Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BusterD

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

BusterD

Final (16/33/7); ended 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. Prodego ^talk 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

BusterD (talk · contribs) – I nominate BusterD for adminship. BusterD has been editing here for more than 6 years and has almost 15,000 edits that are well dispersed throughout the English Wikipedia. BusterD has contributed significantly to articles on 19th Century American history subjects and was instrumental in bringing Portal:American Civil War to Featured Portal status. Active in Afd since 2006, BusterD has cautiously done a few non-admin closures [1], [2], [3]. BusterD has a history of civility and mends fences well with others he has questioned or had disagreements with, as shown in his discussion at Gwen Gale's 1st failed Rfa here and his switch to a cautious neutral on the 2nd successful Rfa [4]. BusterD is methodical and his cautionary and polite demeanor leads me to believe there will be no reason that he will misuse admin tools or the position. I would also add that BusterD's contributions to a bio I started resulted in the development of an article that greatly exceeded my original expectations...I figured the William F. Raynolds article would be limited to a few short paragraphs, but we both discovered through research that there was much more to the person.MONGO 00:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination — I have interacted with BusterD for years on Wikipedia and think he would make a fine administrator. My field of contribution and interest is limited almost entirely to the American Civil War, so my observation of his work has been in this space. From a technical standpoint, I was impressed with his efforts creating an elaborate portal for the war and a number of important templates. He is a tireless reviewer who can be relied on to keep the articles accurate and clean. In fact he is one of only a handful of editors whose work I do not have to review when they touch articles in my watchlist. He has been a good source for research, not only tracking down relevant citations, but correlating data from a number of sources to assist editors in achieving consensus. Although not yet an administrator himself, he has helped me on a number of occasions by navigating through the administrative bureaucracy to correct problems I could not solve myself. He is unfailingly polite and helpful to novice editors and always manages to balance his desire for accuracy and correct process with a touch of diplomacy. I have no doubts whatever that he can be trusted to use the crucial levers of the Wikipedia machinery with fairness and good judgment. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination — I'm happy to nominate BusterD for adminship. I first met him four years ago on the other "side" of an editorial disagreement at Abraham Lincoln. Since then I've found him to be a thoughtful, careful editor, knowledgeable and experienced with policy, easy to talk to and moreover, good on his word and trustworthy. For all the time I've known him, he has been quite open to my sundry inputs (many of which he has asked me for unbidden) and has thought about them deeply with strong judgement and insight. The editorial work of his that I've seen here through the years has been quiet and steady. BusterD can be trusted with the tools and will be a helpful admin. If he happens to run into an admin task he wants to do but needs to know more about first, he'll learn what's needed either on his own or by asking, then think about it some more before carrying forward with it. He'll bring to his admin tasks the same heed for sourcing and quality article building he has shown as an editor. Adminship will likely open up new paths on en.Wikipedia for BusterD. He is more than ready for them and the project needs him. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination and am humbled to offer myself before group consensus to administer English Wikipedia. It's only recently I've felt the pedia needed me to have the bit. I noticed a long backlog of AfD closes and did a couple of older ones. I know I could have done several deletes, but didn't have the tools or the consensus to do so. A comment from someone who disagreed with one of my non-admin closes provoked my willingness to measure consensus in this matter. MONGO had offered to nominate me several years ago, but I didn't feel the need for tools. In preparation for this possibility, I asked him, User:Reaper Eternal, and an old admin coach to look over my contribs a few months ago. After the old style, I requested MONGO to nominate me this weekend, and I am honored to be nominated by users with whom I share long and deep wikifriendships. I may not give the answers to questions some users might prefer, but I am confident I can provide honest responses. BusterD (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours in, I have been asked by several editors to withdraw this nomination. One editor went so far as to snowball close the process even though I'd specifically requested that this not be done. Another editor (one who opposed me) reverted the close. Bravo! And thanks! That's the Wikipedia I know and love. Civil disagreement. So I choose not to withdraw at this time. I do not think the issues raised against me should be enough by themselves to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate. This may not be an impressive argument to those who have already made up their minds. That I asked three long-established editors to nominate me? True. That I asked MONGO and two trusted servants of the pedia to look over my edits prior to putting myself forward? Absolutely true. That my older work deserves updating. Guilty. Screwed up on two non-admin closes? Guilty, revealing of my thinking somewhat, and explained below. Should I have not closed a 33-day old process as "no consensus"? In retrospect, probably not, but why didn't anybody else close it, if it was so clear cut? Did I click the wrong button on Lord's Bank? Very likely, since I explained my rationale below. But here's the big thing: Why didn't any of these issues come forward as questions to the candidate? Why the rush to judgement and peremptory hurry to get me to withdraw? I'm not a high school student. I can handle real questions. But I've been asked nothing substantive. Why not? BusterD (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I've admitted a personal error on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord's Bank and amended the outcome. This wasn't a change of heart, this was a correction towards my original intention, poorly executed. This error should be held against me in this procedure. It was sloppy work, and as a non-admin closer, I have a responsibility to put myself in a position to get it right 100% of the time. BusterD (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2011 (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 plan to start by closing AfD discussions more, treading carefully; so far I've been relisting as appropriate and closing what I felt were fairly clear cases of keep or redirect. More recently I've felt I was ready to close other outcomes as well. I have reported occasionally at AIV, so I could pay attention to that queue for response. Until recently I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Database reports; on reading through I see ways I could contribute. I see page protection and requested moves as areas where I should get admin experience. From watching the careers of admins I respect, I've noticed they find themselves acting in areas they didn't imagine at RfA. I suspect I'll find similar situations arising.

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

A: My best contribution is Template:American Civil War, though I'm not the tool creator. Another user and I started collaborating on the work some years ago, and I'm quite proud of how the template has gradually stabilized over time. I recently used it as a model for Template:American Revolutionary War, which isn't transcluded much yet but solves a big gap at Portal:American Revolutionary War. At some point I was gifted an unfinished Portal:American Civil War. and I built it up to featured status. I helped with a couple of GAs, Charles Pomeroy Stone and Samuel Escue Tillman, the latter of which I did almost entirely alone. More recently I'm happy with my work with some COI newbie issues. I'm mostly proud of the way the pedia has grown up around us, and that as part of something larger than myself, I've helped to make my areas of interest more trustworthy and better sourced.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: A long time ago, I was more likely to be hasty and weigh urgency over policy. I know I make similar (though lesser) mistakes today. A big difference now is that over time I realized the value of embracing disagreements with others as opposed to making those disagreements battleground-y. I try to make a habit of making amends when I realize I've made errors. I wrote recently that I valued the contributions of a user who disagreed with me especially when we disagreed, because it was likely that user would be seeing issues and perspectives I couldn't or wouldn't be able to see. Every day I edit, I find something I never considered or didn't yet know. I trust the process enough to allow myself to make mistakes and learn from them. I think it's helpful to have a relatively narrow focus of content interest; it keeps me free as an uninvolved editor to assist in administrative ways.

Additional question from Lagrange613

4. Why did you announce in October that you were retiring?

A: I should preface my answer with a reference to my unpublished essay on pace. In early October of this year, I was experiencing much work-related stress. In addition, I had put in a bunch of edits in August and September and wasn't feeling so much gumption. I had raised a discussion about what I saw as the pedia's institutional bias towards Google. I put myself in a minor dispute on Jimbo's page about whether an ip troll had a valid question to raise. And then (the same calendar day as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord's Bank) I stumbled onto an arbitrator's "keep" comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist (2nd nomination). Jclemens' comment annoyed me so much I performed a complete refutation. I even asked another editor if I was "too rough on the guy." Recognizing my stress level, I put myself on wikibreak for a week. While I was gone, Jimbo posted this offer to answer my questions on talk. When I came back I responded. I was very disappointed with Jimmy. I thought it was time to hang my spurs up, per my own advice about pace. A month went by. I felt less stressed. I missed working on pagespace. My gumption was back and I wanted to work, per the same personal essay. I'm still annoyed with Jimmy. He knows COI as well as anyone. I felt by his answer he'd let us all down, just a little bit.

Additional question from Mabdul

5. As X!'s Edit Counter shows your monthly edit count is changing from month to month and that there are also months with less that 10 edits. Is there any specific reason for that?

A: There are several. I am considerably older than most editors. I have been out of college and working in business for many years; as a result, I must prioritize between real life and online life from time to time. In January 2007 I had to choose between buying a new computer for my out-of-state daughter or for myself. She won. For the first quarter of 2007, I didn't have a personal computer of my own. It was surprisingly enjoyable. After I got the new machine, it took a short time for me to get interested in anything internet again. In May of 2008, I had to prioritize work; I returned in August. In February 2010 I moved into a lovely old house. I stopped spending so much time on the computer and spent more time hiking the Appalachian Trail. It's awesome and has transformed my life.

6. You state here: "But I still find myself doing unfamiliar things. Any feedback at all would be useful. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)". What changed in the last 5 days?

A: I'm not certain I understand the question. I still find myself doing unfamiliar things (like tonight, justifying my real life with wikipedians). I still appreciate feedback and find it useful, which is why I'd rather not close this procedure before I get the kind of feedback which may improve my performance here, regardless of whether consensus chooses to allow me to serve.

Additional question from Guerillero

6. 7. In light of your two AfD closures, what will you be doing differently at AfD?

A: Two directions: Let's say that I don't muster consensus here. In that case, I'll continue to use the toolset I've been trusted with to relist as appropriate and close keep outcomes when they are obvious. I'll confess I've been pushing the envelope since my first keep closes. I felt (and said at the time) that closing an AfD on a Featured work wasn't going to be too risky. But as a long-time member of the Military History Wikproject, I knew about the nominator (the page's primary contributor) and respected his reasons for raising the process. Note my use of the phrase: "No consensus to delete or merge". So I will be a good boy, but will on occasion try something new. On the other hand, let's say I somehow turn this bag of lemons into something tart and sweet. In that case I'm going to practice delete closes. Something I've never done. I'm also going to practice userfying and undeleting. Again, stuff I don't have much experience with, having the lesser toolbox. Heck, I might just be able to help with more than AfDs. At this moment I'm seeing 56 old discussions which some poor schmuck like me needs to evaluate and close. We need more eyes on. It doesn't have to be me. An old friend User:Kumioko is on my talk page right now bemoaning he has 300K edits and can't get the bit. We need quality people, not flawless ones. I don't have nearly the editing chops he does, and I refuse to drink from the firehose like many brave editors are willing to do, so I've got no CSD record to speak of. My friend is great at that. To clearly answer your question, I'll continue to step up. More and more as I feel more confident in community consensus. Thanks for the good question.

Additional question from Leaky

7. 8. I saw you asking for some additional questions. If you were an admin. and came across a current talk page thread that contained repated vulgar, profane or offensive language from one contributor what action would you take? Leaky Caldron 13:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A. Thanks for asking. In general I'd try to find out why the language was recurring, and try to de-escalate the hostility, if such existed. I'd endeavor NOT to make the problem worse by choosing sides or acting superior (or as a wikifriend said of me in past days "mastodonish"). I guess it depends on the situation. If it were myself using poor language choices, I'd ask an uninvolved editor to look at the thread and counsel me upon my best course forward. If it were MONGO, as another example, I'd go right to his talk page and remind him he has had a civility problem in the past and needs to be squeakier clean than most editors. In the same vein, if it were a trusted servant of the pedia, I'd approach directly on the appropriate user talk page and remind them gently of their obligation to maintain community confidence, for the good of the entire project. If it were a long time editor, I'd likely try to do the same. If it were a frequent offender or an ip, I'd likely put a small note on the article talk, reminding all editors about civility, then I'd probably go straight to templating the offender in an escalating fashion, linking the discussion in question. If it were a newbie, I'd leave the note on article talk then I'd approach the newbie on user talk, and inquire why the language was necessary or preferred to simple discussion. Sometimes there's justified hostility; from my experience I can identify with that. However, maintaining an atmosphere of civil disagreement is the only way we can move pagespace forward. Escalating conflict using harsh language rarely calms the other party down. This is very much the same reason RfA candidates used to get the "block/ban" question and the "cool-down block" question. The community must learn during talk experience, editor reviews and processes like these how a potential mop-wielder will understand the overarching need for civility in talkspace. It is only in this way (because our personal experiences with admin candidates is often limited) that we can learn the character of the candidate before consensus is clear.

Additional question from Crazynas

9. If you could unilaterally (Jimboesque) eliminate one process on Wikipedia what would it be, and why?Crazynas ^t 17:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from User:SmokeyJoe

10. You appear to be lambasted due to a couple on recent NAC closes. Are these typical of you participation at XfD. Can you point to a selection of XfDs where your participation may be more representative of your ability?

A:

General comments

• Links for BusterD: BusterD (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for BusterD can be found here.
• Edit count posted to talk page.

---

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

Discussion

• I reverted the SNOW close of this RfA. BusterD has three nominations from long term users and has been here since 2006. This is not a hands down (2/30/X) case. I really only feel comfortable seeing this closed by one of the crats at this time. I hope the pitchforks and torches are left at home. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The candidate has asked me to revert my later close of this RfA. In light of the points he made, I think it appropriate for this RfA to run until the official close time. I ask others to respect his request and not to close this RfA early. Many thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Since it appears that my willingness to see the procedure run full length is being seen by editors I respect as selfish and pointy, I'll withdraw my candidacy at this time. I will not say anything negative about those who have opposed me in this process. This was not my moment. I would like to make clear that I didn't intend to get a merit badge in this process; my intention was always to assist the pedia, particularly in the arena of AfDs, since closures seem to be getting backlogged recently. I do not need the mop in order to help create a great online encyclopedia, so I'll continue to do the work I have been doing as a non-admin. In the coming months I'll try to address each of the criticisms brought to my intention in this process, I'll work with some who have opposed me here to improve my understanding of areas in which my participation and preparation has been inadequate. While I believe it is no sin to fail, it would be a mistake and misfortune to all if I was to prolong such a failed procedure unduly. I reiterate: my candidacy was never about me. It was always about Wikipedia. Without approval of group conscience expressed through consensus no trusted servant can function. I hope one day I will earn the trust of many of those who in good faith have opposed my candidacy. I apologize to my nominators and my supporters. I apologize if my combativeness has been interpreted as selfishness. Thank you one and all for your valued input. BusterD (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Absolutely.--MONGO 04:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Support I have seen Buster's fine work and diplomacy for the last few years and he is an asset to Wikipedia and can undoubtedly be trusted with the tools.
   ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - A well respected and productive editor. Suprised they didn't already have the tools. --Kumioko (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - We don't need people who've never made any mistakes, but those who can correct them. An admin needs to be calm and mature, and to work well with others. BusterD has the temperament for the job. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Support He actually helped me improved articles since August. I think he needs the mop. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC) moved to oppose --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   I believe the above user is mistaken. Outside of an intersection at Ashley Smith inquest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Smith (prisoner) have no recollection of helping the user improve articles. If asked, I might have done. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

6. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. He has apparently learned from his misteaks mistakes. --rogerd (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
7. Support as co-nom. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
8. Your closes simply demonstrate to me that you see "no consensus to delete" as synonymous with "keep". This shows it clearly. I have no problem with that. It really doesn't matter if there is a consensus to "keep"; all we need to know is whether there is a consensus to delete. However, practice dictates you really should say "keep" if there is a consensus to keep, and admins (including myself) follow that practice pretty much by the book. In this close, you are making it clear that your concern is a personal concern, and your other comments are appropriately summarising the views expressed in the debate. Sadly, the drawback of giving reasons for closing an AfD is that they get picked apart. Keep it up, bring the closing statements a little more in line with current practice, and you'll be fine coming back here in a few months. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   This vote contains bad advice to current and future admins, and on that level should be ignored. "Keep" and "no consensus" have the same immediate effect but are not synonymous terms, for reasons most of the voters here thankfully appear to understand. Townlake (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   I don't think my comment should be read as advice to current and future admins, especially in light of my statement: "However, practice dictates you really should say "keep" if there is a consensus to keep, and admins (including myself) follow that practice pretty much by the book." In fact my advice to the candidate is to "bring the closing statements a little more in line with current practice". --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   You edited your statements - without strikethroughs - while I was responding to them. Townlake (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   What is this, an oppose in the wrong section? Leaky Caldron 20:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   No, and this brilliance, outlined in the answer to question 4, makes me very confident in my position. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   So can you explain what you mean by "Keep it up, bring the closing statements a little more in line with current practice, and you'll be fine coming back here in a few months."? Leaky Caldron 23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Helpful advice on how to pass next time. Despite my support, this RFA will fail. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

9. The outstanding behaviour of the candidate at this RfA demonstrates integrity and a willingness to learn and engage with others. All things considered I believe xe will make a fine and trustworthy administrator. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
10. Cautious and perhaps somewhat moral support, but the candidate has impressed greatly during the course of this RFA; they will no doubt be well equipped when returning again in a few months (as it seems likely this will not pass). Pedro :  Chat  12:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
11. Seems like a reasonable person who won't go off the rails. Not too worried about AfD issues mentioned below. The encyclopedia can live with the odd article wrongly kept and the occasional article wrongly deleted. --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
12. I can trust you with the mop --Guerillero | My Talk 21:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
13. Support - Being an administrator is no big deal. After six years' of contributing, it is clear to me that this candidate is an asset and a stayer. We all make mistakes from time to time; I have made many of them. This is not about retribution or reward – this is about recruitment. Graham Colm (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

    A truly excellent premise, with some fantastic alliteration to boot - one I must remember and then pass off as my own wisdom :) Pedro :  Chat  18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

14. Moral support recent issues loom quite large, but I've always found this editor to be on the reasonable side. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
15. Support - Long tenure, well rounded set of experiences, no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
16. Support - a couple poor AfD closures worry me much less than his overall demeanor and editing patterns. I'm strongly in Graham's camp here. Of course, the major AfD close cited below has been corrected, and unsurprisingly he made a mistake. By his rationale, I would have thought we can all see he plainly meant keep. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Lots of nominators = dubious candidate, never mind the bonus name you dropped in your own self-nom statement. And I wasn't impressed with this close, in which you interjected your own vote to support your "no consensus" close rationale, nor was I impressed with your talk page dialogue related to it. Townlake (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not a fan of non-admin closures... I think they shouldn't happen unless the outcome is clearly WP:SNOW, and this close is not good, but is that the only blight in a history of 15k edits? While not exemplary, it's not damning. Can you point me to the talk page dialogue you're referring to as well? Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   See my vote below for the link. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   User:Townlake's initial statement says way more about the editor who made it than it does about the subject of the statement. As to my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd, I don't believe I was super!voting at all. The procedure had been strangely open for over 30 days. It had apparently been sitting in the old discussion queue for three weeks without comment or closure. If this was such a simple matter, I thought, why had nobody else closed it? So I did the reading. I looked at the diffs. Recently I had read a signpost article about the South African PR firm which had been caught editing pages for promotion, so I'll confess I was predisposed to be suspicious. In addition, I'd been watching the buzzing of clear socks around several MMA/kickboxing procedures, raising this issue at a DRV for one such clearly defective process. To my eyes, User:Bigtezstags was an SPA, and I wasn't impressed with his or her assertions anyway. So just on numbers, I saw 2 deletes and 4 valid keeps. 66% is not a clear consensus, IMHO. So I broke down the arguments. User:AJHingston's assertion was not strong, as User:NickCT pointed out. User:Smalljim's assertion was right out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but the user did apply sourcing. User:DGG, whose qualifications go without saying, said: "it'll do." From David, okay, not convincing, but he did source. User:Aspro's central argument was "I'm surprised..." and wasn't impressive either; neither of the sources produced by that editor visibly mention the MLI. So if I made an error, it was not as egregious as it has been asserted. BusterD (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

   How defensive. Townlake (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

   How offensive, Townlake. I guess I could sit still and let my friends be slyly badmouthed. I could allow a misimpression of my actions to stand unanswered. I could quit. But that's not the kind of administrator I want to be. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

   Your dialogue with Kudpung below indicates you want to use this RFA as a quasi-"editor review", regardless of whether the result of the RFA vote is clear. Your stance reminds me of this RFA, which I link here to provide you some insight about judging consensus. I don't doubt you'll be a good administrator someday, but with all respect, you don't seem to be off to a good start in the area most cited in this RFA as needing work. (Not trying to be snarky, this is a genuine effort to be helpful.) Townlake (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, since even some supporting editors think my run unlikely to succeed, I feel this is the best I can make out of a poor situation. I'm glad you have chosen not to be snarky, and I agree the issues you and others have raised don't shine the best light on my lengthy wikicareer. At this point, it's no longer about me; as I was telling Kudpung on my talk, it's become about the way RfAs are conducted. Many of us feel that we aren't getting the good candidates to apply or when applying not promoted. User:Kumioko is a perfect example (vast experience in every workspace, long trusted with tools, always improving) of the sort of fellow who'd do well, but can't gather consensus. It seems to my eyes that ANY mistakes are unduly amplified. Let's take the valid critique of my judgement you've offered as an example. What was the outcome? The page was kept as no consensus to delete. This may have impact if the page is ever put back up for deletion, but right now the pedia is in the same condition it would be in if I'd closed as "keep." So a very minor difference, and not particularly important, except as revealing about my character and judgement in RfAs (a very important thing, I'll concede). IMHO, the biggest issue you raised was my insertion of any personal opinion in my closing statement (again, relevant as revealing of the kind of closer I might be), yet I felt I was echoing comments made even by "keep" !voters. And this was a serious enough breach of wiki-procedure that most of the !votes which have followed have shown concern about it. To my mind, this is an unrealistic standard to which to hold a candidate, but of course I have a personal bias in this case and my opinion shouldn't weigh overmuch. Very much appreciate your civility in this discussion. Sorry if I snarked back. A really foolish thing to do with the whole wikiworld watching. BusterD (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

   The consensus was to "Keep", but the article still stands even though you closed it "No consensus", so the situation didn't change overall in the long run. Afd is a mystery to me...as an admin long ago, the only deletions I ever did were clear SNOW deletions or those listed at CSD. I never took on more difficult closures as I didn't want to deal with the potential subsequent acrimony...I applaud any admin who tackles such areas, even if their actions aren't always precise.--MONGO 19:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose... so far. I'm not a fan of that "no consensus" closure, as the consensus was clearly (and unfortunately, I must say) a keep, and your close rationale was an overreach of evaluating !votes, indeed becoming a !vote in itself. But a single AfD close is not why I'm tempted to oppose, rather it's what I perceive to be an automatic assumption of bad faith from potential COI editors: please do explain how "as a PR-related work" is a valid deletion reason. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC) (stricken 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC))

2. Oppose: This AfD had a very clear consensus for 'keep' with very strong rationales, and should have been closed without comment. I would have expected the candidate to have accumulated a solid understanding of evaluating a rough consensus, having participated in over 563 votes at AfD, but his explanation here demonstrates that he still has some way to go. Although many will argue that creation and content work is not essential for adminship, where significant content work is concerned, it will be taken into consideration and ought to be of a reasonably high quality. Unfortunately, of his 60 or so creations, although referenced, over 30% (see list on talk page) have no or very few inline citations. Where his research is based mainly on printed sources, this should be very easy. For an admin, a good understanding of referencing techniques is essential, especially where the evaluation of the accuracy of content and notability of other articles is concerned, and could have an impact on his CSD decisions. On checking his deleted contribs (mainly in his own user space) and page patrols, I see very little NPP work or CSD tagging, and not enough to be able to evaluate his performance. Just under six months ago he was warned for 3RR - possibly an isolated occasion, but he should know better. To conclude, I would say that Buster is a keen and civil editor - even able to defuse conflict. However, I'm sorry, but I just don't think he's quite ready for the challenges of adminship yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   User:Kudpung may be right that I'm not quite ready for the challenges of adminship. However, the user is incorrect on every specific charge above. 1) As I've explained to Townlake above, if consensus was so "very clear" on MLI, why did nobody close it after 33 days? I reject the premise consensus was clear and have explained it above; 2) since I contend consensus wasn't so clear, the discussion thread on my talk (coincidentally with the very same editor I referred to in my answer to question #3, an editor with whom previously I've had serious disagreements about the way WP:ARS does business) makes perfect sense; 3) As I've explained on talk, with one exception (a merge close I performed last weekend), each of the articles listed on talk as poorly referenced are works I haven't edited in several years (though I concede those should be addressed); here are four examples of work I've done this year: Carole Berry, William F. Raynolds, List of Ravians, Merdith W.B. Temple; here's a page where I've been trying to show a COI newbie how to source a BLP and write neutrally: Robert Petkoff; also see User talk:Cwands#Dealing with the re-write; 4) I have explained I don't normally do New Page Patrols or tag for CSD; my daily time on the pedia is limited, so I tend to focus on tasks I can accomplish at my pace, not reactive tasks; please don't hold me responsible for not editing in the same way you do; 5) I have never been warned for 3RR; In my wikicareer I have been templated once, this summer for a single edit on WP:ARS, restoring text removed (by a deleted user or ip) which had been on the page for several years. Despite the fact that none of the charges Kudpung makes have foundation, it's still possible I'm not quite ready for the challenges of adminship. Given this standard of performance, I'm not surprised the pedia can't get enough candidates to run, or approve them when they do. Thus far this procedure has been a disappointment, not because of opposition, but because of the poverty of argument presented. BusterD (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

   There was a huge edit war taking place at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron taking place here where Taelus saw fit to full protect the page and warn you, so you got caught in the cross-fire with with a template message on 25 June. Alone, it's not a major problem and admittedly you did not technically violate the 3RR, However, I've never come across you before, have no axe to grind, and I'm not accustomed to spending nearly 2 hours to evaluate an RfA candidate to make a dishonest voting rationale. I assess editors on the standards I set for my own work (and I'm not perfect either) and this does not change my opinion - which you concede - that you are not ready yet to face the challenges of adminship. If others have piled-on because I !voted early, should they feel I have unfairly judged your performance, they are free to change their opinion. However, I do not feel that you have addressed this RfA with the calm disposition that I thought you possessed when I reviewed your interaction with other editors, and hence your answer to Q3 also gives me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for your well-considered reply. I do not concede I'm not ready (otherwise I'd withdraw), but I am willing to accept that others feel I MAY not be ready. I thought measuring consensus in this matter would be the test; so far I have learned much. I very much appreciate the time you've taken to take and then expand your position. I understand it better now. I also appreciate you standing by YOUR position, though it's one I clearly disagree with both on the merits and on analysis. I've been looking for a new admin coach to push me into learning areas of unfamiliarity, but after the three looked over my edits I felt I was ready, based on my experience. Would you be willing to mentor me and answer questions from time to time? I'd still like to see this procedure run its full seven day course, if for no other reason than to get better feedback. IMHO, feedback channels like Editor review have not been effective in locating and evaluating potential mop candidates. If any of this seems pointy to you, I'll reconsider my desire to keep this procedure open. BusterD (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per above.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 09:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose Here's another strange no consensus close: Lord's_Bank. Warden (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Hmm, looks more to me like he's mistaking "no consensus" with "keep". They both have the same outcome, so I'm not sure who that's a bad thing, in all honesty. — Joseph Fox 18:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   The Colonel is right that this is strange. My recollection of the procedure was that I closed it as keep. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen City, Iowa I'm well aware of DGG's assertion about common practice in these cases. The closing script I'm using places the no consensus button directly next to the keep button, so it's possible I hit the wrong one. It's also possible that since my written rationale was no consensus to delete (a rationale I've used before in "keep" outcomes, even if incorrect) I hit the wrong button. However, I take responsibility for my errors even if inadvertent, so Colonel Warden is right. This was a mistake on my part. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   I've corrected this mistake by amending the outcome. To be absolutely clear, I intended to close this as keep, per my personal experience with the AfD procedure listed in the comment immediately above. My amending corrects my foolish error. Thanks to the Colonel for pointing this out. BusterD (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose due to a misunderstanding of the AFD process pertaining to COI or PR developed articles. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm concerned how this lack would be manifested during interaction with new editors or in working with other deletion processes. I'm also concerned with the apparent inability to recognize when non-admin closures are appropriate or not. When an appropriate close is elusive short of admin status, clearly there is no confidence that closures would suddenly be appropriate when handed the bit. I share the concerns of CET and Kudpung. And I personally don't feel that you should be closing AFDs as either an admin or non-admin at this time. Sorry. I recommend spending time reading and reviewing the deletion policy and processes, then working to present a clear understanding over the next several months. I look forward to seeing you again. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose with regret. I see a hard-working contributor here, but the two recent Afd closures that have been highlighted were just plain wrong. There was a clear consensus to Keep in both cases, and evaluating consensus is all the closer is supposed to do - not interject personal opinions or judge it according to any other considerations. (And a non-admin shouldn't be closing anything other than a clear Keep anyway, or clear housekeeping closes) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose because of the two recent AfD closures linked in the opposes before mine. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Indenting my !vote. I really appreciate the way you responded to criticism during this RfA. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose per the technically incorrect/misunderstanding of AfD closures above. HurricaneFan25 — 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose I think people should be serious article editors before they become admins. I'm not a fan of significant Portal work; Portals get very low page views and they seem to me to be nothing but vanity projects for wikipedians who are scared of working on a real article. BusterD is a very useful editor but I don't see how the community would be significantly improved were he to receive the tools, especially in light of those RfD closures (linked above), which raise a number of issues: understanding when non-admin closure is appropriate, the ability to see the presence of a consensus, and imposing the closer's opinion on the decision. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose I would love to support but, these AfD closures are leaving me a lot of concern. The way I am seeing this is that you appear to give closures stating basically something that doesn't fit as a final conclusion. "Keep, keep, keep, comment, keep" Your conclusion, "No Consensus". You may want to try and fix that or stay away from this altogether. I would recommend that you work on editing a while longer or work on AfD a little more before becoming an admin.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)

   I recommend closing this as WP:SNOW. This RfA isn't going well at all.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 16:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'd recommend that you tone down your signature a notch Cyberpower678. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Um, what does his/her sig. have to do with anything here? RFA Guy (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

   My signature is compliant with WP:SIG my signature flaws was worked out with User:Xeno and User:HJ Mitchell. That is beside the point.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'd like to request this procedure not close as snowball. I've been away from keyboard since early this morning and have had zero time to look at questions posed or specific issues other than the first three opposes. While it seems unlikely this request may not gather necessary consensus, it seems reasonable to allow me some time to answer the valid concerns raised here before closure. BusterD (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose per the arguments raised above. I have serious concerns that a candidate who would like to work in AfD closures does not seem to understand the process. A no consensus close should not be performed by a non-admin regardless of whether it is correct or not - someone well-versed in AfD should know not to close any debate they view as having no consensus; that is an admin's job. In addition, a number of the recent no consensus closures performed are quite obviously not no consensus (I won't bother repeating link offered above), which suggests a misunderstanding both of consensus and the AfD procedure. For someone who intends to work heavily at AfD, this is too much of a problem. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
11. I'm sure that in good time, this candidate will make a good administrator. I'm also quite convinced, based on the many recent NACs cited above, that he isn't ready yet. His civility and thoughtfulness are commendable, and I think Kudpung may be being a little harsh about his content creations, but he's not making the right judgment calls at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

    I was expecting to support this but the 2 NC AFD closes show that Buster still isn't ready to close AFDs. Sorry, but I really do want to support the next time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I'm going to strike this because of the class with which Buster is dealing with this RFA.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

12. Oppose I oppose because your closures in AfD aren't very well thought out. You have done some good closures but there are too many bad ones recently for me to support. Keep working at AfD and improve please. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose Per the arguments above, you need to be careful when closing AfD votes. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
14. Moral oppose You could consider accepting the mistake you committed and withdrawing this RfA. Improve your understanding of AfD closures with individuals like Richwales Ritzman and other established editors and reapply in three to six months after gaining appropriate experience. Overall, this mistake is not something that will be held against you in the long term provided you work towards correcting it and understanding how to determine consensus, or lack of it. I've made mistakes like these too before my RfA which were brought out in my RfA; but thankfully the community gave me considerable leeway. They will do so to you too in your next. Don't let this hit you bad. You're a good editor and I'll be looking forward to support you in the future. Wifione ^Message 17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Not right now. I'd refrain from non admin closures for now. Shadowjams (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
16. Oppose per TCO's neutral. Excellent work at A and AA-level minor league baseball. Ready for promotion to AAA but not the major leagues (just now). Keeping throwing heat but gain greater control, by working with the pitching coaches at AfD; somewhat limited as a pitcher---you need a screwball or a slider to balance your strong arm. I hope to see you in training camp in Spring training.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
17. Oppose; not yet, more experience and better judgment needed. pablo 20:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
18. Oppose Concerns with experience and judgement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
19. Oppose. In fact, stop closing AfDs for a while and read up on them, since the King's Bank close in particular was awful. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you mean Lord's Bank? If so, why was it awful? Is it not "common practice is that all documented inhabited places are inherently notable"? I seem to recall user Blofeld bot-generating thousands of stub articles on that very basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Exactly, and yet he closed it as no consensus, when that's about as clear a keep consensus as you can get. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
20. Oppose I'm usually lax at RFA, but opposes are persuasive here. causa sui (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose There are two reasons for having a long list of nominators. Either a person is so good that many people want to hang their hat on the candidate or the candidate is so shaky that the multiple nominators is a vain hope to use some ethos to ram yourself through. This is one of those latter cases. The AfD closures are enough to pull me to oppose. I was pulled all the way to a strong oppose per the anti-ethos of two of the three nominators. Neither MONGO nor Gwen Gale instill any trust in me. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

    I very much appreciate your reverting the snowball close. I appreciate it even more now that I know you wanted to oppose. Very sporting of you and very wikipedian. Thanks, truly. There could be a third reason for having three nominators (does three constitute a long list?): These three are my oldest and dearest wikifriends. I trust them and I asked all three of them to nominate. Is that offensive to anyone? Does that count as canvassing? If so, I'll live with the consequences. They're still my friends. Just people I met while editing the pedia. And they remained my friends while on break after (semi-)retirement, and each welcomed me back. I have other friends, but chose not to involve them for various reasons. Thanks again for reverting. Someone else on Wikipedia I can trust. (Heck, that's how Gwen and I met, disagreeing with each other.) BusterD (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

    Its better to withdraw the nomination because you need to solve the issues here. Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

    That's one editor's opinion. I've answered the questions about the two "no consensus" closes above. I await far more biting critique. This is all that can be raised against me in 6 years of editing? I don't have enough citations on my older works? I don't have any FA's? I made mistakes in two out of 500+ AfDs? Is this everything? And that's enough? Well let's clear all the air, right now. BusterD (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

    I am docking my oppose from the final count. You seem to reply to feedback, a skill that many wikipedians lack. You have done this with more tact and patience then I could ever muster. Thanks for replying your choice of nominators. I don't feel is right to hold that against you. Your actions have instilled a good amount of trust in me. I would like to see you back here is 3-6 months after taking into account some of the objections here. I have faith that you will make a good admin. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

    I will listen carefully to feedback and heed the wisdom. Just wish I could get more of it. BusterD (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

21. I really hate to oppose anybody at RfA and initially expected to support — BusterD has been here for quite some time and is clearly enthusiastic about the project. However, I have to agree with concerns expressed above. Unfortunately, I think Buster needs to take some more time evaluating what constitutes consensus, which is so important in closing deletion debates, before he is ready to take on the role of adminiship. I wish him all the best of luck, and I hope his next RfA will have my signature in the support column. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
22. Oppose, as user will need to know more about consensus, as above. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
23. Oppose. I too am concerned by the non-admin AfD closures. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
24. Oppose per above; seems like more experience will help...Modernist (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
25. Oppose Sorry man, but Kudpung and the others pretty much summed everything up here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
26. Lukewarm Oppose per Kudpung, et. al. Too many policy knowledge issues, but I do see great potential. Give it some time.--Hokeman (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
27. I'm sorry. I know just how much being opposed at RFA sucks, so I rarely oppose, but one of the most important qualities I look for in an admin candidate is level-headedness and the ability to judge consensus, and from your AFD closes, I'm just not seeing it. I apologise if it seems like I am nitpicking here, but I worry how you will judge AfD as an administrator based on the examples that were presented above. Try not to let this discourage you though. Happy to reconsider in six months. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
28. Oppose - non admin closes are very poor indeed - the nominators deserve additional eyes as well for this poor nomination. Youreallycan (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
29. Oppose - I would love to support in the future. Take some time outside of RfA to respond to criticism then request again. Right now, there are too many outstanding issues which would be impossible to address in the span of this discussion. None of them are major, but they are worth reflecting upon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
30. Oppose. There are unfortunately too many editors making bad AFD/CSD nominations and arguments. That's why we need good, experienced admins in that area. In this case we have a prior sample of closing decisions which does not bode well. It's not inconceivable that the applicant could improve significantly, but now is too soon to place that kind of bet. Happy holidays. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
31. Oppose per concerns about AfD closures.--Slon02 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
32. Oppose per Kudpung. —SW— ^prattle 16:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
33. Oppose at this time. Bad AFD closes= bad. Willing to listen and try to learn from criticism= good. Insisting on keeping this obviously failed RFA open for your own sake and/or as yet another opportunity to talk about how RFA is broken= fail. Maybe later. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

    I'm concerned about the growing perception that I'm doing this for my sake, or even the chance to discuss RFAs in general. I'm aghast that nobody asked me about these closures in question to the candidate. It seems we shoot first these days then ask questions later (but I suppose that is in fact a sad statement about the nature of RFAs.) If community consensus is that this looks pointy, then I should make a short withdrawal statement and request the closure. Even my nominator is in that camp now, so while I don't view my actions as prideful, it's likely that others may. When editors like Snottywong, Wizardman and Youreallycan (each of whom I've done work with or around) are opposing, then it's unlikely I can change minds further simply by being a stand-up guy inside the procedure. BusterD (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Worried by who nominating and low content. I wouldn't automatically rule someone out for a lot of noms--for instance, if someone was so well loved, peeps just wanted to be on his bandwagon--but this fellow seems more like a marginal candidate and the number of noms a coordination to get him over the top. Also who is nomming, several blocking-bullying class of admins. Having them get an acolyte seems bad for Wiki. On the content: six years, one very short GA. Never see the guy in article space. Do more articles. Colloborate and interact with content writers. It will really deepen you and make you a kinder, more perceptive person. Less "teh Wiki rules, teh Wiki rules" and more thinking about how people interact. What our readers are and what they like. Even what are outside Wiki insights to bring here. I want to know that you can interact like a "real person" when you have to stop some 40 year professional writing his first Wiki. Not come across as some kid with a badge. I'm in neutral, since I don't follow AFD and have had no bad interactions with the candidate.TCO (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Are you sure you are talking about this candidate? There are three noms and only one is an admin...and I've never thought of her as a bully at all. Your classification is unfair..."Also who is nomming, several blocking-bullying class of admins." WTF?
   ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   MONGO was defrocked by the arbitration committee for misusing his tools [5]. TCO has a good memory. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you. That explanation helps some.
   ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not that much an expert on the stuff. Like I said, it is an impression. That's why I'm in neutral, not oppose. Honest admission.TCO (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Spartaz...TCO made his/her first edit with that username long after I was deadminned...so not sure if it is from memory. That defrocking was 5 years ago...I'm not running for admin, BusterD is...MONGO 17:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   And to refresh everyone's memory, MONGO lost community consensus because he raised another editor's serious behavior issue at ArbCom and forgot his own behavior would also be under close scrutiny. MONGO is awesome, but he had a bad temper. He's a far better editor these days than he EVER was an administrator those days. And to be frank, MONGO warned me his association might have negative consequences in this procedure. Yet I asked him anyway. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral - Very sorry, but there's no way I can support. I see a competent person editing in good-faith, but I believe that the job of the closing admin for AfD's is to judge consensus, not take what was said and add it to his own opinion. Whether or not the Afd's were even applicable to by NAC is another matter altogether, but I really don't like the two linked above. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Also, I'm not sure why the numbering in this section is off... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Fixed; always put # in front of the indentation. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Ahh, thanks. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   Still in neutral, but I want to say that this editor's conduct during this RfA has been great and if he takes some advice to heart I see absolutely no reason why I wouldn't support in a few months. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

3. Neutral Torn ... Mongo's nom probably cost this editor a lot of votes; Gwen is far more trustable. Interesting spread of "personalities" as nom's ... will look some more here, which is not necessarily a bad thing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Neutral Sorry, but due to concerns raised in the oppose section, especially for your bad judgement in closing AfD's, I cannot support. Besides that, your issues aren't at a high level, but your AfD closures is a big issue as an admin. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Your answers to Q 4–6 above indicate you're a mature editor and suggest to me that you'd put the appropriate weight on the position. Your work at AfD is much appreciated. Most candidates get only indirect chances to show what sort of admin they'd be. You had some real chances with non-admin closures, and unfortunately some of them don't reflect very well on you. As a result, I can't support now. You've done a lot of good for the project, and I would be happy to support at your next AfD after you've demonstrated that you've taken to heart the torrent of feedback you're getting here. Lagrange613 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the very kind words. I'll take the liberty of addressing specific concerns raised above, but accept valid criticism knowing I often find wisdom in the viewpoints of folks with whom I disagree. BusterD (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

6. I feel very much the same as Spartaz 16:20, 23rd and 09:40, 24th December 2011 (UTC). Buster is largely an excellent candidate, but clumsy NAC closes are a serious matter. I have little doubt that Buster will overcome these mistakes with time, but it is hard to overlook. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Similar to Lagrange's concerns I feel not comfortable with your answers, but nothing that won't change with some more months experience. So, similar to many other voters, my answer is atm NOTNOW. mabdul 16:55, 26 December 2011 (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.