Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller

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

Budgiekiller

[edit]

Final (69/26/11); Ended Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:57:40 UTC

Budgiekiller (talk · contribs) – I first came across this user early in my time at Wikipedia. I was pleasantly surprised by the interaction; his user name refers to a rivalry between professional sports teams (I won't bore you with the details) that he and I have opposing views on. Yet I found him constructively and encouragingly helping me to develop articles about 'my' side of the rivalry.

Since then, I have had increasing reasons to admire this user. His anti-vandalism work is prolific and has come on apace since he began admin coaching under the guidance of User:The Transhumanist. I participate a fair amount in RfAs and think that people worried about egotists getting carried away with their new tools can be reassured by the thoughtfulness, care and modesty of this user, as well as his gentle humour, all of which are excellently demonstrated in this coaching classroom page. I was particularly pleased to see a user of AWB admitting that he makes mistakes and with that knowledge is careful about his usage of the tool, which is not infallible.

I'll leave it Budgiekiller himself to explain how he'd envisage using the tools, but I would expect that if he's elevated he'll be a workhorse vandal fighter and will take flak in the same patient and goodnatured manner he already does when people take grave offence at him reverting their vandalism and other stupidities.

This is my first nomination for RfA and I think he's an outstanding candidate. Dweller 10:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pile on co-nom

As I have watched Budgiekiller ever since he requested approval for VandalProof I have become very impressed and I have the utmost respect for him and as a vandal fighter myself I know how very hard it can become to stay level headed. I also know we need more good admins who are willing to get dirty and use the mop especially since only about 68% of our current admins use their mop. I know that Budgiekiller will never abuse the tools, and with my greatest backing I nominate this user for Administrator. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I happily accept the nomination. Budgiekiller 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dweller, the East Anglian divide just got a bit smaller! Everyone else, please, feel free to ask me anything else, besides the obligatory three following...! Cheers! Budgiekiller 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, thank you for the co-nom, it's nice to know my work is appreciated, despite my shortcomings! Budgiekiller 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
I have the category tracker on my talk page which makes it clear to me that there are numerous backlogs which I would be able to tackle. Speedy delete candidates and closing articles, categories etc for deletion are two that I'd like to get my teeth into. However, I think a special place in my wiki-heart would go to keeping the vandal backlog down. By far my biggest contribution to Wikipedia in recent times has been vandal-hunting using as many available tools as possible. However, what's most frustrating is giving a user his final warning, see him (or her) vandalise again, report him (or her) and watch while they go on a 'poop' spree or whatever. The ability to warn vandals with some kind of authority I think would be extremely valuable and would allow me to make my contributions even more useful.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
Many of the articles I've started haven't gone too far beyond stub quality, but I worked extensively with a number of other dedicated editors on two current events articles, namely 2006 Ipswich murder investigation and the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. The articles progressed with unrelenting pace and I was particulalry proud to be part of keeping them NPOV, factual and cited. I have also made a significant effort to remove red links from the Ipswich Town F.C. page by creating pages for the numerous players linked to from there whose articles didn't exist. Finally, I guess I'm pretty pleased with the re-stubbing that I got involved with a while ago. I would estimate that over a thousand of my edits have been made to more accurately describe a stub.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
I think I've managed to make the majority of my edits making few enemies, and in general I approach any situation that appears likely to become difficult with a sense of humour. Reading my talk archive would probably provide an insight to the types of (humour/profanity) levelled at me during my vandal hunting, so much so that another admin protected my user page for a period a short while ago. Most recently I noticed Ahmednagar being edited and reverted on a regular basis. One editor persisted in adding WP:OR which I pointed out wasn't in-line with Wiki-policy. However, despite this the edits were re-added. I continued to direct the editor in question to the relevant policy pages and eventually notified WP:AIV. Within a few hours the editor was blocked by admin for persistently ignoring warnings.
I know that I do not know all the answers and would like to think that if I was made an admin, I would always allow myself to be questioned. And keep smiling.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

4. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?
A:
Hi, Eagle 101, and thanks for your question. Spam is one of my pet hates, but it most definitely something that, in general, takes more work and research to spot and remove correctly. I have pursued a number of spammers, the most prolific being Newuser123 and his or her sockpuppets. By placing relatively subtle links to his own (very poor) website with advertising (which was a copy-and-paste of the Wikipedia page linking to it) I had to chase him for weeks. In this case the spamming was very severe and more recently I've removed links to various football shops. The true purpose of external links is to enhance the article they're found in. To that end, it becomes somewhat subjective as to what 'enhancing' can mean. I had a lengthy discussion with a user Edwpat who hosts a very good Elijah Wood website. To be honest, by the end of it, it became clear that I couldn't make a decision as to whether the link should stay. In this case I should have gone to a WP:EL expert to make a more objective choice.
With regard to the current set of standards that should be applied, I think that as long as vandal/spam-hunting editors and admins keep sharp then I think they suffice. There will always be the problem of subjectiveness. In an ideal world a more intelligent/automated way of determining linkspam would be a solution. It is important to remember though that external links are an essential part of the Wikipedia. Budgiekiller 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Angus McLellan (Talk) (stolen from Malber (talk · contribs) (5,6) and Mcginnly (talk · contribs) (7))

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:
Ignoring all rules enables Wikipedia to retain a level of flexibility while guidelines and policies are debated and agreed upon. It is to allow users to use common sense when applying the rules. I think it's important, however, when applying WP:IAR that an established community consensus should be sought, or at least that the reason for going ahead and ignoring the rules is explained. There are good reasons why the rules exist and so there should be an even better reason to break them.
WP:SNOW is a reasonable approach to expediting discussions and debates where the outcome is inevitable. However, it must be used with caution, as other editors have noted, latecomers to such discussions can swing outcomes dramatically.
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A:
I can think of no circumstances when a punitive block is appropriate. The administrators are not here to punish any of the Wikipedia community, they are here to protect and maintain the content. Blocks should be applied in-line with WP:BLOCK.
7. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
A:
If an established user was making disruptive edits, I would initially attempt a dialogue with them. If the problem could not be resolved and the user continued with disruptive edits, I would use the warning templates and discuss the issue with other admins if possible, so that they might bring some peace to the situation. If, however, their edits continued to be disruptive I guess I would have no option other than to apply a block.

Optional questions from Irpen (talk · contribs)

9. What is your opinion of the off-wiki communication, particularly related to discussing or planning the on-wiki actions, especially the administrative actions. Particularly, what is your opinion of IRC? Do you use it yourself?
A:
As far as I'm concerned, off-wiki communication has one very clear advantage, that of speed. Leaving messages on each other's talk pages is fine but it's like trying to play chess by post. I would advocate the use of such communication when it came to the need to act/react rapidly or to discuss items of a technically difficult manner.
Off-wiki communication does also have a disadvantage, not necessarily to those engaged in doing it but to the rest of the community. Topics discussed and then acted upon in the off-wiki world can be confusing to those not involved in the discussions themselves since no record of such discussions.
I don't use the IRC myself at the moment as at home I'm still finding my feet on my Mac (that's what using a PC for 20 years does to you), however, I am in the process of finding a half-decent open source IRC client and then I'll be giving it a go. At work I would be prohibited from using IRC.
9a. If you do and/or plan to use IRC what is your opinion of what constitutes an ethical or unethical usage of IRC or other off-wiki communication. Is there a particular reason why use IRC instead of publicly visible WP:ANI or other onwiki boards? Thank you.
A:
As I mentioned above, the ethics of using off-wiki communication really depend on how the communications will be acted upon. There may be a need to discuss sensitive issues privately and quickly for which IRC would be ideal. I would use IRC judiciously because, as I've tried to make clear in other discussions, I would much rather my actions be accountable and transparent.
10 Administrators are very much involved in hot editors' related issues, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations (unlike 3RR or WP:SOCK) and require case by case approach (such as DR or Fairuse policies). Do you agree that the better understanding of editors' concerns requires administrator's continuous involvement in content writing? I can't help but notice that your involvement to the content writing is so far insignificant and more often than not acceding to adminship further reduces user's involvement in content writing. Do you plan to reverse this trend and be continually involved in writing? To what extent? Do you plan to write or significantly contribute towards WP having more featured articles. Some have suggested that 1 FA per year is a good vaccine against Wikipedia:Adminitis. Please opine. Thank you.
A:
Yes, I would most definitely agree that continuous involvement in enhancing the content of Wikipedia is essential. I am a shade defensive about my additions, so far I've included 81 new articles, but I guess this may not rank high on the league table, as it were. I also believe that my re-stub and dab work is also an important tool in the editing process. That notwithstanding, I most certainly will endeavour to increase that number and enhance other articles. Recently I have been voting in WP:AID in the hope that something that I could ably contribute to would become the drive of the week, of course I realise that I don't need to wait for this to happen to improve articles, but with my other Wiki interests, it becomes a time-sharing exercise.
I have seen in the past people here in RfA receiving oppose solely because of their failure to contribute significantly to a featured article. While that seems a little harsh, the emphasis on learning how to edit, how to interact with other editors, particularly during dispute and how to work together to a common goal (all of which are required to get an article to FA status) are all essential elements of becoming an Admin.
Thanks for your questions, and your continuing interest here! Budgiekiller 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up to question 10 I am largely satisfied with your answers to questions 9 and 9a. As for the question 10, I appreciate your being modest and honest but I really don't understand the logic of planning to "endeavour to increase that number and enhance other articles" after ascending to adminship. The common trend is the reduction of user's involvement in editing after getting adminned and the opposite effect would be a rarity. Could you explain why would your case be different from most all of others'? Please forgive my being so persistent about this issue but judging from your otherwise fine qualities I would have been happy to support you if I saw a solid record of encylopedic writing. What prevented you from engaging into significant content writing so far and how would your getting adminned remove those obstacles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irpen (talk • contribs).
A:
Hey, I'm not sure I said that I would only do this if I became an admin, it seems clear from the advice of other opposers that they're finding the same issue (i.e. lack of major content addition) with me right now, and what I said above really means that I'm taking their advice now, today. I've already made a start on adding further articles (two today, modest ones again, but FA Cup Final 1978 and Roger Osborne) and made contributions to WP:AFD & WP:CFD. Nothing, per se, has prevented me adding 'significant content' thus far, I do tend to restrict myself to subjects about which I know more than the average editor. This means that my contributions are usually sports bio's, including a number of semi-decent stubs which were on WP:MWA for over a year. Budgiekiller 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat the nom support Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS take a look at ==>> [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Betacommand (talk • contribs) 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Do you mean to suggest that we ought not to take that injunction as controlling? It is in all caps, you know... Joe 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hell yeah --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice the usual melodrama over WP namespace edits is playing out below. I've no idea why people !vote based on WP edits, it's unbeliveably simple to have a large WP total, voting on a large number of XfD's is all that is needed. To do this however, you need to be prepared not to check for references, try to confirm notability, but just agree with the proposer, or the masses who have gone before you. It's my firm belief that a small (though not altogether tiny) number of WP edits can show a greater knowledge of process and more intricate attention to detail. Each and every case does need to be judged on it's merits, but at the moment, I fear we're tempting prospective candidates into mass XfD voting to the detriment of the project. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. And on the flip side, taking myself as an example, I have c.1,000 WP edits, but about half of them have been generated by posting to the Ref Desks and on pages connected to Wikiprojects, none of which is relevant. --Dweller 09:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Beat me to reverting a vandal and then showed me how he did it. That in itself deserves a vote. Just H 18:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. Was meaning to nominate myself. An excellent editor, who I'm sure will use the extra buttons fairly and competently. --Majorly (Talk) 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see Budgiekiller everywhere! I know this is overused, but I really thought he was already a sysop. He should work on his wiki-space edits after he has the mop (IMHO). | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - In looking through the user's Wikipedia space contributions, I see plenty of XFD, including articles, templates, and categories. Logically, it doesn't make sense to say "lack of policy experience" based on percentage of Wiki-space edits, unless you think the mainspace vandalism reversions somehow cause him to forget what he learned from XFD. -- Renesis (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Impressed with his work at 2006 Ipswich murder investigation. Would like to see a bit more policy contribution, but the nom is certainly not lacking in experience. What is more important - an admin who demonstrates he understands policy, or evidence he has created it? Rockpocket 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Without doubt. A thoroughly valuable contributor. Oldelpaso 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A strong, consistent, and effective contributor. This one was easy for me. --Kukini 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Looking over the last 1000 edits (that's the last two weeks of contributions), I see a great deal of vandal fighting and user notifications. So this is someone who is interested in doing administrative stuff, and has an excellent reputation as an editor. No, not a perfect candidate, but one extremely likely to be a very productive and problem-free admin. John Broughton | Talk 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Polite, helpful, useful.... and any other words with the ful suffix. I was waivering on the "oppose" for the Ipswich Town affliction, however. joking ;) Bubba hotep 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Absolutamente! (Note: I have no idea if that's a word in any language.) -- Kicking222 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support ← ANAS Talk? 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support This was almost a neutral, as you should have more Wikispace edits. However, nobody is perfect. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Rettetast
  16. Very strong support This user is amazing!!!! The admin tools will be of great help to him. --La gloria è a dio 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Great user that would do good with the tools. Hello32020 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I've seen this user around all the time on RC patrol, with admin tools, he'll be even better. A little low on the article-editing side, but otherwise a valuable asset to the project. Shadow1 (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I ask myself this question: "Can the admin candidate be trusted with the tools?" In this case I think yes. Though I don't agree with everything that Budgiekiller has said in reply to my question, I am willing to lend my support. Go and use the automatic rollback, and the blocking features of that shiny mop. Editing articles does not require an administrator, but knowing when and where to block does. Vandal patrol will always need new admins, as over time some of us burn out after a while. Remember... Adminship is not a big deal. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. changed to Strong Support We really, really need more admin vandal fighters. I can't say that more emphatically. RC Patrol is missing hundreds, probably thousands of quite egregious instances of vandalism every single day. Quite frankly, it's only a matter of time before one of these instances of vandalism comes back and bites us big time. I understand that Budgiekiller might not have quite the level of policy experience that some of us are looking for, but he's a great editor doing an extremely difficult yet important job. alphachimp 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong support. alphachimp 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support due to the many pleasant interactions I've had with this avian executioner. I totally agree with what Alphachimp said, and plus, editcountitis sucks. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support while I may prefer more wikispace experience, user still looks good and trustworthy to me.-- danntm T C 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support excellent vandal fighter and seems up for the job.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak support, just barely avoiding neutral. I really don't like constant VP/AWB/whatever edits, but you don't have quite enough for me to not support. -Amarkov blahedits 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Trustworthy editor, has a need for and understanding of the tools he will be using, good mature interaction with vandals and other editors alike. Does opposing this candidate improve the encyclopaedia? NO. Does giving this editor an extra button or two? YES. Doh! -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -Will help w/ backlogs as stated in questions, and if someone gets a co-nom, most of the time, they're an amazing user. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 02:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, Good experience and seasoned judgement. No problems. Yaf 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Can't find anything that would cause me to oppose.Ganfon 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Is intelligent, level-headed, and cares about the project and the people in it. Will make an excellent admin. --The Transhumanist 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Yes... ending at least some of the "poop sprees" would be nice. On a more serious note, I agree with alphachimp, and though your number of WP space edits could be higher, this does not denote unfamiliarity with process. You will do well with the mop. Dar-Ape 04:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per the ape. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per noms and above. You are a great candidate and definitely reach my standards. Yuser31415 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support as unconvinced. JorcogaYell! 05:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - definitely a good candidate. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - belatedly. Wasn't sure that the nom was allowed to support and was terrified of "malforming" the RfA. --Dweller 09:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support a canary nominating a tractor boy? Must be a bloody good editor! Also very good answers to questions, paritcularly the WP:IAR one. --Robdurbar 10:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Sounds confident with policy and I see no problems. James086Talk | Contribs 12:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Seems like a reasonable and fair-minded editor who would make good use of the tools. Keeping the vandal backlog down is a good task for a valiant vandal-fighter. Coemgenus 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak Support per Chimp, high risk of bolting. - crz crztalk 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support In part I support simply based on the number of edits without serious problems. In particular, I commend his restubbing. I have just this month created my first stub and realize how much of this type of contribution is needed. Of course, these thoughts don't justify a need for the new superpowers. I do, however, feel he also will be able to perform vandal hunting more efficiently which is a task in need of adminship powers. TonyTheTiger 15:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Not a user I'm familiar with, but looking through past edits and in paticular the questions earn a support from me. I'm particularly impressed with answers to #4 and #5. A good admin must not be afraid to stop spam and must have a strong understanding of IAR, SNOW and related situations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - this user is a fantastic vandal fighter, and per nom is an excellent choice for adminship. JoeSmack Talk 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak Support. I've been giving this one some long thought, and have come to the conclusion that this candidate could use the tools and will not abuse them. The oppose comments do provide plenty of food for thought, but in the end they have not disuaded me from supporting this nominee. Agent 86 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, opposition raises no significant concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - we should be selecting anyone who is considered trustworthy and experienced, not requiring that they have an interest in all areas of Wikipedia. If the user spends too much time fighting vandals, we should thank them, not oppose them. --BigDT 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Appears unlikely to abuse the tools, and I'm satisfied with the XfD experience he has already. BryanG(talk) 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, qualified candidate. The Oppose rationales, while not unreasonable, do not outweigh the candidate's strong contributions in other areas. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, great vandal fighter, meets my requirements, agree with Newyorkbrad on the Wikispace issue. Accurizer 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support.--MariusM 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per a lot of the above. I think he'd use the tools effectively in vandal fighting, and be wise enough to seek advice if he's not sure about something. Trebor 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Good editor! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support as per above. Will not abuse the tools given to him. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Responsible and experienced. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support -- Excellent participation in the virtual classroom shows willingness to learn up on admin skills. Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Clearly a hardworking, trustworthy editor who will use the mop to the project and community's advantage. The JPStalk to me 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per most of the above. Dragomiloff 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Good wikipedian. Rich Farmbrough, 16:15 8 January 2007 (GMT).
  58. Support. We should be aware that we're likely to underestimate the amount of article contribution, since a major edit shows up equally in the contribs as a minor one, of which there are likely to be a lot more for anyone. I'd object to using number of project space edits as a reason to believe someone's unfamiliar with policy -- maybe someone who has a lot is just piling on !votes in XFD's or making a lot of irrelevant comments. It's hard to know from that whether someone's read and understands policy; maybe they're just shy or cautious about posting. And I don't really see replying to every oppose as too big of a deal. His responses were very friendly. delldot | talk 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support good editors as admins. Cool Hand Luke 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - The rationales for some oppose votes have me questioning ... a lot of things. But this user is precisely what is needed for administration. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Obligatory I wanted to support you but couldn't but you fixed what was wrong support. That and the lack of wikispace edits shouldn't have kept me from supporting you seeing as how great your other edits are. --Wizardman 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Seems fine, and some of the oppose rationales below seem awfully harsh and don't appear to make an argument that this user cannot be trusted with the mop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Changed to support as user has requested a name change, & a review of his contribs and answers here shows a user who could use the tools and won't likely abuse them. I also would like to note that this user appears to respond very well to criticism, which shows a level head. --Ginkgo100 talk 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Ah, what the hell, just give this guy the tools. Not stupid, knows what he's doing. I doubt he'll mess up. We can't all write articles, and policy is not so important, you can get along with common sense, WP:CIVIL and corollaries and IAR. I'm sure this guy knows his stuff anyway. Moreschi Deletion! 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, I see no reason to think he'll abuse or misuse the tools, so there's no reason not to promote. We need more admins. --Rory096 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, because we need more people like him handling the tasks that need to be done to keep Wikipedia clean. Fan-1967 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support --Ixfd64 03:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak support Having vacillated on this for a good while, I've come to conclude that Budgie will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., in view of his being non-conversant with policy; though the latter is surely a not insignificant objection, I think the fact of Budgie's being exceedingly cordial and demonstrating a willingness to act deliberatively, to refrain from acting whereof he does not know, and readily to receive feedback render him unlikely inadvertently to err) the tools, such that I think it reasonably clear that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive. Joe 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 304 Wiki-space edits from 14,870 (not taking into account current replication lag)? Lack of policy experience. Definite No. – Chacor 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to make a note I had 428 wikispace edits when I was placed up for RfA and most of those were Bot related. That does not mean that I didn't read the policy or not understand it. quit the opposite I was/am still going back to read the policy/guideline rules but just because I don't edit them doesn't mean that you should hold that against someone. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out as I said above, that when it comes to experience with policy, percentage is a faulty method of assessing edits. -- Renesis (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from that, I am quite concerned that the candidate feels the need to reply to every oppose (aside from mine). This has, in the past, been seen as confrontational. – Chacor 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chacor, my apologies, it most certainly wasn't intended to be confrontational. I didn't add further comment to those above as I felt that they had covered it for me. It seems like there are a number of editors who will oppose RFA's based purely on number of wikispace edits which seems a shame given the time and energy a lot of prospective mop-heads put into other areas of Wikipedia. Your assessment of my policy experience as "Lack of policy experience. Definite No." seemed a touch confrontational to me. However, I understand how you stand on wikispace edits now and am grateful for your comments in this RFA. Budgiekiller 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not agree with your views Chacor. I feel that a person who responds to every oppose is not only showing intent to listen, but is also spending valuable time looking over & spending time to personally respond to every concern. All these things are great attributes for an admin. Unless the responses are useless like "Why are you opposing, I never did that, I never said that..." etc etc, then no, those responses should not be allowed. But if a person, who ever it may be, wants to personally take care of & respond to every oppose or support, then that person should not have it held against him. Although I'm opposing, I feel that Budgie is showing glimpses of what it takes to be an admin, despite the thick pea-soup in the way of these "glimpses". Please correct me if I'm wrong & there is a rule against responding in a well mannered way to every oppose? Thanks... Spawn Man 02:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose vandalism reverting alone doesn't qualify for the admin tools. And I see very little involvement in AFD's which is obviously not good...especially when you notice that in Q1 that you anticipate closing AFD's. I personally would be a little nervous to let you do so and not be experienced in the process. — Arjun 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been looking at the non-admin closure of AFD's but the advice is to only close those which are indisputably Keep. For the past few weeks almost all AFD's I've been quick enough to get to between the vandal-hunting have either been mixed responses or Delete in which case I could do very little. I have voted in several AFDs and successfully tagged several hundred speedy deletes. But thanks for your comment. Budgiekiller 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose reluctantly. Too much concentration on Vandal fighting. Vandal fighting has become easier and, especially with anti-Vandal bots and AWB being available to any editors who wishes, VF requires little (although some) admin involvement. I would like to see candidates more established as content writers because this is the main goal of Wikipedia, content writing warrants being in touch with the needs of the "fickle and ill-informed populace" (the regular editors, you know) and ensures administrator can properly handle the most difficult admin task, that is ensuring the comfortable environment to contribute for editors who want to do just that. Please do not take it personally but rather demonstrate both content writing and positive involvement in dispute resolutions if you run again. --Irpen 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, Irpen, thanks for your comment. I was under the impression that Wikipedia still needed admin vandal-hunting. While my last 5000 odd edits have been strongly vandal-hunting, the preceeding 10k or so have all been content and talk based, directing editors towards suitable Wikipedia policies and guidelines where appropriate. Budgiekiller 07:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I disagree that vandalism is the worst problem of Wikipedia not because it is harmless and rare but because it is successfully dealt with already. Adminship is not required for RC patrol, adminship is not needed even for roll-back (AWB and popups are available to anyone). However, the users and particular the admins who concentrate too much on dealing with vandals and trolls tend to quickly get hardened up and start to treat more and more users who merely disagree with them the same way they deal with vandals and trolls. As such, I am prejudiced towards the editors who make vandal-hunting their main activity despite I do not deny that dealing with vandals is needed. It's just already done. Most of questionable admin actions we see here are from users who disengage from content writing, which is, to remind, the main purpose of this project. Such disengagement tends to happen particularly after acquiring of adminship. It is just too tempting for some to turn from creative writing into the full-time job of telling others what to do. Some people just like doing that and with acquiring adminship they for some reason start feeling themselves in position to do just that. Therefore, I would like to see a stronger commitment to content writing from admin candidates that would ensure that such shift will not likely happen. If you feel I am mistaken, please feel free to point me towards the diffs of recent significant content edits. I would also like to see specific examples of positive contributions to conflict resolutions, if you feel that this is your strength. Please do not take the opposition personally. Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal and neither is a failure to get it from the first attempt. I know some of our best admins whose first attempt was a failure. --Irpen 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose nothing personal, didn't see enough article editing, which I view as important in settling content disputes in articles. Please let me know if I'm wrong (I looked at question 2 and scanned through the last 2000 edits or so) and I'll be happy to reconsider -- Samir धर्म 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Samir, thanks for your participation in my RFA. If you've looked at my last (roughly) 5000 edits then, yes, they're in the majority vandal fighting. Prior to that you should find significant article contributions to one or two big articles (as I stated in my answer to Q2) along with a number of articles created (e.g. Ray Crawford (footballer), Shelley Rudman, Mosconi Cup etc). Thanks for your comments. Budgiekiller 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose WP/talk:WP just aren't sufficient. Unfortunately Betacommand's reply to Chacor just exacerbates my belief that candidates need a reasonable amount of WP experience. Sarah 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sarah, thanks for your note. I am interested to know if you believe that the number of WP edits = experience at understanding and aplying policies across Wikipedia? Budgiekiller 10:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, of course I don't believe that. I'll tell you one thing I do believe, though, and that is if you continue responding in this manner it is going to cost you dearly. Sarah 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I think you need more experience with process and policy. >Radiant< 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Radiant, cheers for your comment. Do you mean editing process and policy or applying process and policy? The former, as has been pointed out above, seems to be lacking, but the latter I have been doing myself and helping others with for 18 months. Budgiekiller 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter. I do not doubt your good intentions but to me, your experience is unclear from your contributions, hence my preference that you wait a bit before being mopified. >Radiant< 11:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Radiant, thanks very much for your response. Like other editors, I'm encouraging people to look back past the last 5000 or so edits, and perhaps at my archived talk pages where it should be clearer that I'm both understanding and applying policy and helping others understand and apply policy. However, thank you once again for your discussion. Budgiekiller 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, lacks of WP space edits, should be more involved in article writing too. Terence Ong 10:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to Neutral. Terence Ong 10:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Terence. Have you gone back beyond the last 5000 edits (which were conducted in a relatively short time span, about a month)? Before that time all I did was contribute to articles. Thanks for you comments. Budgiekiller 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) I think you'll find many thousands of article writing edits if you peruse his history, along with dozens of article creations. I Barnstarred him in August "for outstanding contributions to football-related Wikipedia". It seems very unfair to hold his recent astonishing anti-vandal work against him. Just roll back further in his edit history. --Dweller 10:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still can't support this RFA at this point of time, I will be neutral on this and I may reconsider it again in three days time. Remind me on my talk page to do so please. Terence Ong 10:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, considers WP:SNOW a "reasonable approach" in some situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Jeff, cheers for the remark. Yes, reasonable, caveated with "must be used with caution". Would you only support if I stated WP:SNOW wasn't reasonable, regardless of the rest of my activites here over the past 18 months? Budgiekiller 12:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose. Chacor prety much nailed it. If you spent a lot of time at XfD and applied at a later date I'd certainly support you then. I can't say you would know policy well enough. --Wizardman 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Changed vote again[reply]
    Okay, well thanks for your consideration. If the only judgement of understanding policy is now XfD then you're right. I had hoped some of the 16k edits I'd made might show that I understand a lot of the policies around Wikipedia, but it seems clear there are two schools of thought about this, and you're firmly of the wikispace edit camp. Thanks again. Budgiekiller 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wizardman, running up XfD edits is easy and doesn't always help the candidate become more knowledgeable on policy. Ditto Reference Desk and list sorting, running up a couple of thousand WP space edits is simple, trouble is it can often mean a candidate with 2000 or more WP space edits has as much knowledge of policy as someone with 20 WP space edits. Suggesting spending time on XfD is going to be detrimental to the project, it's going to be taken as a suggestion to vote on a couple of hundred AfDs per week without doing the necessary research work into policy and verifying notability and any references given.--Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Budgiekiller, is it "really necessary to reply to every oppose vote. — Arjun 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see this diff ([2]) --Dweller 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I was weakly neutral, but the replying to every oppose vote rang faint alarm bells, and the lack of involvement in Wikispace weighed in too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, um mixed signals, I replied to a few oppose, then was accused of being confrontational to not replying to another. I didn't realise that communication would result in an oppose. Sorry if I have offended. Budgiekiller 18:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, somewhat reluctantly. Certainly a good vandal fighter, but not enough actual article writing experience. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. (Note: I did look at the user's contributions before the last 5000.) — mark ✎ 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Mark, lack of encyclopedia writing does it for me, wikipedia as well Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: I am afraid that I cannot support at this time. We have information to present still and coverage to consolidate and duplication to eliminate. That's where most of the action is, and therefore it is where we should be most knowledgeable as administrators. Geogre 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose this time around, per Irpen and Radiant. Tomertalk 02:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Anyone who responds to the majority of his/her oppose votes will not have my support. Scobell302 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Ironically, Budgiekiller misunderstood Chacor's comments above, to mean that he had to reply to all oppose !votes. Since I notified him last night ([3]) Budgiekiller seems to have stopped. A shame that Chacor's ambiguous choice of language had led to this most unconfrontational of users (see his Talk page and its archives) appearing confrontational. --Dweller 08:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Whilst I understand Budgie's confusion, I don't know that it's really fair to term Chacor's choice of language as ambiguous. Even as the need to reply locution might be understood as meaning either of two decidedly differnet things, the confrontational qualifier ought to have made plain to a user conversant with RfA that Chacor was referencing a candidate's fisking oppose !votes at his RfA; after all, I don't recall us to have had any recent RfA in which a candidate's failure to reply to all save one or two oppose !votes was understood as demonstrative of incivility to those voters to whom the candidate did not reply. I don't imagine that conversance with RfA practice is particularly relevant here, but I don't think Chacor was inappropriately unclear. Joe 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel this is an (dare I say bad faith vote?), inadequate reason to oppose. You have your views, but I feel that a person who responds to every oppose is not only showing intent to listen, but is also spending valuable time looking over & spending time to personally respond to every concern. All these things are great attributes for an admin. Unless the responses are useless like "Why are you opposing, I never did that, I never said that..." etc etc, then no, those responses should not be allowed. But if a person, who ever it may be, wants to personally take care of & respond to every oppose or support, then that person should not have it held against him. Although I'm opposing, I feel that Budgie is showing glimpses of what it takes to be an admin, despite the thick pea-soup in the way of these "glimpses". Please correct me if I'm wrong & there is a rule against responding in a well mannered way to every oppose? Thanks... Spawn Man 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Lack of Wikispace edits, as well as confusion over proper RfA conduct, suggests candidate really needs more experience before taking up the mop. Xoloz 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Opppose, lacks experience. Proto::► 12:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose great number of edits done with AWB, somewhat concerned how this user anticipates closing AFDs, since this user views WP:SNOW as a good resource to expedite the AFD process in a few situations. However if this user does get the admin tools, I would wish him good luck. RiseRobotRise 06:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Radiant. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose. Per above Giano 09:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strongly oppose for his answer to question #7. Warning templates have no place with established users. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still quite new to process here. Can you point me to the relevant policy please? Thanks --Dweller 12:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there's no specific policy that says "Don't treat a good editor like a common vandal." I'll see if we can work something up since it apparently isn't obvious enough. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hipocrite appears to have created an essay to a similar effect one week hither; see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. As a general concept, the idea seems to have been incorporated in WP:CIV, viz., here. Joe 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: Per Xoloz. If he gives an uneasy feeling here, then it's too early. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Mackensen. We expect admins to have more sense than this. Rebecca 12:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose based on the user name, which I feel is inflammatory. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a "Budgie" myself, I do not feel his username is inflammatory and I can't imagine any other Canaries that I know would take offence at this, particularly in view of Budgiekiller's positive contributions towards coverage of Norwich City F.C. on Wikipedia. --Dweller 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the username refers to a sports rivalry, not to the killing of parakeets, but new users may not know that. I certainly didn't the first time I saw this user! Admins have contact with lots of new users, and I strongly recomment a name change. --Ginkgo100 talk 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said below, forget new users, even I didn't know what a "budgie" was until your explaination. What about changing it to canary carver? Parrot pker? Thrush throttler? Bird basher? Tweet tweet amon dae oblitium? I couild go on & on & if you ever need a new name.... ;) Spawn Man 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (Of course I endorse none of the above names, as that would be silly...)[reply]
  21. Oppose - And I thought I had a lot of edits! 16K altogether & 5K edits over the Christmas period alone! Wow! You've been here longer than me I think, & you've got way more mainspace edits than me. You seem civil enough, so I bet you're wondering why this isn't a support vote. Well, experience. As per above objects, you have far too few edits in the Wikipedia namespace for my liking & obviously many other's likings. With 5K edits in one month, I see no reason why your WP edits shouldn't be higher, especially after 2 years here. Also, despite how I love my comments being responded to, your replies seem too defensive for my liking. You don't seem to be "soaking" in any of the comments made here, instead you seem to be only defending them. People need to learn & improve from their mistakes, & that's what makes an admin. Also, despite its fun sounding attitude, your username would sound quite weird to new members. Heck, even an experienced user like me thought you went around killing small noisy birds until the explaination above. Anyway, other than that, I'd have no problem supporting you. But alas, it is not to be. Try to improve & who knows, maybe next time the outcome will be different... Spawn Man 03:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to throw into the mix my personal standard of admins having made at least 1 FA. However, I see no sign of even a GA for this user. Despite the high edit count, it is indeed decieving & I begin to wonder what else is about this user. As Wknight94, although I wish the user well, he gives me an uneasy feeling for electing him to adminship. Or maybe that was just the salmon I ate last night.... Spawn Man 03:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Budgiekiller, you may of course reply to my comments without me taking it as an objectionable attribute...[reply]
  22. Oppose per Xoloz and others: not quite ready yet, but would like to support in future. Jonathunder 22:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Mackensen. Also the candidate doesn't seem to be in perfect control of his tone, assuming that he means to give civil and unconfontational answers to opposes. This is an important skill for an admin, especially in dealing with newbies. Please practise, and I may well support next time. I would appreciate it if I'm allowed to express my opinion here without geting a threaded argument from either Budgiekiller or his belligerent supporters. Please take it to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  24. His responses to Mackensen's question on Mackensen's talk page are deeply troubling to me. He seems to think that warning templates are hardcoded into Wikipedia process, not realizing that it is probably best to never use them at all. Wikipedia doesn't have strict rules, and certainly not with these templates. I worry about the depth of knowledge of Wikipedia policy. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. From some of his answers and especially his discussion on Mackensen's talk page, I'm not confident that he really grasps how Wikipedia works. A little more experience would probably be very worthwhile. SuperMachine 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I have been sitting on the fence since the beginning. Appreciate your work with the vandal fighting but there are just too many niggling things. Nothing major but in the sum of them I think to wait gain a bit more experience and re-apply in a few month. Agathoclea 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral The lack of wikispace edits is a major concern for me. However, I do not feel that this warrants an oppose opinion as you are a very good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I would like to see more contributions to the policy areas; I don't see any major problems with other contributions. (aeropagitica) 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per chacor and arjun. --teh tennisman 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. Firstly, per Chacor, and Amarkov's traditional vandal fighting is really a tiny part of admin responsibilities (and variants thereon). Secondly, as regards the speedy deletions, I'm a bit concerned that I can't find nn-warning, testpage, or firstarticle type messages being left on user talk pages. Finally, I feel that playing Whac-A-Mole with ip vandals isn't necessarily good practice for the sort of non-vandalism disputes that admins have to deal with. This a candidate who should have been asked the blocking established contributors and punitive block questions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, wow, that's gone far. And been distorted a bit, as that isn't exactly my point. But still, kinda cool. -Amarkov blahedits 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion changed to neutral per answers to optional questions. I'm still concerned that so much work devoted to reverting vandalism gives a distorted view of the project and its problems. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response Angus. While I wholeheartedly agree that vandalism isn't the sole issue with Wikipedia, the fact that I made around 4000 vandalism reversions in a couple of weeks surely supports the fact that it is still very important? Budgiekiller 12:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does need fixing, but a bit of variety would be good for you in the longer run. There are no end of things that need doing, and to stick to one thing will give you a narrow perspective, and perhaps a mistaken one as far as the big picture goes. As an admin, you'll likely be involved in more than just vandalism. Spoil yourself: visit WP:DRV, inject some common sense into WP:CFD and WP:CFDU, read WP:RFCs, kibbitz at WP:AN and WP:ANI, point out the holes in Wikispace essays and would-be guidelines. A change is as good as a rest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again, Angus. Thanks for your words of advice. A lot of criticism has been levelled at me for not editing within the wikispace, but the articles, their quality and verifiability, surely must take precedent? The last 5000 edits which were, in the majority, anti-vandalism seem to be blocking the fact that the first 10000 edits I made weren't dedicated anti-vandalism. Moreover they were copyedits, wikification, stub sorting, disambiguation repairing and article creations, all of which should enrich the Wikipedia. My vandal hunting went through the roof when I was approved for WP:VPRF and WP:AWB, and it's something I can make a big difference to in a short period of time, more so if I were admin. But, once again, I very much appreciate your advice and will definitely broaden my horizons further! Budgiekiller 14:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. For the amount of time and work he's put into the project, he sure shows a lack of participation in the Wikipedia namespace. Besides the sporadic AfD voting, I mostly see some AIV reports (which is good) and vandalism revertions. Nishkid64 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nishkid64, thanks for your comment. So are you looking for something more than just a (larger contribution/increased edit count) in the Wikipedia namespace? Budgiekiller 08:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to see more activity, particularly in XfD discussions. By doing so, it will give me an opportunity to truly assess your abilities as an editor, and to see if you are qualified to be an administrator. Nishkid64 14:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, still considering, the lack of WP namespace edits holds back my support. I think there's nothing much to consider about besides this namespace edits issue. Terence Ong 10:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now. Still going to weigh in on a decision before the deadline. I do have a problem with this user commenting on every "oppose". I fear he might act too hastily on AFDs. Does like to fight vandalism though, can't deny that. Will closely evulate user's contributions. RiseRobotRise 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC) changed to oppose[reply]
  7. Would want to see more participation in process. Perhaps a featured article, working out on copyright problems, or some deletion discussions. Future looks bright ahead. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - Switched from Support. According to my amended criteria, I would like to see at least 400 wikispace edits. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 09:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you have to take the edit count at time of nom, but if not, Budgiekiller now exceeds your requirement: (editcount) --Dweller 09:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out to me. I only checked the talk page of this RfA, showing less than 400. But I will keep my vote for now due to other concerns raised in the oppose section. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 10:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. I've changed my opinion from "oppose", largely because I think that the business of replying to almost every oppose vote was the result of understandable ignorance of RfA etiquette (perhaps we should have advice for nominees at the top of the page?). The issue of involvement in Wikispace is the main problem now, but it's not enough for me to oppose. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral with "moral support". No need to pile on but I appreciate your work with the vandal fighting though. 205.157.110.11 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral A tough one - many good qualities, but on balance I can't support at present.--Holdenhurst 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Budgiekiller&oldid=1088716314"