Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bazj

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.

Bazj[edit]

Final: (18/20/3) Originally scheduled to end 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC); closed by non-bureaucrat Dylan620 per candidate withdrawal.

Nomination[edit]

Bazj (talk · contribs) – I've been active on WP for just over a year during which time I've been active in most areas. On the occasions when I've needed Admin intervention I've often had to wait for it. Obviously there's a need for more admins to help out with the mop & bucket workload. The time's come when I think I should offer to help out. Bazj (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, accepted. Bazj (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - This has turned into a review of my actions at Henrik Heftye, which I can't win. I don't want to waste anybody's time. Thank you to all who have taken the time to vote, whether for me, or against me with constructive comments.
I shall take some time to consider what lessons I should take from this. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: To start off with I intend getting a copy of the dashboard and helping out where the workload demands for a couple of hours a week. As my experience as an admin grows I'll take on more and more of the Admin tasks. Much in the same way as I took 3 months or so as a newbie editor before I ventured beyond Articles and into Categories, then Templates, etc.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Depends what you mean by "best"...
Best research - National Land Company, I enjoyed looking into this obscure bit of history.
Best collaboration - Primary schools in Hertsmere, Kanguole prodded me into starting the article, and the two of us worked on it bringing it to publication quality quite quickly.
Best impact - a whole bunch of housekeeping at WP:SBS, upgrading pages to the latest set of templates, and putting the deprecated templates through TfD. Very rewarding.
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: The occasions when someone's slapped a speedy tag on an article moments after I've created it have probably been the most frustrating. Soon learnt to put more flesh on a page before hitting "Save".
When I've had to argue a case, I've argued it (and clarified myself if necessary) then walked away to let the argument resolve itself. After all, if I can't muster enough support through reasoning, then ranting and working up my blood-pressure won't sway the argument.
Additional questions from SoWhy
4. You reached approx. 1000 edits/month in August and September 2008, then went down to 6 in October, then up to 100/month for November and December after which your contributions dropped to 0 in January and now you hover around 350 edits/month. Can you explain this inconstant editing style and will you stop contributing for whole months again in the future (as far as you can predict)?
A: I took a couple of Wikibreaks when I felt WP was taking over my life, and used the Enforcer to make up for my lack of willpower. If I can keep my Wiki-habit under control I won't need to go cold turkey again. I hope. Bazj (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional rambling question from Cool3
5. Your most edited page (with 104 edits is Breweries of Watford (1700-1985), which I'm having a hard time figuring out. I see that you haven't really worked on it in a long time (which is absolutely fine), but it doesn't have any prose to speak of, and I'm not even entirely sure what I'm looking at. You moved it out of your sandbox with the summary "ready to go live", but to me that doesn't look ready. Could you just tell me a little more about this article? I'm not even quite sure what the question is here, and I'm certainly not criticizing, but you seem to have put a lot of work into that article, yet after moving it into the article namespace more than a year ago, you've edited it only once, and it's not exactly MoS compliant....
A.I'll agree, it's not beautiful. In my dreams it would look more like the Linux Distro graph at File:Gldt.svg. It's a timeline of the ownership of the breweries in Watford showing how they all ended up in the hands of Benskins. Since the last of the breweries shut down 20+ years ago, and Carlsberg owns the lot now, there's no ongoing ownership to record, hence no more edits.
Because I moved the article from my Sandbox the history's all there, including other stuff such as an explanation of the phrase "North of Watford", and an attempt to sort out a wikitable for List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds.
It took loads of edits because (1) I hadn't used EasyTimeline before and (2) it can't be previewed, and the rendering process was patchy, requiring an edit-save-nulledit-save cycle to see the change (or maybe it needed edit-save and a lot more patience on my part). In hindsight it would have been better to cut & paste the end result, but at the time I had no idea anybody would ever be interested in its edit history.
As for the MoS, is there an MoS section covering graphical timelines? The Wikipedia:Timeline standards only cover text timelines, not graphical ones. Bazj (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Seddon
12 What is the current situation with regards to admin workload and numbers? give examples
A: See Category:Administrative backlog. Bazj (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13 Hypothetical situation which does not reflect on the candidate in anyway During an arbcom case in which your involved in, you stumble accross parties from both yours and the opposite side suddenly beginning to edit war on an unrelated article. How do you act?
A: Start with a {{Need-Consensus}} as a gentle hint to both sides. If that fails report it at WP:ANI stating my potential conflict of interest. And if I'm an admin at the time (which I presume is an unspoken part of the question) - refrain from using my magic powers - it's impossible to be (or to be perceived as) impartial in the second case while being an active participant in the first. Bazj (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14 How many digits of pi do you know off by heart?
A: Ten. How do you number your questions? What happened to qq6-11? Bazj (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Quadell
15. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?
A. As part of WP:SBS I made this change [1], which I wouldn't try now, {{succession box}} is used in way too many places to try replacing it with {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}} and {{s-aft}} (and I'm more house trained now, I'd add an edit summary). But as well as the template change I stripped the dates down to the year, after all the parameter name is "year". Seems like it's a huge deal to some LDS folks, compromise ended up with new templates and full dates, everybody happy(ish). Seems like some interpreted the exchange in far more dramatic terms than either side involved would have seen it - Talk:Brigham Young#Edit war on dates. It's more important that there's a general acceptance of an agreed solution rather than that I "win" (WP:OWN).
Looking for an example for this question I see that the compromise on Talk:Mark Durkan#Durkan's nationality? didn't hold. Will follow up with the editor who was going to the horse's mouth. Bazj (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.2 I nominated Henrik Heftye for speedy deletion. The author removed the speedy against the rules. I raised an AfD in order to get an impartial opinion. The matter was raised at my RfA. I tried to justify my actions. I failed. In order to not waste any more of anybody's time I withdrew my RfA. Bazj (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Bazj clearly has the best interest of the project at heart. I agree with Wisdom89 in that more activity in the project space would be nice, though I'll support per WP:AGF. There is no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per WP:AGF as candidate has no blocks nor any memorable negative interactions with me. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support based on the assumption that the user will look over the relevant administrative policies before using the tool, which is really common sense, plus we need more administrators due to many admins on the project going inactive. 山本一郎 (会話) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Bazj appears to be a mature and intelligent editor. While some opposers are counting the quantity of his edits, I am measuring the quality of his work, and I see no problems. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I have no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools. — Jake Wartenberg 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per WP:AGF. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support Wizardman 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support By the standards of a couple of years ago when RFA was working well you'd be a shoe-in. ϢereSpielChequers 10:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support This user appears to me to have a perfectly well-rounded level of experience in wikipedia. He is predominantly an article-space editor, which I think is good, but some 25% of his edits are elsewhere in the project. I feel that if we are to set a minimum edit count (which we do not, and should not) then 3,000 is a reasonable figure which has, indeed, been generally accepted historically here. The suggestion, made below, of 10k is, IMHO and with all respect, ludicrous. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I think we all know it would be ideal if every administrator had 50,000 edits and 5 featured articles, but this is the real world. With 3000 edits and about eight active months (not consecutive, but I don't see how that's relevant), Bazj looks like good admin material. I am unconvinced by the opposes, and after all "adminship is no big deal". Cool3 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Who hasn't made a few mistakes? You'll do fine.--Res2216firestar 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - not concerned by the issues with editcount or activity, both are listed on WP:AAAD as poor reasons to oppose. I see no major issues here, so will default to support. Robofish (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Switched to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I trust him. prashanthns (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I'd prefer at least a year active on the project, but other than that I see no reason not to give him the tools. -Senseless!... says you, says me 05:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No alarms for me. --GedUK  08:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I don't see this passing, but you seem like your intentions are well. Per your lack of experience though, I may oppose if it looks like this is going to pass later on.  iMatthew :  Chat  11:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support: still young in wiki-years but what the hell. Cursory investigation shows no civility problems. A definite asset to the project nonetheless. Also there is a backlog of monotonous cleaning that needs to be done due to the problem of not enough adminstrators currently. He'll be fine (and so will the project).--It's me...Sallicio! 21:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support although I can never think of anything original to say. It has already been said. Don't shoot the youngsters. There. --candle•wicke 14:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No problems here as far as I can see. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - Per lack of experience in the project space. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Several more months of experience are needed. -download | sign! 18:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger, but Bazj has been editing for roughly a year now. Out of curiosity, how much time do you feel is sufficient? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The disturbing lack of WP:CLUE in this reversion [2] is evidence of why you are not yet ready for the sysop tools. Please don't go around asserting edits are vandalism when they are not. Pedro :  Chat  19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the vandalism I was trying to fix, one of a series by an IP. I missed the subsequent edits. I apologised to those who noticed/complained, User talk:Rrius#Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and User talk:67.100.203.155 (who fixed my screw-up). Sorry, I'm not perfect. Can't promise to be perfect if I make admin either, just that I've learnt my lesson. Bazj (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good response (to say the least). I'll indent my oppose for a while and look further. Your clarity of response does you credit, and I apologise for not digging further into the subsequent debates. Pedro :  Chat  19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at that, I'm still not clear why that was "vandalism". Seems like your diff is just a good faith edit, albeit an unrequired one in terms of the encyclopedia. No need to call it vandalism at all. Please try not to be so heavy handed (an attitude I worry about if you are granted the block option, hence unindenting my stricken oppose) Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the context of that IP's series of edits ("xxxxx spelled backwards rhymes with yyyyy"), some in article space, some in talk space, and one on a project talk page, I chose to tackle the lot. I guess you and I would draw the line at different points. Vandalism spelled backwards rhymes with oppose :-) Thanks for the consideration anyway. Bazj (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Some more experience needed.--Giants27 T/C 21:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regretful Oppose. I'm sorry I can't Support you, but I have a couple of points to mention. 1) You only have around 3k edits. Not to be such an Editcountis person, but I like administrators with at least 5k edits and most likely at least 10k edits. 2) You hardly have any edits to the Wikipedia namespace. 5.07% of your edits is not enough. Yes, the article space edits are good, but focus a bit more on Wikipedia pages. 3) You don't have a stable edit rate. Admins should have around 1k edits a month, except for when they are on vacation. A lot of Wikibreaks, and then an RFA, isn't what I'd like out of an admin. Admins should be active and have a consistant edit rate. I have to oppose you for now because of these points. I'd like to support you in a future RFA, but not now. I suggest for another Wikipedian later on to nominate you because that shows you trusted in the community. Cheers, MathCool10 Sign here! 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Bazj needs more experience before taking on admin tasks, but 10k edits is an awfully high standard. Also, topping 1,000 edits per month says a lot more about an editor's use of automated tools than it does their activity level. What are you looking for in Bazj's next couple thousand edits? Wronkiew (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use vote symbols (see, e.g., the discussion in which {{support}} and {{oppose}} were deleted, the sentiment of which still controls). 68.248.226.45 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Ok, I'll stay with 5k and I struck out the 10k. I didn't really expect 10k. 2) I'm looking for more AIV reports, RFPP requests, etc. Basically some more WP: area work. 3) I can remove the image if you want to (IP) but they look nice. MathCool10 Sign here! 03:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Pedro. You have good intentions but.... perhaps in a few months and more experience. Sorry - Fastily (talk)
  7. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - First, the lack of answers to the questions causes me to pause and was the first red flag that maybe you are not quite ready for admninship. Second, this on top of the diff provided by Pedro raises the second red flag for me. While I do not feel that you are unsuitable for adminship I simply feel it is too early, and that you still have some learning to do and some experiences to gain. Please do not take any of the above oppose the wrong way, and come out of this with a better understanding of what you need to improve on so when your second RfA comes around you can show us all. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained the reversion in more detail at the editor's talk page. Bazj (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which question do you not feel I've answered (except optional #5 which appeared while I was asleep, but which I've now answered). Cheers, Bazj (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. In regards to the revert, a better edit summary would have been "removing unsourced information", using "nonsense" as your edit summary implies that the editor purposefully did something wrong, or added gibberish to the page, which is not the case. Now which questions? For starters, number 1. It is extremely general and really does not even tell me what your plans are, why you need the tools, or how you are going to use them. Hope that answers your question, Tiptoety talk 14:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this comment really rubbed me the wrong way. Regardless of the comment you should not address others in such a flippantly sarcastic manner, especially a !voter at your RfA. Tiptoety talk 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose On the right track, good mainspace contribs. But needs more experience in admin related areas like ANI and AIV. THose are critical to the sucess of admins.  Marlith (Talk)  03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose on the right track, but needs to get further down that track. The "spelt backward" that the candidate intended to revert pointed out by Pedro was indeed vandalism in my view. Reasonable views will differ, but I also note that another editor removed the same edit 1.5 hours after it was made. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Oppose Candidate is going in the right direction, but needs a little more experience, especially in the Wikipedia space. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Some more experience needed to show he can be trusted with the tools. Timmeh! 04:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, not enough experience at this time. Less than 5,000 edits, with only a handful (relatively speaking) in the Wikipedia namespace. Also far too inactive for my comfort for a administrator. For most months, candidate has less than 500 edits in a single month, which isn't very much compared to more active users. From above, candidate has had to take several wikibreaks "when I felt WP was taking over my life". Administratorship would require far more dedication than regular editing does, and I'm not sure the candidate is ready/able to provide such a commitment. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose By the looks of your answer to question one, I don't feel that you're quite ready to become an admin. Get yourself familiar with a few things like AFD, AIV, Copyrights, etc. and find something that you can stick with for a bit. It's not a good idea to jump in without a general idea of what you plan on doing. Also, I'm a bit concerned about how you yourself were worried about wikipedia taking up too much of your time. Being an administrator is a big commitment. It takes up time and for some it has a degree of emotional/mental stress. I'm worried that if you become an admin you might not be able to handle all of the necessary responsibilities. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, not conservative enough when using speedy deletion tags. Punkmorten (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the curious - the article in question is Henrik Heftye. I don't think the fact he's related to three redlinks and one blue link, nor two refs in Norwegian are enough to establish notability. Certainly not enough for the author to skip the {{hangon}} and remove the {{db-a7}} himself. Bazj (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose based on Afd nomination of Henrik Heftye. Bazj attempted to Speedy a sourced article while it was still being worked on, which seems bitey and his Afd rationale shows he does not understand Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing or notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - switched from Support, per poor judgement at Henrik Heftye. That article shouldn't have been nominated for deletion, let alone taken to WP:CSD, and the attempt to use {{db-bio}} shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's speedy-deletion policies. Sorry, and I hope to be able to support a future RfA. Robofish (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong oppose Recent misconduct with User:Punkmorten and clear will to want to gain power by first getting rollback and now RFA. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cough, cough (clear throat) Mwah! Hah! Hah! Hah!. Really, rollback saves a couple of seconds over the rollback in twinkle (which is nice given the crappy quality of my broadband), and can easily be reverted if I screw up or go postal. But if it really, really makes you sleep better at night, ask an admin to revoke it. Bazj (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this editor has civility issues. Anybody can see he isn't admin potential by his rather unnecessary response here which is rather childish to say the least. Imagine entrusting this editor with the tools when he makes edits like this when the article creator is still editing it. When he didn't get his way with speedying it (which he would have done with admin tools) he pettily took the article to AFD despite Punkmorten having improved the article and had his proposals withdrawn immediately. Embarrassing. Poor candidate, illustrates a distinct lack of knowledge of policy and numerous examples of rash and inappropriate behaviour, but if people want this sort of editor as a shining example... Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've suffered an unfortunate sense of humour failure. I'd expected someone who picks the name "Dr. Blofeld", who makes their user page an hômage to Dr Evil from Austin Powers, and who talks in terms of "gaining power" to see the humour in the edit summary. I was wrong. I shall learn by my mistakes, and learn from your mature and constructive example... [3], [4].
On the matter of Punkmorten's article. It didn't seem to me it had any notability for the reasons I listed earlier, so I added a speedy. Punkmorten removed the speedy himself. The whole point to the speedy is to get a third party to make an impartial decision, not for the editor in question to make the decision for himself (that's how edit wars get started). Once the speedy's been removed how do I get an impartial decision? A prod would be removed in the same way as the speedy tag had been. An AfD is the only route left. I've not complained about the outcome of the AfD. I've not complained about Punkmorten putting an Oppose vote on my RfA so quickly that it could only be a knee-jerk retaliation rather than a measured consideration of the merits of my candidacy.
Punkmorten's created a few other pages linked to Henrik Heftye today. To my eyes they seem to form an introverted cluster in that they support each others' notability. I'd still like to see them made more notable by reference from other articles rather than just between each other. Try to imagine them as characters in some obscure sci-fi novel rather than as 19th century Norwegian bankers - the cluster of articles wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
By the way, despite your assertion, if given the admin tools (not looking likely right now), I'd respect the spirit of the speedy, if I'd raised the speedy tag I wouldn't execute it myself. To do so would negate the point of the process, a bit like removing the speedy when you're the author (and have admin privileges, ahem).
Hope your sense of humour returns soon. Regards, Bazj (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly haven't lost my sense of humor. I had no idea you were referring to my user name. Either way this is not the time or place to do it at RFA. I find your responses very sarcastic actually. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per Blofeld. That speedy nomination, and the subsequent AFD, shows a real lack of understanding of policy. It stuns me that someone would think that a man with entries in two major paper encyclopedias is a speedy candidate, and the AFD nom rationale is not grounded in policy at the least. And rather than apologizing and admitting his/her mistake (and learning something from the episode), Bazj accuses Blofeld of lacking a sense of humor? I'm not really sure what the joke is here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There also appears to be a total lack of understanding of notability by Bazj. He writes, "Punkmorten's created a few other pages linked to Henrik Heftye today. To my eyes they seem to form an introverted cluster in that they support each others' notability. I'd still like to see them made more notable by reference from other articles rather than just between each other." All of the articles linking to this one created by Punkmorten are impeccably sourced to Norwegian encyclopedias. (See Oslo Kunstforening, Thomas Heftye, Johannes Thomassen Heftye, Thomas Johannessen Heftye, and Thos. Joh. Heftye & Søn.) Notability is not created by internal wikipedia links, it is created by coverage in secondary sources. All of these articles appear to have substantial secondary source coverage. I'm not sure if Bazj can clarify his statement, or if the misunderstanding is as bad as it looks on first glance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Dr. Blofield. Bazj has a little lack of experience and a bit of a civility problem after reading the interaction with Blofield. Tavix |  Talk  01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I can't see a reason to oppose, but I can't find one to support. Sorry. America69 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what AGF is for. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but I also feel Bazj needs more experience, so that could go both ways, so I'll stay neutral. America69 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thank you for clarifying. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would encourage more seasoning and activity. The answer to question one felt a bit nebulous to me, and the overall sense I get is one of not quite readiness. I appreciate the need to try to balance Wikipedia with everything else, and I acknowledge the recognition and apology over an error. We all make mistakes. How we deal with the fallout is something that decides our suitability for adminship. Adminship can be the toughest and most enjoyable volunteer job imaginable. It is very demanding of time and energy. You will need to maintain a fairly high activity level just to stay sharp and keep up with changes. If you can do this, take on board any growth recommendations from this RFA, and demonstrate sufficient policy knowledge, you will likely pass in another 3,000+ edits/6 months. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 02:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Experience a bit on the low side. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bazj&oldid=1144241180"