talk page.
• User#2 requests semi protection at WP:RPP

A:This is an excellent question and something that I have actually encountered and successfully mediated. First and foremost, constant reverting of an article is disruptive, especially when neither version contains any reliable sources to verify the claim being made. A request for semi-protection by the more experienced User #2 would put the article in a position where the newly registered User #1 would not be able to edit it and only User #2 could, thus leading to a situation where the article would be protected in the wrong version (in the opinion of User #1). In this specific case I would leave messages on the talk pages of both editors asking them to come and comment on a new section on the article's talk page, which would be the area to discuss the issue, present views, provide references and hopefully come to a consensus. If one or both of the editors refused to participate in this discussion and/or continued edit warring even if they were engaged in discussion then I would ask for full-protection of the page. Striking the previous comment as I now see that it's not the correct step to take. Basket of Puppies 06:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) At that point, depending on the severity of the personal comments, I would hand write notes to each editor indicating why we must avoid personal attacks and maintain civility. If the edit-war continued after the expiration of the full-protecting, and if no reliable sources could be uncovered that would confirm any of the positions, then I would hand-write a stern warning about the disruptiveness of edit-warring. After the stern warning, which would include a kind but firmly worded note of the possibility of being blocked for WP:3RR, I would then issue a final warning after which they would be blocked to prevent further disruption.[reply]

This situation has played out to the blocking conclusion many, many times on this project. It's something that I sincerely hope to be able to intervene in and help avoid, but I will be willing to make such blocks. I am extremely patient and have a very thick skin and like to think this is something I would do well in.

Addendum If one or bother editors continued to edit war then I would have the offender(s) blocked instead of protecting the page. This would allow for others to continue to improve the article while preventing continue edit-warring from the individual users.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

5. You also have an interest in speedy deletion. Two of the more misunderstood criteria are A7, no indication of importance and G1, patent nonsense. Can you please explain in your own words where the line is between indicating importance and not indicating it, and what constitutes patent nonsense and what does not.

A:A7 indicates that the article has not supplied a reason why the topic is notable. An example would be an article about my neighbor which said, "Eddie a guy who picks up my mail when I am out of town." This does not indicate why Eddie is notable. If the article instead read, "Eddie is a guy who picks up my mail and he is a famous politician who won the Nobel Prize in Economics" this would assert that he is notable. Thus, it would not qualify for A7.

G1, patent nonsense, is a description of just that. If an article is created with text that is complete gibberish and not just mistaken for being a foreign language then this gibberish would fall under G1. Random letters, numbers and symbols would be an example of patent nonsense.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

6. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A.Coffee, I don't think you could have picked a better example of a more contentious AfD that clearly lacked in consensus. There were many opinions from many long time editors and administrators on both sides of the issue. As an administrator who would attempt to close this AfD I would have to look very carefully at not simply the number of positions on either side, but very carefully at the arguments presented. This specific case required a strong knowledge of WP:BIO and reading carefully through the reliable sources. Only if the reliable sources truly established notability on their own merits and only if the subject truly passed the notability threshold would I close as keep. In this case a thorough reading of WP:BIO indicated that the subject did not pass the notability test. Having minor references in reliable sources does not achieve notability. As well, using blogs and personal websites as references does not usually help to establish true notability. I believe that deleting was correct, although obviously contentious.

Addendum The policy WP:BLP must also be carefully applied to such an AfD.

7. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A.The current BLP policy is well-written and emphasizes caution and carefulness in every way. I very much agree with this and believe that due to the popularity of the English Wikipedia we must always err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and it's not a rumor mill. All BLPs must strictly adhere to being neutral, verifiable on all claims and supported by reliable sources. Any claims, conjecture, weasel words and anything that might cast doubt, suspicion or other nasties must be removed. I have created and edited articles of living people and always ensure to strictly hold to those criteria.

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

6. Further to Beeblebrox's question. Can you explain why these May SD requests of yours were not valid under the SD Criteria: this A1 ("no context") requestand this A7 ("no indication of importance of a real person") request?

A:Regarding the Diane Austin article, I think that my eyes just didn't see the indication of importance. Had I see that I would sure not have marked it as Speedy A7. Regarding the context one, I think you might want to check the link. It goes to the same article. :) I learned from incorrectly marking the A7 and believe that I will be able to avoid such mistakes in the future.

Sorry, I meant to use this link for the A1 request! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Regarding marking that one as A1, it was incorrectly marked. Fortunately that did happen many months ago and I have since learned the appropriate instance when A1 can be applied. Basket of Puppies 19:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Addihockey10

9. When are cool down blocks acceptable and why? --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:I think cool-down blocks are a really bad idea. I don't think they actually cool anyone down and only inflame the situation. If someone in the middle of vandalizing articles or uninterrupted personal attacks then I see no issue with a short preventive block to avoid further vandalism or attacks. However if there is a heated debate I am not in favor of cooldown blocks as they don't cool anything. I highly value dialogue and communication instead.

I understand that tempers can become heated and someone may genuinely feel that their position is either being ignored or otherwise mistreated. Instituting a cool-down block would cause the editor to feel silenced. In turn the editor's frustration would only grow and thus the cool-down block turns into a heat-up block. The consequences can be an editor in good standing with a long history of excellent contributions who feels a lack of trust, feelings hurt and now has a block history where none may have previous existed.

For all these reasons, I feel that cool-down blocks should be avoided unless there is active vandalism or significant disruption that does not respond to warnings.

Questions from FASTILY

10. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.

A: In the instances where a non-free image is being considered for use, WP:NONFREE is the policy that governs this process. If there exists an image of a living person that is under a copyright then the image may be used as long as the criteria located in WP:NONFREE is followed. Specifically, a fair use rationale must exist that indicates why the specific image needs to be used and another image cannot fulfill the desired use. In summary, a non-free image of a living person can be used in an article provided the fair use criteria is followed.

Addendum Having spent copious amounts of time reviewing the relevant policies and guidelines, it is clear that a non-free image of a living person is not acceptable for use. Taking a new, free picture is almost always possible and as such a non-free image would not be acceptable.

The exception There exist specific cases where a fair use rationale is acceptable. One that quickly comes to mind is JD Salinger. Salinger avoids public life, is extremely reclusive and obtaining a new, free image is nearly impossible. No acceptable free-licensed image exists, thus allowing this sort of non-free image to be used on Wikipedia.

11. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain.

A: The licensing policy includes a very interesting and very useful clause, known as the "Exemption Doctrine Policy". This policy allows editors on specific projects to upload legally permitted copyrighted material. There are many clauses, issues and stipulations involved in this exemption policy and they must be adhered to and thoroughly investigated before implementing.

Based upon this policy and the project in question, certain non-free images and content may be acceptable for upload to Wikimedia servers. It is not a violation of the foundation's policies as the policy specifically provides for a mechanism in which such content can be stored and used. The proper attributions must always be maintained and the rationale must be included on the talk page of the content.

12. A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article, Sea turtle. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially a problem?

A:

13. Photos from press agencies (like that of the AP) are predominantly prohibited on Wikipedia. Is there ever an instance in which usage of these images is permitted? Explain.

A: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 is the policy regarding press agencies and using images. The AP photos are usually prohibited due to copyright laws. However there are times where the AP uses images that are in the public domain, or the image is licensed with an acceptable free license. Also, there may be a fair use rationale for using an image. In this case the resolution of the image would need to be reduced so that it did not harm the AP's profit from the work. As well, in cases of a press agency's photo that contains sourced commentary.

Additional optional questions from Mpdelbuono

14. You claim to intend to work a lot in the CSD area. Could you please, in your own words, describe the difference between CSD criteria A1 and A3?

A:A1 and A3 are often confused and there is no shortage of articles being tagged with one when the other was meant. A1 is placed on an article when the article does not identify who is being written about. A good example would be an article that says, "She walked down the street on her way to get coffee." This would be a good candidate for being tagged as A1 as who is being described is completely unknown. A3 is when there is no actual content in the article. If an article contains no text (and hasn't been vandalized), only has a link to a website, consists only of tags or is being used for communication with the members of the article then these articles can correctly be labeled with A3.

Additional optional questions from Laurinavicius

15. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is an action taken by an administrator that results when an editor consistently violated policy. A block can be for a variable amount of time, usually increasing in duration (up to and including indefinite) if there is continued violation. A ban is a community or ArbCom instituted status that indicates a certain individual is prohibited from editing the English Wikipedia from any account.

Blocks, a temporary revocation of editing privileges, are a preventative measure, meant to protect Wikipedia articles and editors from disruption. A block may be issued to a registered user or an IP editor based upon their edits and contributions. If their contributions violate policy- are vandalistic, harassing, disruptive, legal threats, etc- and they continue this manner of contribution despite being appropriately warned then an administrator may enact a technical measure in order to prevent further such disruption. This technical measure is a block, which prevents the user from editing. When a user is blocked they are notified on their talk page of the reason and duration, how to appeal the block and usually advice on how to avoid further situation.

Users are banned by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee (enforced by administrators), by Jimbo or the Foundation from one article, a class of articles or even the entire project.

Additional optional questions from Gigs

16. You come upon an article about a guy named Robert Smith, who is apparently a CEO of a regional company. There is a poorly written claim in the article that Mr. Smith is a scam artist that has taken lots of people's money. What do you do?

A: Mr Smith's article is a WP:BLP and this policy must be adhered to. Any claim that Mr Smith is a scam artist, stolen money, etc I would immediately remove. If there were reliable sources to indicate that Mr Smith has been convicted of these crimes then the claims can be rewritten in a neutral tone with the reliable sources cited. However, in the absence of reliable sources I would immediately remove the claims and then watchlist the article.

Addendum Additionally, I would delete the revisions of the libelous material and consider requesting oversight.

17. You notice a user has blanked an article. What would be your personal process for handling this situation?

A: Article blanking is generally disruptive, but there do exist a small number of reasons why it might be appropriate. If the article is an attack page, blatant copyright infringement or a clear WP:BLP violation then it can legitimately be blanked. In the case of an editor blanking a page I would first go and check the blanked version and then check the article's talk page and history for any edit-summaries indicating why this had happened. I would also drop a note on the editor's talk page. If it clearly fell under the acceptable reasons for blanking and the blanking editor clearly indicated why they took this action then I would accept their reasoning. The article might be salvageable and require userification for a period of time before returning to the article space. In the case of a user blanking an article that did not fall under the previous listed criteria, I would restore the article and issue a level-appropriate warning on the user's talk page.

Addendum Another reason for the page blanking may be CSD G7, where the author of the article requests deletion. However this generally only apply when the editor who requests deletion has been the sole major contributor of content to the article.

18. Under what situations would you block a user that hadn't been issued a full set of warning templates?

A:

Additional optional question from Jeffrey Mall

19. An editor or IP address posts the personal telephone number or email address of the subject of a BLP on the highly visible article page of the subject. How would you deal with such an edit as an Administrator?

A: Posting a telephone number or email address is a WP:BLP violation. As an administrator, I would remove the information and delete the revision. Furthermore, I would contact the offending party and explain to them why this not allowed and refer them to read and become familiar with WP:BLP.

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

---

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

• Might be an idea to answer the questions before it's transcluded.  GARDEN  15:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd go so far as to even call that a good idea. Useight (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an excellent idea. I have just finished answering the questions. Basket of Puppies 15:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit stats posted on talk page. Sorry, wiki-formatting is not my strong point. Useight (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: As a non-admin, I obviously can't see the candidate's deleted items: Can anyone who is an admin please let us know the number of successful SDs? I can see several unsuccessful SDs, but I would really benefit from knowing the number of successful SDs, as the candidate says they want "to delete pages which decidedly fell within the criteria for speedy deletion" - and this would allow me (and others) to see how the candidate does in judging by the criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, on the talk page of this page, you can see that they've had just about 600 deleted edits. That's usually a pretty good barometer... Tan | 39 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - "while all answers are responses, not all responses are answers" to paraphrase from Babylon 5! Are you saying that the majority of those deleted contributions are successful Speedy Deletion requests? Theoretically, a lot of them could be edits during BoP's early editing career here, on articles that were later deleted. If an admin can say that they have looked at the deleted edits and found that (number) or (%) are successful SD requests, that'd make it a lot easier for me (and perhaps others) to be in a better position to judge how successful the candidate is in SD requests. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His last 500 deleted edits go back only as far as September, the vast majrity of them are SD taggings, mostly A7 and G11. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beeblebrox - that's what I was looking for. I'll await BoP's answers to a couple of the questions before making a decision. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Basket of Puppies, Question 13 is half wrong while 10 and 11 read like you don't understand non-free content policy and are trying to avoid answering the question directly. As a sysop, you will undoubtedly come across image copyright at some point. Perhaps you might like to try again? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-sigh- Nice try but no dice. Leave me a message on my talk when this RfA is over and I'll give you the right answers. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I'd recommend not adding this. That makes question 13 flat wrong. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, I understand. I guess my confusion was over the part in WP:NFC that states A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. I felt that this indicated that a fair use of the image would require reducing the resolution sufficiently to make the original still able to turn a profit. Basket of Puppies 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Basket of Puppies: Going by the information you supplied in the Discussion section in your 1st RfA, you confirmed you began editing with your account on 1st January 2009 but subsequently explained away your nom statement of having edited for "nearly a year" by agreeing that you did so as an IP for "a month or so" beforehand. That would take us to late 2008. There is no evidence that you edited earlier than this. On 14 May 2009 you awarded yourself, upon your user page, the Journeyman's Award, which requires 6 months editing and 1,000 edits. At that time, your edit count was less than 800. Two months later, on 21 July, you replaced this with the extant Experienced and Established Editor Award, which requires 6,000 edits and one and a half years' service. An explanation, please? Plutonium27 (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plutonium27, it was a complete and total mistake on my part. I've fixed it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Basket of Puppies 06:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already !voted, so this only makes a difference of degree. BoP, no way can I accept this breezy "Gee I goofed but I fixed it now, see!" line. The criteria for the service awards are clear and unambiguous: no literate user can seriously claim to seek and apply them to their user page and yet not know for what they stand for. Yet you claim to have done so twice? I will not and cannot WP:AGF on this. This is deception and it is utterly unacceptable. Plutonium27 (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe claiming it was a mistake was deception (I agree the description of the awards leaves little room for misinterpretation), but there's no rule against placing service awards on your user page of which you do not meet the criteria.--Atlan (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deception? Plutonium, I am truly insulted. It was an honest mistake that occurred months and months ago. I don't know what else to say but hope that you can try to assume good faith. Basket of Puppies 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why good faith cannot be assumed. Your protest is insulting in its pretense that your woefully unearned self-aggrandisement could be construed as an innocent mistake. Even if one was to assume the good faith you insist must be shown despite this, are you seriously going to continue to promote yourself as an admin candidate who therefore cannot comprehend a line of very basic requirements? Twice? Either way, its not on. Drop this wide-eyed charade that its no big deal. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and here I thought no one gave a shit about these "awards" that one gives to oneself and does not mean a damn thing. I stand corrected; apparently this is an issue to oppose an RfA candidate over. What do I know. Tan | 39 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there, until just now, some cut-off point for the acceptance of deliberate misrepresentation, some Tan-line where it "does not mean a damn thing" in an RfA? Pleased to have wowed you, then. This candidate self-noms to RfA for the second time in 3 months, still with a far shorter tenure and a scantier record of contributions that is generally accepted. He chose to decoratively and definitively over-inflate his contribution by a factor of 3 on his user page. You know, newbies go there for help, they see this stuff and when reviewing someone for an RfA we look at how they conduct themselves against how they claim to do so and..... yeah right, who cares? Does not mean a damn thing. Fine. OK, non-existent-Ph.D-dude and Flying Toaster and all you kicked-out, written-off hopefuls. Those censures and sanctions for assorted dishonesty/Oh-I-Forgot!/AGF/the duck that quacked ? Just incidental and arbitrary factors these days. Not even worth mentioning. So welcome, Here are the tools. Do your stuff. Bullshit all you want. Tan doesn't know. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?Tan | 39 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a mountain from a molehill issue. The guy made a mistake, copped to it and it did happen months ago. Not a lot of folk - on-wiki or off - are willing to do that a lit. Maybe release the Kung-Fu death grip you have on this. He wasn't being deceptive; he was being inexperienced. - Hexhand (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plutonium: No one gives a shit about those awards, and it's not like they make you have any more authority. Please go sit down, and shut up about it. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this user did. User:SparksBoy felt so strongly about it, he wikisuicided, DFE'd and even felt the pain in the first person: "...in fact, the first time that I saw the awards, I only saw the edit count." Perhaps BoP would pass on a message could explain this ...? Plutonium27 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Plutonium27 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking that user's comments wildly out of context. To come to the conclusion that they quit because of BoP's erroneous service awards is patently ridiculous. Shereth 14:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I said, Shereth.Plutonium27 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user "quit" because of you, Plutonium, not because of BoP or whatever awards he gave to himself. Not that I think it's a big deal, but don't try to use that as some sort of justification for whatever crusade you're on. Tan | 39 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you think its a big deal but don't try to use that as some sort of justification for whatever contradictory follow-up you're following on. Anyway, that user cared so much about BoP that they'd !voted here for them? Commented here for them? Sent a supportive/farewell message on BoP's talk page? No. That user had their own reasons and their own place to shake them out. The only reason that user would have quit because of me is because that user had some reason to be concerned that someone wasn't buying everything they're selling. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see logic is completely out the window. "No one cares about awards." "But what about THIS user? They care!" "Well, yes, they cared that you were bagging on the candidate about it." "But then why didn't they vote for this user?!" I have no idea what the next comment should be - there's no telling how you'll interpret it. Tan | 39 17:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that attempting to engage in a logical debate with someone who continually fails to respond in a logical manner is an excersize in futility. There are several things I would like to say in response to the nonsensical responses above but have alreay concluded that it is a hopeless venture and not worth the effort. Shereth 21:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SparksBoy contacted me privately asking me to post a last message for him since he has decided to "vanish". This last message is an attempt to clarify things he said, but I haven't been following this RfA too closely so don't expect much commentary for me.

I hardly wikisuicided because of this issue, it was something that was coming regardless of what happened here. I talked in first person in that part of that message explaining that when I first saw the awards I only saw the edit count, explaining that I can see where BoP's mistake was made. Sadly my comments were taken out of context, anyways I did send my support to BoP through another mode of communication, but felt that coming out of retirement to support this user would look bad, thus I didn't make my support official.

— Sparksboy

Just doing this out of courtesy for him. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support Dedicated editor who has certaintly improved since their last RfA.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Though your last RfA was only 2.5 months ago, I don't think that you'll break anything if you have access to a few extra buttons. You're a kind and competent editor whose improvements have been consistent. @Kate (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Per above. You have improved since your last RfA, and I trust that you won't break anything. The thing that should not be 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards due to no memorable negative interactions, as candidate was trusted enough to be given Rollback Rights, candidate appreciates puppies (Napoleon once said something about people who like dogs appreciate faithfulness, or something to that effect), user has a good article credit under the belt, user has been editing for nearly a year, user has significantly contributed to or created dozens of articles, User:Basket_of_Puppies#Awards is nice to see, at the time of my supporting, no one has commented in the oppose section of this page, and has never even been accidentally blocked, which means NINE reasons I could come up with to support! Bravo!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support balance of evidence suggests a net positive is a more than likely outcome, so worth a shot with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Andrea105 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support You've made some great strides since your last RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, I can't see any real reason not to trust this candidate; as for his edit count, I passed RfA having made only 2900 edits myself. --Aqwis (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Looks good to me. Additionally I have no problem with the automated edits percentage that others have, it is not unreasonable especially with all the new tools out there to help with vandalism to have a significant portion of your edits being "automated" when working against vandals... RP459 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Looks fine. More than enough experience by any rational standard. --Aquillion (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Answers look fine to me. A8UDI 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Have reviewed your previous RFA, contribs look good. I don't see why Automated edits are a problem, and your deleted edits don't appear to be an issue either. I've had over 800 edits deleted through vandal fighting and CSD work. No blocks, no bans.... I think you'd make a great admin. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support opposes not matter to me. — JoJo • Talk • 02:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support The only thing stopping me from supporting you was Q15 :) --Addihockey10^{(review me!)}`
15. Answers to questions are satisfactory, as well as contributions. Keegan (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, a useful contributor to WP:ANI and I am happy to support this candidate. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - trustworthy and enough experience. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Weak Support: I would never support such a candidate. Not enough time on Wikipedia, the high level of CSD work with Twinkle, the state of several of the stubs created without any references at all etc etc. Only 2 months in between RfAs plus use of automated editing make it impossible to support. However I basically like this candidate (must be the puppies) therefore I am going to give weak support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Probably a net positive. I trust this user, and think they will be able to use the tools responsibly, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support: The opposes confuse me, and don't sway me in the least. A complete net positive.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Provisional support I've reviewed the opposes and the bulk of them contain legitimate complaints. However the answers to most questions are reasonable, what I recall of interactions with the candidate were favorable and s/he wants to help. If this fails, please seek out an experienced admin and ask for help. The advice you get there will greatly improve your understanding of processes and policies. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support: Despite the complaints, I feel that you can do most admin work without breaking the wiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support I see no reason to not trust you. THe encyclopedia will only benefit from you adminship :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support BejinhanTalk 03:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. POINTy Support. This place is getting slightly absurd. Eighteen (as of my count, this moment) questions? I'm not sure I would have passed this RfA. - Philippe 05:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't speak for other people, but I tend to ask questions only when I think there is a chance the answer would sway me from oppose to support. Because this is a candidate with no glaring issues, but a lot of people have concerns over experience and knowledge, I think it's entirely appropriate that we give him a chance to prove himself by asking him more questions than we might otherwise. It's not like people are asking him irrelevant questions. Gigs (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27. Moral Support. I think we have good material here, and a definite future admin. I do have to say that while I can certainly understand some of the experience concerns below, I also think a few of the questions were a bit over the top as well. I'd likely suggest that waiting until early summer (May or so), might benefit the candidate. I'd also like to extend my thanks to BoP for the work s/he's been putting into our project, please keep up the kind, helpful, and dedicated work you're doing - I look forward to seeing a strong consensus of giving you the tools in the future. — Ched :  ?  14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. The candidate is qualified for the tasks he evinces an interest in performing. Whether or not this RfA is successful, I am sure he will carefully consider the feedback he has received here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Quality contributions to talk pages and article space, does plenty of clean up work so has a clear need for the tools, plus a very cute user page pic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong Support We need admins to set an example of courtesy and collegiality. The oppose arguments are very weak. Keep up the good work BoP. We need more editors and admins like you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strong Support - We need courteous, quality admins. I trust BasketOfPuppies won't break the wiki. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Looking through edits, previous RFA, answers and the opinions here I see nothing to indicate that BoP will be anything but a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Lack of experience is a legitimate concern, but I see nothing troubling in a random spot-check of contribs. Editcountitis seems rampant here, but the solution is to urge BoP to learn everything he can about the tools and the conventions for using them before he uses them. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Wikipedia has a burnout problem and needs responsible new admins with their enthusiasm still intact. I trust he will exercise due caution if granted tools.--agr (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Looks good enough for me. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support BoP seems to be competant and conscientious.RadManCF (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong Support Well-improved since previous RfA, Deo Volente! 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Weak support - meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including starting articles and sufficient WP edits, and improvement in the past months. Avoid self references in the third person. No other qualms. He can probably handle the mop. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - Excuse beginning with humor, but .. Tan's gut feeling is to oppose, however Tan has scary hair—so my gut says support. :-) More seriously: Like that Puppies has the nerve to ask (again) with so few edits (acknowledging ip work). Like that with all the opposition, Puppies will not be likely to wield the bit with the swagger that a 90%+ approval might bring ... Now: Because I'm voting with my gut, I will back up this vote with a promise to observe result of this leap of faith ... and nudge, if necessary, toward the path of "the good administrator." Proofreader77 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Looks like a reasonable candidate on my review. I reviewed the past 200 edits and the past 100 WP space edits and was impressed. Contributes to article space, reasonably experienced, and no egregious errors. To be honest, I am somewhat perplexed by the level of opposition to this candidate. Has my wholehearted support -- Samir 05:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support per answer 9. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, BoP may be imperfect (unlike the rest of us, surely!), but from what I've seen is careful and thoughtful. I'm much less concerned about a knowledge of policy going in (after all, checking a policy one is unsure of requires only the ability to read), but with ability to interact civilly and think clearly. I don't see that lacking clearly. As to the rest of the opposes...who cares about the user awards, really, and what's with the editcountitis/wherearetheeditscountitis/howwastheeditmadecountitis? Using semiautomated tools (distinction is important!) to help with tasks that have repetitive components is a sign of intelligence and "working smarter", not laziness or lack of dedication, as long as the actions ultimately taken are correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Per Newyorkbrad and Seraphimblade. Tim Song (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. I don't see why strong editorial contributions absolutely matter for this kind of work.West one girl (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support: Dedicated editor. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support because I read the oppose section and half of it sounds like nitpicky bitching. Gurch (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support per Gurch's reason. I can find no reason to oppose, and believe that other people (at least seem to) enjoy doing so. Would make a great admin. Good luck. :) archanamiya · talk 03:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. For the lulz. --cremepuff222 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That was mature... ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

49. Support- The RfA process is deplorable. It takes an act of Congress and a vote of the Cardinals in the Vatican to be given the royal decree of Administrator (said with loud booming voice as Moses would have heard it on top the mountain. I have seen BoP since his/her inception at WP. He/She was asking about how to do this and how to do that and just seemed to enjoy being a part of the project. So what he/she did whatever with the little "time-in-rate" self awards. Who cares about the huggle, the kissle or whatever automated process. He/She will obviously not abuse the phenomenal cosmic power of being an omnipitant Administrator. I gave up long ago on even attempting this insane process to become an Admin. My hats off to BoP for taking the punches. This whole thing is like being pelted with rocks and thanking all of the throwers. Good luck with your endeavors, BoP!--It's me...Sallicio! 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am totally naming my next app "kissle". Gurch (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Argh. I hate to be the first oppose for this RfA, especially given the undoubtedly positive effect BoP has had on this project. I just cannot convince myself that this editor is ready for the mop; it's not a matter of there being a "net positive" - it's a matter of me thinking that there is too much of a chance for mistakes to be made. The contributions to admin-related areas I see as superficial - it's as if a lot of clerking, gnoming, and fringe-content has been done, with little "meat". The candidate's contributions give me little indication (Nobody's support notwithstanding) of how they will act in that arena. I typically react negatively towards editcountitis; however, in this case I think several more months of experience and double the edits would give me a better gauge for which to measure the candidate. I encourage other !voters to not vote "per Tan" without doing a lot of research - this oppose is more of a gut feeling than one I can back up with diffs. Tan | 39 21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose insufficient evidence the editor understands what's at stake with the content in the encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What, exactly, is at stake? Gigs (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Real people and their rights to basic human dignity, perhaps? JamieS93 23:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed, but I was more curious about what Bali meant specifically. Gigs (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Interested in JamieS93's gloomy statement, infringements on "basic human dignity", I examined the list, picked one at random Lois McMaster Bujold - and voila - there are plenty of references. The "problem" there seems to be lack of inline citations. The article is chemically cleansed of contentious info and lack of inline citations for uncontested material is hardly a hot issue threatening basic human dignity. Such alarmist statements show lack of judgment and perhaps young age. Spot cheking some other entries, avoiding obviously ridiculous list entries such as Milan Kundera and Salman Rushdie, gives no rise to concern. Pointing to this list as evidence of "a problem" is a farce. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a useful database report, is all. I could have simply pointed to WP:BLP; while I agree that many entries are false-positives, a list like that gives you an idea of the potential for damage. This is better (I just like database reports). But it's clearly not a stretch to say that people's personal lives and reputations are at stake, and that's called human rights. JamieS93 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong Oppose. While I certainly believe that you are headed in the right direction and that you have made some extraordinary contributions to the project, I just don't think you have enough experience to be a sysop. Sure, eight months is a long time, but making roughly 300-500 edits per month isn't nearly enough activity for me to support. Not only that, about 700 of your 3,600 edits are automated. You state you wish to work in anti-vandalism, yet I see you have made a grand total of 7 edits to WP:AIV. Also, I'd recommend being careful when working with images. File:Twinklefirefoxosxscreenshot.png is a copyright violation, deletable by WP:CSD#F9. Coming from someone who intends to work in WP:CSD, I find this rather disturbing. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't seem like much has changed since you previous RfA. I don't mean to discourage you, but I just don't think you have what it takes to wield the mop just yet. Perhaps in a few months and several thousand more edits. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not so sure about your logic on that copyvio. Firefox and Twinkle are both free open source software, so whose copyright is being violated by the screenshot? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   At a minimum, the wikipedia globe is copyrighted and "All Rights Reserved", Wikimedia Foundation. It is never allowed in free content. Gigs (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (e/c)While Firefox and Twinkle are both free software, that doesn't necessarily mean that screenshots can be released into the public domain. There's also the Wikipedia logo in the image, which is copyrighted. And there are also elements of the OS X interface which AFAIK is proprietary. Mr.Z-man 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree that a large number of automated edits is a problem, but i'm curious how many non-automated edits per month are satisfactory for an admin. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Weak oppose You have only about a year's experience coupled with less than 4000 edits. This would be ok if you were a super-outstanding candidate with a good quality nomination by a trusted user, but the self nom seems a little inappropriate. I'm also leery of anyone who manages to find and add Twinkle to their account four minutes after it was created. With all of these factors put together, I just don't trust you. ThemFromSpace 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He said in his previous RfA that he had been editing as an IP before he signed up, and may have signed up in part because it was the only way to be able to use Twinkle. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok, I'll strike that. I still have issues with experience, though. Switching to weak oppose. ThemFromSpace 00:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I dunno, I'm just not comfortable for some reason I can't verbalize at this point. For now, I must regretfully oppose. DS (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Actually, I'm not sure if I'm thinking of the right person. Not ready to oppose or support yet. DS (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Very Weak oppose The answers to several of the questions give me pause. Question 15 is kind of wrong about bans vs blocks. I used to think that it's patronizing to ask people these basic questions, but the frequency that they are answered incorrectly has surprised me. Grasp of copyright seems a little weak, but he didn't claim to want to work in images, so I'm not sure all the image questions are necessarily fair. One of the big issues is that he seems to be simply summarizing existing policy without having given them much thought prior to this. His answers don't particularly inspire confidence that he could handle synthesizing the spirit of the policies needed for dealing with edge cases. While none of these are big issues, they are just enough to edge me into oppose. I get the feeling that the more questions he answers, the further I will be driven to opposition, but we'll see. Gigs (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC) He amended the answer to 15, it's better now, still oppose for now though. Gigs (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, the answers to my questions have not filled me with a lot of confidence. I would have liked you to at least consider revision oversight on the libelous comments in the BLP, and as was noted below, when a page is blanked, very often it's speedyable because the author who blanked it was the sole contributor. I think these problems are just because of a lack of experience... and I don't see any reason why you couldn't gain the sysop bit once you have more experience. Gigs (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Certainly I would consider deleting the revisions and also requesting oversight. This would happen after my immediate removal of the offending content and watchlisting of the article. I will amend my answer above. Basket of Puppies 03:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. From a review of his edits to ANI, I get somewhat of the same impression as Tan; most of his edits to the page seem to consist of "clerical" notes rather than adding to the discussion. Decided to oppose after reading some of the answers to the questions. I don't like that BLP apparently didn't come into consideration at all in Q6. Q10 is just wrong; Its generally been accepted that, except in extreme cases like J.D. Salinger, a free image could presumably be created for a notable living person and therefore a non-free one will never pass WP:NFCC#1. I also agree with Gigs that many of the answers seem to just be summaries of policy with no personal twist or interpretation. Knowing the wording of policy is not especially important. Knowing the reasoning for policies is, and from reviewing his recent contributions and the answers to the questions, I'm not convinced that BoP understands the reasoning behind enough of administrative policy and procedure. Mr.Z-man 06:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   MrZMan, I respectfully submit that my answer to Q10 is technically correct. While the practice may rarely occur, I was asked a very specific question about policy and I presented the mechanism in which it could legally occur. I realize, however, that in practice it almost never happens. Basket of Puppies 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The answer is technically correct, in the sense that all it really says is "It can be done when policy says it can be done." However, the answer fails to mention that "when policy says it can be done", for all intents and purposes, is almost never. Such an answer could easily be modified to answer any question about when something is allowed. All it shows is that you know what policy applies and where it is. Admins are expected to know more than where to find policy and how to paraphrase it, they're expected to know how to apply the policy and the "why" behind policy. The answers to the questions here do not convince me that you understand that. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Mr.z-man, I am a bit confused. My reply to the question wasn't a generic "when policy allows" but rather contained specifics and details. Regarding non-free images, this is an example where a free use rationale has been accepted and fits quite well with the what, hows and whys I described in my answer. Basket of Puppies 06:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry that you don't understand. The best I can summarize it is by quoting part of Gigs's comment above: "[The] answers don't particularly inspire confidence that he could handle synthesizing the spirit of the policies needed for dealing with edge cases." You seem to be putting far too much emphasis on the wording of policies vs. the meaning; and your comments here do not indicate if that is because you aren't sufficiently familiar with the meanings, or you just don't think the meaning is important. All I can say at this point is that your responses are really not helping to change my mind. (And FWIW, that question is not the main reason I opposed, Q6 is more important.) Mr.Z-man 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose while I had hoped to support, I don't see the level of activity (read, uncomfortable with your level of experience) at AIV, UAA, and RPP as a strong indication, and I'd like to see more experience with CSD's. ArcAngel (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I understand. Regarding the AIV and UAA, this edit counter indicates I have 25 reports to UAA and 14 RPP. I attempt to keep the RPP low by reaching out to the different parties and attempting to come to a consensus, as I successfully did here. Basket of Puppies 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose Seems a little too eager for the bit in my tastes. And just not that confident in his experience level. -- œ^™ 08:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Is being excited to do something a bad thing? Tim1357 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose. Not now. The self-nomination rationale puts me off. I reviewed some of the articles you created, many cite only primary sources Bryan E. Bledsoe, Yitzchak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life, even no sources Cerebrospinal fluid leak, or were redirected Radiolucency. You obviously need more experience before I would trust you to delete other people's work. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi, power.corrupts. I thank you for your feedback. However I hope you won't mind if I offer a minor correction. You indicated that I used only primary sources for some ariticles that I created. I admit that this is the case for Cerebrospinal fluid leak, however Bryan E. Bledsoe uses secondary sources in addition to the primary sources. I have gone to those articles and added references where none or few previous existed. Thank you for letting me know about the missing references. :) Basket of Puppies 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. 2 months between RfAs? Seriously? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that really a reason to oppose? Tim1357 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Per Tan, OlEnglish. NW (Talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose per Mr.Z-man and Power.corrupts. GlassCobra 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose While I disagree with Power.corrupts, and consequently GlassCobra (the diffs cited go way, way back) I believe you lack experience, confidence, and maturity. I would recommend more participation in dispute resolution (not necessarily through WP:DR) and more experience with content (not necessarily audited, and not necessarily creating new content). Additionally, I'd recommend you wait longer than 2¹/₂ months for your next RfA. A minimum of 8-9 months would be better. Aditya Ex Machina 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose You seem to be fairly well experienced, but the high level of CSD work with Twinkle concerns me, as does the state of several of the stubs you created (as listed on your talk page). Specifically I mean stubs which you created without any references at all and other issues. Overeagerness (only 2 months in between RFAs?) plus use of automated editing and poor quality in some of your article writing all equals me feeling uneasy. Steven Walling 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While I obviously agree that the created articles are a concern, I am curious to hear a little more about your objection to the automated editing. I myself have finally begun using Twinkle to do CSDs and AFDs, but it's merely as an aid to speed up the process, and it automatically reminds people, whereas I sometimes forget. Do you mind elaborating? GlassCobra 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My heavy use of Twinkle is due to it's speed, automatic notification and easy of use. I didn't realize that it would be counted against me. Basket of Puppies 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally it wouldn't. There is a recent trend at these things to go against people who have a lot of automated edits. Maybe in a few months this trend will cease, but right now automated edits in large quantities are a major liability to the user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    They certainly are - see here!. Lucky he doesn't use Huggle as I well know from experience...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to echo the concerns here -- I really don't understand the logic behind counting the use of a tool against someone when it quite obviously still takes intelligence and understanding to be able to effectively wield the tool. Lack of use of the tool would do nothing except slow the process down, which is beneficial to nobody. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about others, but I find heavy use of automated editing tools troublesome (in RFA) for a couple reasons:

    A. We look at contributions as a gauge of trustworthiness. I think automated editing inflates edit counts to make people seem more experienced than they probably are, and they mean little to me as a measure of what's required of a sysop.

    B. Being an admin is all about having patience. I think heavy use of automated tools often signals a lack of patience, an unwillingness to take on tasks that require time, finesse, and people skills. That feeling is validated by this candidate's lack of patience regarding a second time around at RFA.

    Lots of automated edits alone are not a reason to oppose someone in my book. But that plus other things makes me uneasy, as I said. Steven Walling 03:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Myself, I don't trust anyone who drives an automobile to get where they are going; if they were really sincere about getting to their destination, they would walk. I mean, if we are going to discount the usage of labor-saving devices (and intelligent usage at that), let's discount it all. - Hexhand (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose If you explicitly go out and fix what you were told was a problem last time around, it means you (whether you realize it or not, whether you will admit it or not) view RFA as a game, and you specifically want the title "administrator." Absolutely unacceptable--not to mention the fact that this is a self-nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmweber (talk • contribs)

    All I can say is that I view Wikipedia with all seriousness and my intentions on becoming an administrator are simply to help the project succeed. Basket of Puppies 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the fact that she took the suggestions from her previous RFA as pointers for imporvement means that she is willing to do what it takes to become a sy-sop. Her motives to work (for free!) should not be of our concern. Tim1357 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    By that logic, Kurt, any improvement only exists to curry favour. Chris Rocen (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Weak oppose I was very close to support here. I see a strong indication that you would use the tools responsibly and they would not be abused. Unfortunately, I also see an indication of lack of experience. Particularly what has me worried is that some of the answers to questions seem to indicate the potential for miss-closed AfDs, miss-deleted CSDs, etc. For example, the answer to question 1.3 re: edit warring has me worried because I strongly feel that using page protection is not a solution to edit warring. Page protection is a tool which is useful for widespread problems, not problems which can be pinned down to two users. Questions like these have lead me to believe that you might (admittedly unintentionally and in good faith) misuse some of the tools. Further experience would pull me to support. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NB: To clarify, I quote WP:PP with "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." I feel that what you claim to be wanting to do, to go out and find edit wars and protect their pages, seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose Strong Oppose An unsurprising (given the self-regard of RfA #1) quick-back self-nom that in itself raises maturity/wannabe alarms. Neither the answers nor checking through BoP's contribs has produced anything to overcome these misgivings. I don't see that BoP has the range and depth of project understanding and involvement necessary: the content contributions are marred by mediocrity and carelessness but its mostly that he hasn't regularly or reliably demonstrated the necessary judgment, relection and evaluation in adminesque wiki-situations. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Plutonium27, might I ask what specific issues of maturity you are concerned about? I take very seriously the feedback that I receive and sincerely hope to learn and grow from it. Basket of Puppies 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maturity can be seen as rather like one famous definition of ography: impossible to describe but obvious when encountered. Its converse can be similarly so defined. That you seize upon this one term - asking for 'specific issues' - suggests a particular sensitivity. But that's incidental: your answer is right there, in mine. It may be less immediately gratifying than me citing a particular incident diff for you to explain/defend/argue/agree/satisfy yourself I've really checked out your contributions but if learning and growing is what you truly want from this RfA, then understanding why it is not isolated or specific examples that are the problem here would be a great step. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed to Strong Oppose per Service Award issue in Discussion section. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose I was initially put off by the phrasing of the nomination Hard working, kind, thoughtful and smart editor would sound good from another nominator, but from a self-nom, it sounds a bit egotistical. However, that is not the main reason for my Oppose: I'm a bit uncomfortable with a couple of the responses to the questions such as Fastily's questions - and I was surprised that for Question 17, you didn't seem to recognise that the user may have been the only provider of substantial contents, and so it could be a G7 Author requests deletion request. Hopefully, you will learn valuable lessons from this RfA, and I hope to see you back in the future, when hopefully I will be able to support you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment If I had been undecided before, I would now be opposing - all of the addendums that the candidate has added are basically giving the answers that editors have mentioned that they would have expected to see. An admin needs to be able to admit that they are wrong when necessary, but this does not just mean saying what others expect to hear. This does not prevent a change of opinion (all editors need to be able to do that when required - I have withdrawn AfD nominations when the comments left to keep the article have been sufficiently persuasive) but an admin needs to know their mind, and generally keep to their decisions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19. Weak oppose Basket of Puppies is a good editor who has made a lot of positive contributions. The answer to Q2 contains several things of which the candidate is rightly proud. But although there has definitely been improvement since the last RfA (under three months ago!), I'm not sure this user has sufficient policy understanding and experience for adminship. The answers to the questions aren't all that inspiring, particularly Q10-Q13, which indicate an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia image policy. I was also surprised by the answer to Q17, which completely neglected to mention CSD G7. The statement that the candidate would use page protection rather than blocks to stop edit warring is also concerning. Basket of Puppies, ultimately, is a trustworthy editor who would have pros and cons upon receiving the mop. Unfortunately, there are enough cons here that I cannot support this RfA. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose, have some concerns about answers to the questions and experience. Also, agree with Phantomsteve (talk · contribs) and GlassCobra (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose this time. I've noticed BoP around at ANI, and found them helpful, courteous, cooperative and friendly. Where I have reservations is in their overall experience and the nature of this self-nomination. I look for only two things in an ANI candidate: (1) evidence of good judgement; and (2) evidence that for them, adminship isn't a big deal. Personally I believe that adminship is a role best performed dutifully by those who never sought it, and I'm getting a sense of over-eagerness (and possibly even hubris, given the nom statement) about this candidacy. EyeSerene^talk 14:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. I don't think this user has enough experiance on wikipedia to be a sysop. While I don't like to base much on edit counts, the lack of knowledge on some of the guidelines outlined by questions above contribute to this oppose. I don't think BoP would be a bad admin, I just think he/she needs more time here and more knowledge of guidelines. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. Sorry, I'm just not sure that the threshold of experience has been crossed for me. Don't get me wrong--you're an excellent editor and improving all the time, and I'm sure that sooner or later you'll pass an RfA. However, PhantomSteve's comments, combined with some of my own misgivings between editing amount (although I hate Editcountitis), questions, etc. have led me to oppose. Keep your head up, keep working hard, and I'm sure you'll get there. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose based on experience, award issue and quick return back to RfA. Keepscases (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong oppose – the fact that this user chooses to (almost disingenously) describe themselves in their self-nom in glowing terms in the third person doesn't surprise me. This thread involves BoP acting in such a way that (at the time) made me want to bash my head against a wall more than almost any other experience on Wikipedia. Things seem to have changed little since September with the, "I am truly insulted" comment above, and the pretence (and I'm afraid I do think it is a pretence, though I wouldn't oppose based solely on that) of not understanding that an award for reaching a certain number of edits was an award for reaching a certain number of edits. In short, I think that the editor's style of communication needs some major modification before being unleashed on the admin tools. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TreasuryTag, you are opposing because you were being an aggressive jerk who didn't assume good faith? Basket is the most kind and patient editor we've had around Wikipedia is a LONG time. It's editors like you, TT, who need to take a break and editors like Basket who need to be quickly elevated to adminship. Having her as an admin would make Wikipedia welcoming, inviting and a whole new face. Your oppose should be struck on human grounds. 140.247.38.187 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd give a substantial amount of money to know who's behind the above IP address... but I'm glad to see that, if I'm to be responded to in such an unorthodox manner, at least it's by an educated opponent! ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As would I; I've removed the bolded texting, which tends to trumpet that response from an anonymous IP over that of established users. I don't think anons should be able to post in RfA's - there's too much impetus to stuff the ballot box, either directly or by standing around and shouting that the applicant is an utter jerk/saint/whatever. Therefore, let's stay focused. TT, if you want a checkuser, you know that this ain't the place to seek it. - Hexhand (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though it's obvious that the IP is an alt of somebody, I don't believe a checkuser can be called for here because it seems to be covered under the Privacy section of the legitimate uses of alt account and/or IP's page (though itdoes say "article" rather than page). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26. Answers to the questions are not the most solid I have seen, and the candidate's reaction to various comments and questions that have come up as a result of discussion in/related to this RFA are not the quality that I would like to see of an administrator. A few other red flags going up that I won't discuss, as it is primarily the candidate's handling of this RFA itself that leads me to oppose. Shereth 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Per above and a gut feeling. I'd rather not go into what causes that.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that this user is looking up these answers to the questions after he's read them. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose: Per Tan, Kmweber and Mr. Z-Man. The answers to several questions are not encouraging, the time between RFA's is a little close IMO and the user seems to have ignored advice from his previous RFA. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Keep as non admin for now, logs show pretty light on activity, with more practice desirable for file uploads. BoP does not seem to be around long enough yet to be the recipient of a barnstar, but on the positiove side has done patrolling. I would suggest trying again in 6 months, but await for someone else to nominate! Maybe autopatroller could be considered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose per the nomination statement and other concerns also raised, such as apparent lack of knowledge in some important areas. Aiken ♫ 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose with advice: Don't worry so much about becoming an administrator - you are a valued editor with decent contributions. In a matter of a few months to a year, as your experience and increasing competence in admin areas becomes apparent, you will be approached to be nominated, and that time you will pass easily. Meantime, keep up the good work, and stand back a bit. Allow a natural evolution to take place. --StaniStani  19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose - Not enough experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose I want to support, but think you need a bit more time getting comfortable with policy niceties. For example, by your revised answer to Q10, we'd have to delete File:JD Salinger.jpg. Good luck getting a free-use replacement on him... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now I am more than confused. My original answer which indicated that fair use rationate can and do exist got me an oppose !vote. When I amended the answer to indicate that in practice fair use is nearly never used I got an oppose !vote. The answer to Q10 demonstrated that fair use can happen, but it almost never does, with some notable exceptions such as Salinger. So, what is wrong with my answer? Basket of Puppies 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I know, Catch-22, sorry. But in any case, you stated in your revised answer that "it is clear that a non-free image of a living person is not acceptable for use", where Salinger is a pretty clear counterexample. Spend some time working on the topics that got you opposes, or got you to change your answer, and you'll have a good enough feel for things to pass easily next time around. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarek, I've updated my answer to provide an explanation for when the exceptions are permitted. I hope you find this acceptable. Basket of Puppies 20:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm striking my oppose, but I can't move to support yet. I may revisit this before it closes, depending on time... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34. Oppose – less than 1000 mainspace edits. Take some time to build content. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I try to spend more time on quality than quantity. I created and elevated New Waveland Cafe and Clinic to Good Article status. As well, I have 195 edits in Spontaneous_cerebrospinal_fluid_leak. However, I have 955 article space edits. While technically below 1000, it is rather close to your threshold. Lastly, a certain number of edits in a certain area is specifically listed as a reason not to oppose. Basket of Puppies 20:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    His general point (merely illustrated by the statistic) was that he considered your experience in mainspace – ie. helping to build an encyclopedia – was limited. In general, badgering opposers by linking to policies such as the one you just mentioned, doesn't help much, by the way! ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, that's what I meant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35. Oppose I generally have a positive impression of BoP but I don't think the time is yet ripe for him to be an admin. My main concerns are with regards to his temperament (especially overeagerness to be an admin, and tendency to be defensive in face of even mild criticism) and policy knowledge (as reflected by changing answer to Q10; even the current answer is incomplete since it does not account for fair use of iconic images such as the ones in Phan Thị Kim Phúc and Lenna). Abecedare (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong oppose quite a few editors have expressed a gut feeling that has failed to convince them that you should have the mop at this time. Forced to say "Ditto", and while edit count is usually considered a reason to avoid using for opposing as per [[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions#Editcountitis|]], I've found that editors under say 6000 edits more often than not show certain lacks of competence in the operation of being a sysop, and whether or not this rings true in your case, I must also agree with other editors that have been worried that your lack of experiences may affect your ability to use the tools at the level needed. Not this time.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 08:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose - with great respect - per various previously expressed concerns re: experience, self nom and too short a period between Rfa's. BoP, you appear to me to be a sincere Wikipedian with a desire to help the project, but an admin candidate needs more than that to get the mop. My suggestion: carry on with us in this effort, continue to learn as much as you can, and (if you really want to run this gauntlet a third time) try again next summer. May I suggest some anti-vandal work, as one area you could roll up your sleeves in? Regardless, my thanks to you for your time and energy, which are appreciated gifts. Again, please don't be discouraged. My best wishes, Jusdafax 12:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. As someone who opposed your last RfA, I'm glad to see you've followed the advice given by me and the other opposers. However I wish we had given you more advice, because I think you could have used some. It's been three months since then and you have more edits than some of the lowest-count administrators, so edit count itself isn't really an issue here. But I don't see that you've done much work in the areas you plan to work on, except in CSD. I don't see much evidence of anti-vandalism work or content dispute resolution, for example. I think that my oppose rationale from last time still applies: you're definitely on the right path, but I don't have enough contribution history to make a proper judgment of how you would perform as an administrator right now. I'm putting this in the Neutral section because I think that if this RfA does succeed that you will be careful and not make any great mistakes (as I don't see you making great mistakes as an editor either), but the concerns above keep me from supporting. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you are a fantastic user and I deeply appreciate your determination to resolve issues at ANI. However, your edit count is only approx 2,000. I realize this isn't rationale isn't highly thought of in the RFA community, but I simply cannot support at this time. I am more than open to change of heart in the future to support. A8UDI 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Move to support. A8UDI 02:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidate has more than 3,200 edits. Timmeh 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Doesn't change my position. What will change my position are the candidate's answers to the followup questions. A8UDI 22:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral - You have certainly improved since your last RfA, but the majority of your speedy deletion edits, to what I can see, are automated. Although I am waaaaay anti-automated, I am not opposing because of your quality CSD work that you have done nonetheless, but I can't support because of the percentages of that work. I guess I'll stay here. Good luck with your RfA! smithers - talk - sign! 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It looks like he mostly uses WP:TWINKLE, which just makes things easier. Each edit still has human thought and judgement behind it. It just makes it so you don't have to manually add tags to user pages and articles. I'm only mentioning this as I think there is a real difference between using Twinkle and using elaborate automated processes like WP:AWB. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Great edits, but lack of non-automated edits and Q14 don't directly strike me as admin caliber work. If you feel you can expand on Q14 Q9, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 02:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

   I have expanded Q9. I sincerely hope you feel my expanded answer is of good quality. Basket of Puppies 03:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

   Lol, I fail. Okay, so I meant to say expand Q15. I'm sorry I screwed up... twice.. --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Changed to Support[reply]

3. Neutral - Heading in the right direction, but I'm not sure if she's there yet. Crafty (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per above. Nothing to suggest this editor would abuse the tools, so normally I'd support. However, I just don't see any sort of substantial experience, and I agree that BoP does seem a bit too eager for the tools. As an aside, the nomination statement doesn't inspire a lot of confidence—it's great that you're enthusiastic, but an admin must never take themselves too seriously. :) Good luck and let me know if you have any questions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral While I do not see any of your edits as particularly concerning, my reservations are more concentrated upon your response to Fastily's questions and the poor state of the references on some of the articles you credit yourself with. Normally, I would overlook these issues if the editor has a history of excellent contributions to articles, AfD, or some other area where he or she excels, but in this case, I can't find a strong enough reason to support the nomination. Excellent content is not a necessity for sysop tools, but I would like to see clearer indication that your edits reflect an understanding of at least one area you wish to work in. Mrathel (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral very strongly leaning to Support - I have a lot of respect for BoP, I think that he has potential to be a great administrator. He is very helpful at ANI and has had a lot of good contributions all over Wikipedia, and I think he has the temperament that an administrator needs. He just needs more experience and a better familiarity with policy before he's ready. -- Atama頭 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral - While your answer was rather thoughtful, and knowledgeable. You left out in your entire paragraph, that BLP was the most important policy to be used on that AFD. I'm not fully satisfied with your understanding of policy at this time. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral While I think that some of this process has been hijacked with what can only be scientifically termed as "having a bug up one's ass", I think there is a lot of consensus that the applicant - while genuinely a good user - simply needs more experience. If that were the only reason to kick BoP down the well, then I can think of a few long-standing admins who should be recalled immediately, despite long and distinguished service to the Project. My main problem with RfA is that while the nomination process seems petty, removing a bad admin is like pulling teeth from Mount Rushmore. Once an admin is in the ranks, it's fairly impossible to get rid of them (assessment based on the comparison of admin removal to user removal). I expect admins to be smarter and more fair than the rest of us. If I go to an admin with a question, i expect them to know the answer or find one in short order. BoP strikes me as the sort who could do this, but if the clubhouse doesn't want him in the club, there ain't much we can say to change it. - Hexhand (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hexhand, for the reasons you bring up, my first act of adminship would be to add myself to recall and allow the most liberal criteria for recall. Basket of Puppies 00:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Given that there aren't really any standardized recall criteria, the most liberal criteria possible would be immediately resigning if anyone asks you to. I presume you would want something slightly less liberal than that. Mr.Z-man 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   MrZman is right again! However I still would employ fairly liberal standards. Basket of Puppies 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Feh! Just more evidence of the liberal commu-nazi feminist bias inherent in Wikipedia! Crafty (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, but the idea of Recall is an open joke. I can think of at least a half-dozen admins who were given the mop promising to be open to recall. Then, when the heat came, they rationalized why they would change their requirements for recall, effectively invalidating the whole reason for Recall conditions (Elonka is a prime example of this). So, Being Open to Recall is like saying that one Likes Babies and Cookies. It's fluff and earnes no purchase with me. - Hexhand (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Neutral I think a little more experience may help - and in the current climate, keep away from automated tools to stop the editcountitis going against you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral I would like to support but there are several issues that are preventing me from supporting, notably "Hard working, kind, thoughtful and smart editor" in this self nomination puts me off. The answer to my question was fair, although I would have preferred a mention of either WP:OUTING or WP:HARASS however, any intentional posting of somebody elses private information warrants an immediate block not simply a BLP-related talking to. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Mall, certainly outing and harass apply, but it could also be someone who just doesn't know any better (or did it as a joke). I would assume good faith for the first instance and give a serious warning about BLP pointing out why we never include that sort of information, but would not hesitate to block any future instances. Basket of Puppies 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's good to know that you assume good faith, however, I'm afraid I cannot support you this time round, I wish you luck on your RfA Basket of Puppies and I look forward to supporting you in a future RfA, my regards, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Nuetral, I would like to see more experience in the above issues. Nothing stands out enough to oppose those so moving in the right direction...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral. Generally good contributions. However I have some concerns about the answers, especially question 10. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Neutral Courteous, yes, but needs better knowledge of policies. For example, why would a disruptive editor be banned instead of blocked? Basket of Puppies' answer doesn't show understanding of that. LovesMacs (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. I don't think you have enough experience at WP:AIV, but I know you have the potential to be a good administrator in the future. Keep up the good work. Malinaccier (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neutral Leaning towards oppose, this user has only 3,000 edits since he first joined on January 1, 2009. December21st2012Freak (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Neutral. I see no real reason to oppose- I'll AGF on the alleged "deception" (it's a picture of a medal FFS, I've got one on my page but I wouldn't expect anyone to !vote in a possible future RfA based on it) but, alas, it looks like a "support" would be drowned out by the opposers. If I might offer some advice? RfAs generally pass with a higher edit count (I'm not a fan of it but it's the way RfA is); Review your answers to the questions- don't "rehearse" them but know the answers- be familiar with key policies etc; spend some time on the recent changes when you get bored- aside from catching vandalism, it gives you a feel for what's going on in the project (heavily edited/ vandalised pages, AN/ANI threads and, most importantly, keep up your good work and don't be put off by the dramafest that is one RfA (or RfA in general) and if you still want the sysop bit in a few months, try again! HJMitchell You rang? 07:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Weak Neutral I would have issued a vote of Pity Support, but you have proven to be too mature to be given the equivalent of a half-assed participation award. I haven't seen enough to give support, but will not oppose because you have accepted that this RFA for Basket of Puppies has become a Basket of Drama Mongering Primadonnas. If you are aware of the drama mongering that goes on, especially amongst admins themselves, then you should be smart enough to know that adminship is just not worth it. Please continue expanding Wikipedia and ignore the usual suspects. I would ask to withdraw, but to be honest, I REQUEST THAT YOU DO NOT WITHDRAW. Wait and see just how many users, regular editors and admins alike, will come out of the woodwork to hobble your confidence Kathy Bates-style. It'll mentally hurt like a muhfucka, but you'll get over it, and it's a necessary course of inaction to take. You will learn a lot from this RfA. After you have learned how this site works and who has access to the tools that sure as hell doesn't deserve to keep them, please do not run for adminship again. This site's wikipoliticking, brown-nosing, and backstabbing all at the same time will never change. A man once said, "...as long as some people like to pretend that our carrying out of policies against posting private emails on the wiki is an attempt 'to suppress discussion' then we will continue to allow drama mongers to control the discussion of things on the site." That was a quote from Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales from November of 2007. The only thing that has changed since that day is that drama mongering is stronger and more prevalent than ever before, and it will remain until either the entire Wikipedia project dies or Jimmy throws up his arms one day and says, "I'm sick of this drama shit. Knock it off or I'm stripping your tools. This is an encyclopedia, dammit!" Consider this RfA an eye-opening learning experience. Stick to expanding the project, not trying to get a bit-part on Days of our Lives. Thank you. Vodello (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2009 (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.