Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bagumba

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

Bagumba

Final: 81/3/1. Closed as successful. WilliamH (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Bagumba (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, it is my pleasure to present to you Bagumba as a candidate to become an administrator. I've seen him around the project, particularly the baseball part of it, several times and I don't recall any poor conduct on his part. Bagumba began editing in 2008, and has a respectable edit count (nearly 14,000) which is spread out among multiple namespaces. He has some experience in DYK and has participated in plenty of AfD's. I believe he has proven that he can be trusted with the mop. Wikipedia is losing active admins and they must be replaced, one at a time. AutomaticStrikeout 19:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I primarily edit sports-related pages, and I would help protect pages that become subject to incessant unsubstantiated rumors. During periods where players are being signed/traded, some pages unfortunately have frequent edits by unconfirmed users that add the rumors on potential transactions while incorrectly presenting them as facts. Protection would help to maintain Wikipedia's integrity during these periods until the rumor is officially confirmed. I would also help with vandalism and edit-warring that I encounter while editing. Enough editors and admins admit that the necessary but burdensome process of providing diffs when reporting to noticeboards prevents some disruptive editors from being dealt with. Having access to admin tools would be helpful to cut out the overhead in obvious cases where I have no conflict of interest. I would also assist with addressing reports on noticeboards.—Bagumba (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A: My contributions to Jeremy Lin were rewarding when "Linsanity" became an overnight international sensation in February 2012 and multiple news sources started using the phrase "first American of Chinese or Taiwanese descent"—a phrase that had been used in his Wikipedia article since 2010. Wikipedia already had a representable article on Lin in January before the page views exploded in February. I also took Trevor Hoffman to GA, and was an active reviewer in promoting Derek Jeter to FA. I've reviewed a few FLs, and nominated some articles for DYK as well.

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 do not consider a discussion to be a conflict unless it is causing me stress, so I've only encountered a minimal amount of conflict. I try to assume good faith; it is often the case that a concept is not as clear to one as it is to another, and further explanation or rewording on either side eventually does the trick. Getting multiple editors involved by soliciting related projects and proper noticeboards usually helps to offer different viewpoints and assists in clarifying and moderating the discussion. Finally, taking a break and getting back to my real life helps to add perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Theopolisme

4. You say you're mainly interested in working in the area of page protection... are there any other admin areas you'd also be interested in participating in? Namely, blocking users?

A: Yes, as part of my stated interest in combating vandalism and edit-warring, I would issue blocks as a preventive step such as in cases where warnings have not been successful in correcting behavior. Otherwise, I generally do not intend to dabble in areas as an admin that I have not participated in as an editor.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from TP

5. You mentioned that you want to focus in sports articles and page protection. What is your position on preemptive page protection?

A: I would not do it, as it goes against assumption of good faith before any disruptive edits have even happened. A few rogue editors can be warned or blocked individually as needed before resorting to the use of a more widespread page protection.—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dennis Brown

6. Roger Staubach or Troy Aikman, and why?

A: Neither. Danny White, a quarterback and a punter.—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jorgath

7. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A: I'll give a summary of what I personally will follow with respect to those policies; feel free if you need me to elaborate further. Admins, being in a position of authority, are held to a high level. Nobody—whether it is in Wikipedia or any facet of life—appreciates the feeling that a person in a position of authority is incompetent or abusive with their powers. Admins should avoid all instances or even perception of impropriety, incivility, or incompetence. They may otherwise face removal of their admin rights. Wheel-warring is somewhat analogous to WP:EW for admins. The responsibility to discuss and reach consensus does not go away after being appointed an admin, and there is no lenient three-revert rule; do not restore an admin action if it was already reverted by another.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

8. As you're interested in working in counter-vandalism, do you intend to do speedy deletion work? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A: If you are referring to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, I did not know it specifically existed until now, though I was aware that there was some organized efforts against vandalism. I would say "no" for now, until I either find more time or de-emphasize some of my existing WP tasks. I've mostly fought vandalism informally in the course of my normal edits, personal watchlist, and alerts on project talk pages. Occasionally that leads me to track vandalism of a specific editor into subjects I do not normally deal with, but obvious vandalism is easy to spot. If the article is in a domain I'm not an expert and it's possible it might be correct, I assume it is and leave it for others to assess.

I have no immediate plans for speedy deletion work at an admin level. I still closely look at the codes every time I request one.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Optional question from Paul Erik

9. This question arises from some of your comments in AfDs. In a hypothetical deletion discussion of a biography, there is an even divide between editors who are arguing to keep the article because it has sources to meet the GNG (mostly local sources, but some well beyond local), and editors who argue to delete with a reasonable-enough argument on the basis of WP:IMPACT—that although the GNG is met, and it is not a BLP1E, it is hard to say that from an historic perspective there would be any sort of lasting impact of the person's accomplishments. The editors argue that the subject is more of a "participant" in events than anything else. How might you determine how to weigh the consensus in the discussion? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A: Since this is hypothetical, I'll make a few assumptions (not intended to be an exhaustive list) to simplify the response: no duplicate votes, no new users or IPs, responses for both sides interspersed over time, sufficient amount of opinions. As you stated, both sides have reasonable arguments and not just pointing to a policy. With all things being equal, I see this discussion having no consensus as both sides have presented valid points that have not swayed the general discussion one way or another. If I had a personal opinion on one side versus another, I see more value in my participating in the discussion and helping to reach a consensus and leaving the AfD for another admin to determine consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Carrite

10. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, what additional name or names have you used to edit?

A: No. I did start off as an IP editor, and occasionally have saved edits when I was absentmindedly already logged out—one is only notified when you are adding external links (e.g. citations).—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

11. Tomorrow, you may have lunch with any one athlete from this year's Olympics. Who do you choose? Why?

A: Kobe Bryant, since he might want a better portrait for this DYK nomination.—Bagumba (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from GiantSnowman

12. - You "primarily edit sports-related pages" - great, so do I, and it's always nice to see another potential sports admin. What's your take on WP:NSPORTS please?

A: "A camel is a horse designed by committee" seems appropriate for this guideline. Not being around earlier, I have been told that this is an improvement over the previous WP:ATHLETE, and I trust that it is. However, I believe there is a gap between what NSPORTS is intended to mean versus what it actually says. I've reached a happy medium after having worked with it for almost four years. I feel for newbies who are trying to grasp it, and I have participated in discussions to streamline the text. In practice, I see many editors believing this SNG overrides GNG. I also see editors wanting to add classes of athletes from a sport into NSPORTS without demonstrating that GNG would be presumably satisfied.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Bbb23

13. - Could you elaborate a bit more on your answer to Q12? What is your interpretation of the guideline as it stands, and to the extent your application of the guideline differs, how does it differ? Assume I know very little about sports figures.

A: WP:NSPORTS is used to evaluate whether an athlete presumably satisfies WP:GNG. GNG requires multiple sources of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources to be identified. In some cases, those sources exist offline. NSPORTS provides a convenient method to evaluate whether an athlete can be presumed to meet GNG; it is easier to verify online, and requires fewer sources to be found and analyzed. This can be useful in deletion arguments or when deciding whether a stub should be created for an athlete. Criteria varies by sport, as some sports receive more coverage than others, and coverage may even differ by level of competition within a sport or by country. NSPORTS has identified criteria that can quickly be verified for athletes presumed to be notable; these might involve playing a minimum number of games in a particular league (e.g. one game in Major League Baseball for baseball), achieving a specific honor (e.g. member of a national or multi-national Hall of Fame for ice hockey) or competing in a specific competition (e.g. Summer or Winter Olympic games). Meeting these criteria makes it almost assured that an athlete with said accomplishments has generated enough coverage to meet GNG. Given time, the coverage would be identified to meet GNG. Athletes who do not meet NSPORTS may still be notable by demonstrating GNG directly or though another specific notability guideline. I do not differ from NSPORTS. Early on, I sometimes misinterpreted the guideline as overriding GNG, where an athlete who did not meet NSPORTS is not notable, or an athlete who met NSPORTS was exempt from meeting GNG. That is a mistake made by others as well.

One tricky part for which there is no firm rule is when NSPORT's presumption of notability should be discarded if GNG has not been demonstrated for an article. Some people want a deadline, while some say Wikipedia has no deadlines. I believe some deadline may be needed if GNG is reasonably questioned after a long period of time; otherwise, the presumption of notability should be reworded as a "guarantee" of notability as it will never fail GNG without some deadline. No worries if I became an admin and actually closed an AfD, as I would not and should not prescribe a deadline if consensus did not specify one. Again, if I had an opinion in an AfD, I would give my input as an editor and leave the closing to someone else.

Given the requirement that athletes meeting NSPORTS are presumed to have met GNG, any new criteria proposed to be added to NSPORTS must also demonstrate that the new set of athletes are virtually guaranteed to have met GNG as well. This is overlooked by some new proposals where it is argued that an athlete at the highest level in their country in a sport is presumably notable. For example, a player who played one game in the top-level American football league in Europe might be argued to be notable like a player who played one game in the National Football League in the U.S. However, the level of coverage is less in Europe for American football, so the athlete is not likely to be presumed notable on the basis of playing one game.—Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Electriccatfish2

14. What are your strengths and weaknesses here on Wikipedia?

A: I try to operate with full transparency in Wikipedia, whether it be citing my sources, leaving edit summaries, or having open discussions explaining my thought process. While time consuming, I believe it is useful to the community; if nothing else, I know I have made use of the paper trail when I need to revisit past decisions. The open discussions can at times be perceived as a weakness. My preference is for participants to exchange ideas, compromise as necessary, and reach an obvious if not unanimous consensus organically as opposed to leaving it to an admin to make a judgement call. Even while avoiding wabbit season, this has sometimes led to comments that I should stop discussing and leave it to the admin to decide. It's a fine line between trying to build consensus and being perceived as badgering. At the end of the day, I choose to err on the side of being bold rather than being content with the status quo; in the worse case, I'm wrong and learn something new.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Bagumba: Bagumba (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Bagumba can be found here.
• Stats on the talk. Theopolisme _:) 21:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. As nom. AutomaticStrikeout 21:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
2. I haven't seen this user around, but a cursory review of his talk page, some of his comments at AfD, and the answers he gave to the standard RfA questions left me with the impression that he can be trusted with the added toolset. I agree with the nominator, we need more administrators, especially ones that help to protect our BLPs. There's no reason to believe Bagumba would do anything crazy with +sysop. Kurtis (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Level-headed, tactful, and a good communicator. I've always been impressed with his ability to handle disagreements. He doesn't make things personal, but keeps a cool head and focuses on the arguments. Zagalejo^^^ 22:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Opport/Suppose - editor needs to spend more time on NASCAR and less on baseball and basketball if he's to be well rounded in sport related material. — Ched :  ?  22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

   Generous to describe continually turning left as a "sport" :) Jenks24 (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

   It could be worse. It could be ribbon rhythmic gymnastics. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

   Or bowling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

6. Can not find any general reason to oppose or go neutral. If I find any possible opinion changes, I question them first. Great Nomination too AutomaticStrikeout. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Weak support. WP:RFPP requests this year: 10th August (protected), 12th July (declined a few hours later), 6th July (protected), 19th May (declined), 12th May (protected), 10th February (protected), 6th February (initially full protection, later semi-protection). WP:AIV reports this year: 17th August (blocked), 7th February (blocked), 26th January (blocked). Of concern, Bagumba sometimes characterizes misguided good faith edits by IP editors as "vandalism": here, here, here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

   Regarding "mislabeling vandalism", I realize now that "vandalism" was a Twinkle default. I'll be sure to consciously change to "generic" in similar situations in the future, but I will note that I did provide supportive description in each case that made clear that the situation was not vandalism per se. Apologies.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

8. Support looked over some AfDs he was involved in and he seems really reasonable. Axl's point about mislabeling vandalism a a bit scary, but fixable. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Based on his terrible answer to my question, he proved that he is far enough removed from the sport (and reality) to properly admin in this area without any threat of bias. The correct answer was of course, Roger Staubach. His AFD performance is solid and he seems to have plenty of clue. The other stuff is important and noted, but fixable with a little effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

   If the answer is "Roger Staubach," it must have been a really stupid question. —CowboyHater123 (talk)

   If the question was stupid wouldn't the answer be Terry Bradshaw? Buster Seven Talk

   No, it'd be Heath Shuler. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

10. Support - Trustable and experienced. I checked his GA out, and it is impressive in terms of the shear volume of content and the number of sources he churned through to create it. Copyvio spotchecks were clean (as I expected from an article citing a very wide variety of sources), and the article read reasonably well. The only concern I had with it was in the tone—the article has a slight POV in favor of the subject, particularly in the "Character" section. The "vandalism" concerns don't bother me, as those were just Twinkle blunders and his real reason was after it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

    The POV concern was also raised in the GA review, but there was ultimately no action item with a recommendation for a PR if this was to go to FAC.—Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

11. Support. I've seen this user around quite a bit, and they're almost always calm, collected, and evenhanded. I believe they will make an excellent admin. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Support, based on my review; seems to be a "stand up guy". Kierzek (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - I think he would make a good administrator due to his trust towards the community. I also agree with the concerns by AutomaticStrikeout, we need more administrators to help out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - He's show that he clearly knows what to do with the tools, as well as shown that giving him access will clearly be a net benefit to the project... so why not? Theopolisme _:) 02:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Support - Remains calm, content-focused, timely and helpful. Zepppep (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Stephen 05:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose the correct answer to Q6, of course, is "neither; Dallas sucks" (the Green Bay fan in me can't let that one slide) ;) (read the commented out section...) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
19. I have the baseball project on my watchlist (can't recall why) and occasionally look in on discussions there. I also read over plenty of sports AfDs and have seen Bagumba participate in quite a few. In both cases, he has come across as a very capable editor who knows his stuff and can discuss things rationally. I'm sure he'll do good work as an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Can't see any reason why not Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Support trusted user, no reason to think he will abuse the bit. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Easy. Loads of clue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. Civil, clueful, and will make a great admin. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
24. I reviewed a sampling of contributions over the past six months, and did not see any red flags. Appears to be sensible and communicative. Happy to support. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Support - Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Support - good answer to my question; good answer to other questions; good candidate. GiantSnowman 18:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Support. bibliomaniac15 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Looks good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. Has good content work, seems like his behavior is good enough, and I like to see an admin hopeful who will do more than combat vandalism. I know that's the most important thing, but there are very few who intend to do more than that. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
30. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) with a raspberry to Brambleberry for edit conflicting me.
31. Support. Answers to questions show policy knowledge. If not removing backlogs, at least won't be adding to them. Mysterytrey 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) with a raspberry to Keepscases for edit conflicting me.
32. support Everything seems in order here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
33. Support. Q1 is strong, but Q3 lacks details of actual conflict. Pleasing edit distribution. Good recovery on vandalism issue at S7. Strong main diagonal on AfD confusion matrix (... but thirty-six edits to a single AfD?). Glrx (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
34. Support. For me, this is an easy support, having crossed paths with the candidate numerous times at WP:NSPORT. Trustworthy, clueful, no worries. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
35. Support. For me, everything is perfect. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. Despite The Blade of the Northern Lights's provocation, and the nominee's clear inability to discern great quarterbacks when he sees them (see Q6), I think he'll do a splendid job as an admin! I'm happy to hand him a mop bucket with a big ol' Dallas Star on the side. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
37. Answers to the questions are fine. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
38. Support Can't see anything wrong. HueSatLum 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
39. Oppose Per Oppose 17 by Northern Lights. I simply can't support someone that's a Dallas Cowboys fan (AKA America's Embarrassment). Go PACK! Go VIKES! Go REDSKINS! Anyone but Dallas. PumpkinSky talk 23:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Civil and competent. No problem supporting at all.—Chris!_c/t 00:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
42. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Let's go Mets! Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
43. Support. Looks like a good candidate. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
44. Support- I apologize. I didn't realize my comment would be viewed as detrimental to the RFA. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
45. support The great thing about waiting till an RFA is well under way is all the homework is already done. Support by way of arguments already made. Dlohcierekim 05:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, sufficient tenure and edit count. Admin buttons really should be No Big Deal. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
47. Support - Yep --LemonTwinkle 07:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
48. Support From the questions, I would like to show support for Bagumba becoming an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas85753 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Seems quite pragmatic and productive in cases such as this. Warden (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
50. Support. I'm seeing plenty of knowledge of the way things are supposed to work, good answers to questions, a very practical and sensible approach to AfDs etc, and a collegial approach to discussions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
51. Support Trusted user; good answers to questions. Electric Catfish 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
52. Support Everything checks out with this user! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
53. Support - Pretty decent user! ZappaOMati 19:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
54. Support. Though I've not encountered this editor before, his set of answers is impressive enough that I haven't any qualms. Deor (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
55. Support Me and Bagumba edit the same topic areas so I'm extremely familiar with his work and we constantly interact with each other, especially in AFD and he usually comes as level-headed. I've seen an overemphasis of GNG from the candidate at times, defending it like it's policy and not a guideline in several debates. But question 13 satisfies my concerns. Secret ^account 20:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
56. Support No issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
57. Support Fulfills my RfA criteria. This user is involved with administrative activities but stays out of drama. His areas of participation are varied, and the work he does seems to be excellent. Read through a good number of his AfD comments and I find them very thoughtful and well reasoned. Trusilver 00:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
58. Support Aside from the usual work, I am impressed by the logic displaced displayed by the user in response to comments, it shows the nature of the individual. Seems like a good choice for the mop. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

    In what way can "displacing" logic be considered a virtue? Displacing it with what? Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

    I assume ChrisGualtieri meant "displayed", not "displaced". Jenks24 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps we must displace logic when it has "fallen sloppy dead". Dlohcierekim 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, a typo. Corrected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

59. Net positive. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
60. Support...no evidence they will abuse tools or position.MONGO 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
61. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
62. Support Nice and experienced user.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
63. Support – Bagumba and I edit in the topic area of baseball. Based on my encounters with him, I find him extremely well-versed in WP policy, helpful, friendly and able to be diplomatic and cool when solving any disputes. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
64. Support. Candidate will probably be a good administrator. AGK [•] 23:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. With respect to Q13 (my question following up Q12), I asked Baguma to elaborate and they (sorry about all the theys but I don't know Bagumba's gender) complied thoroughly. Despite the length of the elaboration, I found it a good read. I liked Bagumba's response to Q14 as I believe in transparency and that being a bit of a pest at times for the greater good can be helpful, particularly in clearing up any misunderstandings. With respect to the Twinkle issue, I don't believe Bagumba is blaming Twinkle; rather, they are saying they were unaware of a feature of Twinkle. The fault is imputed to Bagumba, not to Twinkle. There's a refreshing articulate honesty about Bagumba. I also think it's generally helpful to have admin spcialists, especially in areas I know next to nothing about. That way, in addition to bothering GiantSnowman, I can bother Bagumba if I have a sports question.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
66. Support -- -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
67. Support - Solid looking contributions, 354 edits to Jeremy Lin alone (that article may be ready for GAN), seems polite and helpful. Opposes are unconvincing, and I think emigrate/immigrate may be a BrE/AmE difference. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
68. Support The candidate's name resonates with "Ummagumma". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
69. Support Can't remember crossing your path before, and if you stick to sport I may never do so again. But you have a clean blocklog and your deleted edits are unconcerning. The attitude of casting a !vote rather than a supervote and leaving closure to another admin where he has an opinion is very commendable. As for the oppose section, I share Malleus's disdain for immigrated as opposed to "emigrated from x to y", but tolerating such Americanisms is part of the process of sharing this site with a bunch of colonials. Once we've finished teaching you not to make tea with harbours full of cold salty water perhaps we can move on to putting the z key where it doesn't get so overused and other important lessons. But for the moment I'm happy to park such concerns until after we get round to revoking the declaration of Independence. ϢereSpielChequers 11:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

    At least we colonials cut out a lot of unnecessary silent vowels. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

    You mean "silent vouwels," I think... Carrite (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

70. Support No concerns. Good range of contributions, and a solid, careful attitude displayed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
71. Support Experienced user. --Carioca (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
72. Support - Good AfDs, civil, no reason to not support. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
73. Support - Great candidate for adminship! God bless! --^CH^RI^S4315 23:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
74. Support Seems reasonable and competent. No problems here! Michael (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
75. Support per Michael. Candidate appears reasonable and competent. Opposes make sense, but are generally unpersuasive. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
76. Support the kind of administrator Wikipedia needs...civil, intelligent, tactful, and most importantly LIKES SPORTS!!!, just kidding, in all seriousness though there is absolutely no reason the editor can't be trusted with the few extra tools being an administrator gives you. Hand him the keys! (or in this case buttons) Go Phightins! (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
77. Support. No concerns. Plenty of experience. Meets my criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
78. Support keep swinging your bat...Modernist (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
79. Support —stay (sic)! 10:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
80. Support Good answers to most of the questions above. User knows which areas to work in and has the clear idea on when and how to use the Admin tools when appropriate given their knowledge of Wikipedia policies and experience. Bagumba meets the basic requirements as required and expected by the community for being appointed as an admin. Clearly a net positive and benefit to the project. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
81. SUpport Why not. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Many disagree, but I consider that significant content contributions are a prerequisite for an administrator. The candidate has an average number of edits per page of just 3.6, which suggests a lack of staying power, and the article drawn attention to in Q2 as one of his best contributions is riddled with errors; you don't, for instance, "immigrate to". I also disapprove of Newyorkbrad's bully-boy tactics.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   (Honestly confused; not looking to pick an argument.) Of course you "immigrate to" a location. "One hundred years ago, my grandparents left Russia and immigrated to the United States"—how else would you say it? (And I've just checked my reference books and they concur that "to" is the preposition ordinarily used after "immigrate," although I suppose this might be some type of ENGVAR situation.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   The correct word is actually "emigrate", unless I'm highly mistaken. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   As I've always understood it, and as my reference books confirm, if I leave country A and move to country B, then I've emigrated from country A and immigrated to country B. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Then I'd suggest that you need to actually read the sentence to which I was referring, without your subtle and misleading tense switch, or perhaps it's just another one of those American misunderstandings like "I could care less". Regardless, I could give you a binful of similar errors, but as this isn't a GA review I won't. Suffice to say that I'd like to see better from someone applying to police the content contributions of others. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Garner's says it's okay: "Emigrate is to immigrate as go is to come, or as take is to bring. People emigrate from or out of, and immigrate to or into." - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Garner can go boil his head, until he regains his senses. Have you actually read the sentence to which I was referring, or are you just making a general point? Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   I did read the sentences, if I have the right article and we're talking about the ones in the first section ... I thought he got it right, that is, I think the context is more likely to mean immigration to Taiwan than emigration from China. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   But you don't "immigrate to", you "emigrate to". Otherwise what would be the point of having two different words? Like Newyorkbrad you've used a subtle grammatical switch, in your case from "immigrate" to "immigration"; not at all the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Merriam-Webster has some interesting thoughts. They seem to support the usage in the article, but they also allow for some exceptions. Zagalejo^^^ 03:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   (after many ECs) I'm still not seeing the error. Could you please be explicit about what's wrong? I'm genuinely interested. But anyway, do we even know for sure that Bagumba was the one to write those sentences? Four other people have made 50+ edits to that article, and there have been lots of contributors beyond that. Zagalejo^^^ 03:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Bagumba offered that article as one of his best contributions, so we have to take him at his word. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, but not that does not mean he has written every single sentence in it. Also, Newyorkbrad's actions aren't exactly bullying, and certainly aren't Bagumba's fault. AutomaticStrikeout 03:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   It's either one of his best contributions or it's not, and he says that it is, so. Of course Newyorkbrad was bullying, and hopefully when Bagumba wakes up he'll recognise that and address it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Just on that, it doesn't look like Bagumba was behind the immigrate... [2],[3]. Worm^TT(talk) 11:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   I'd also like to see Newyorkbrad address the bullying issue that resulted in Bzweebl moving from neutral to support. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   I'll respond to this on the talkpage (which is where this whole thread may belong at this point), but I probably won't have time to do so for a few hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   No point in responding to me on the talk page, as you well know. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)\

   Whoops—I sincerely wasn't thinking about that at all, just about the fact that this thread is becoming a distraction on the RfA (which is ironic given the purpose of my two interventions in the first place). We can continue on my talkpage or yours if you wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Your talk page is fine. Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Admins with strengths in different areas is a plus, IMHO. It is unrealistic (and incorrect) to think all admins (and candidates) are of equal skill level across the various types of to-do's around here. One may be technically savvy, employing or even scripting bots. Another might have helped dozens of articles reach GA or FA status. Yes, Bagumba has more than 3x as many edits as the next editor does to the Jeremy Lin article. It's not at GA status and it was never implied it was. Yes, we should use the article as a way to evaluate the candidate's work as 1) the candidate offered it as an example and 2) the significant number of contributions to the article means the candidate's eyes (and keystrokes) have had much time spent on the article's contents. But there there is a lot more to WP (and being an admin) than writing lengthy articles free of grammar errors. Admins are typically called upon to make a decision or step in during a heated exchange or difficult inclusion/exclusion decisions, and are expected to do so based upon policies and merit, with little regard to bias or personal opinion. This candidate has that as a strength. The candidate has also shown him/herself to be good in tense situations, helpful to beginners, and content-oriented when it may be so much easier to do otherwise. Zepppep (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   I am most proud of my contributions to Jeremy Lin for the reasons given in my original response. "Proud" and "best" are synonymous for me, so interpret as you wish that I did not list first or solely my GA promotion, Trevor Hoffman. Jeremy Lin is currently a B-class article and received a peer review requested by another editor. The review comments have not been addressed yet. While I take responsibility for the the article, I do not own it. As for the "immigrate to" concern you raised, I concur with Zagalejo that it is appropriate based on the reasons he gave. You raised a point about American English, which might account for the discrepancy here? I'm not sure, but it can be discussed further at Talk:Jeremy Lin.

   I have not promoted an article to FA, which appears to be your primary concern. I did promote Trevor Hoffman to GA, but as much credit goes to the other editors who contributed to the article as well as to the GA reviewer for his feedback. I have also contributed to articles that were already FA before my edits, such as Yao Ming. I cannot speak for others who average 3.6 edits per page, but I've found satisfaction in adding miscellaneous sourced content to articles, or creating random articles based on information I encounter while reading. Let me know if you have any further questions.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   I don't know why you would assume my primary concern is that you have not promoted an article to FA, as I never mentioned FA. Neither was I the one who brought up the American/British English issue. The last thing Wikipedia needs is yet more administrators who are prone to get hold of the wrong end of the stick. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   I'll strike my incorrect assumption. I hope I've provided sufficient background to your comment of "his best contributions is riddled with errors".—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Regarding the "American/British English issue", I think the discrepancy in our timelines comes from Newyorkbrad first mentioning a generic ENGVAR and your later response of "those American misunderstandings". Apologies, as no offense was intended.—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Don't get wound up. You can't please everyone, and even if you were to address the various contrivances above you'd be opposed on the grounds of "trying to please everyone". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   A word of advice: While Malleus is widely respected by the community, creating the appearance of badgering the oppose !votes is more likely to damage your candidacy than his oppose itself. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   And a couple of opposes won't make the slightest difference to the outcome of this RfA anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   [4] says this:

   "Definition of immigrate

   verb

   [no object] chiefly North American

   come to live permanently in a foreign country:

   an Australian who immigrated to Britain in 1982". So don't see how that is a valid example of an "error". 86.171.158.161 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

   Why don't some of you single-issue warriors try reading the article? Would you contend that "... he had a 4.2 grade point average in high school, which fit Harvard's academic standards" was correct? And what exactly does "She worked with coaches to ensure his playing did not affect academics" mean? Don't you see anything amiss with "In July 2005, then-Harvard assistant coach Bill Holden saw that Lin was 6 feet 3 inches (1.91 m), which fitted the physical attributes he was seeking"? Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

   All very minor, and would certainly not make me change my vote in support. All easily fixed if necessary. 86.171.158.161 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

   Not "very minor" if you claim it to be your best work. But really there's no point in prolonging this discussion, as it's more likely that the Sun will fail to rise tomorrow than I'll change my mind on this. Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

   Many people may be supporting because they think a helpful and friendly attitude is much more important than tiny little grammatical errors. But enjoy reading your copy of The Sun. 86.171.158.161 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

   And many will by now be convinced that you are trolling. Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

   I don't see why someone should be called "a troll" just for disagreeing with you. I think the basis of your opposition is very flimsy. That's a perfectly valid opinion. Bagumba deserves support not bossy nit-picking. 86.171.158.161 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

2. I oppose this until I see testimonials and diffs supporting an ability to change their mind on something, with grace, in the face of reasonable argument or evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but there is this response to Mark's advice above. AutomaticStrikeout 18:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   It's encouraging. Something more obviously a change of opinion, and outside the scrutiny of RfA, would be better. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose IP editors are editors none the less. Many play a key role in the project. Painting them all with the same brush causes major problems and promotes civil disobedience. (See Axl #7 weak support). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillabear10 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

   As explained, that was a Twinkle foul-up. I'm not challenging your oppose, but I want to make sure that you have the facts straight. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

   It wasn't a "Twinkle foul-up" by any stretch of the imagination, it was a user foul-up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

   True. I meant "a user fouling up due to incautious use of Twinkle," and I appreciate your correction of my ambiguity. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

   Change to Strong Oppose - The user made an error and placed blame on the tool. Don't trust this user with twinkle, let alone admin tools.Hillabear10 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose – I don't come here that often, and acknowledge that this is likely to pass anyway, but I have concerns over the very issue that Bagumba concedes is a weakness for him—repeated comments in discussions that border on badgering. At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/20–20–20 club/archive1, Bagumba responds to every editor who questioned/opposed the list's promotion, sometimes on multiple occasions, and wasn't even the nominator. If this was done at an RFA, it would be called badgering by many. Knowing when to back off during a discussion can be just as important as knowing when to speak up, as it can prevent further tension, and I don't believe that Bagumba has found an ideal balance. Since this will probably pass anyway, I hope this is taken as constructive criticism and considered while in the middle of the kinds of heated discussions that take place at ANI. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral- Q6 is keeping me from supporting. Sorry. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Neutral- Answer to Q6 lands me here. Good luck. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.