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

BuickCenturyDriver[edit]

Final (9/19/4); ended 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC) - Withdrawn by the candidate. - 28bytes (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs) – After a few months of trying my luck at RFA for the first time and failing miserably, I think I am ready to try again and address the concerns of those who opposed. As far as I know, the reason was because of my misunderstanding of "cool-down" blocks (i.e. blocks intended to shut up an annoying user for a short amount of time) and WP:IAR. While I am willing to address those concerns. As an adminsitrator, I would not be compelled to block users without a prior warning, per WP:BITE. Since this is a free site, most people edit without knowing the rules. Therefore I think I could handle the job of admin, based on the fact the I recently participated in Feezo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s RFA. He passed with about the same number of edits I had. His success gave me some confidence that I also could succeed to a degree. Basically, the ideal adiminstrator is not only someone who knows about Wikipedia, but is someone that is patient with others, assumes good faith, and always has a sense of good humor. I think I have all three. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, hoping for better results. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 intend to handle unblock requests. I have reviewed many of them, but I don't comment since I cannot handle them on my own. I think coaching unblocked users out of disruptive activity and vandalism not only saves the editor, but a lot of time for administators who have to play cat and mouse with these vandals. I also intend to handle closing AFDs. I have a list of AFDs on my front page. I only do roughly 10 a year since my work scedule keeps me from editing more than I want to.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:Two of them: 1978 AL East playoff, and Ghostwriter (TV series). The 1978 AL East playoff lead the Yankees to their second consecutive title and ended a riveting comeback from 14 games down in July. The Ghostwriter series was one of my favourite pop culture icons. I watched the show in PBS when I was in high school, and I currently watch it on Youtube. I collect the book series and I have uploaded about 10 images connected to the series. I also created and contributed to the ((ipsock)) template, which I myself don't use but is used often and has been protected from any further outside contributions. Aside from that, I usually spend time updating baseball scores and stats for team articles. I tend to be a seasonal editor since I enjoy watching baseball a lot. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:In 2007 a hacker managed to get a password to a number of editor accounts. Some had sysop access. One of them AndyZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) logged in, deleted the main page with a summary "My password is password". I logged in with the name to see if this user was really a sysop and blocked another sysop knowing they can lift the block themselves. I was logged off when another editor logged in (you can only log in from one computer) After my own account was blocked on the suspicion that I was the one who obtained the passwords. After a harrowing 4 days of haggling, it was found that I wasn't the hacker and I was off the hook. Since then, there were no conflicts, but the experiance shook me up initially that I practially shut down until 2008. Since 2008 I've been doing roughly 100 edits a month, but I never really find the time to edit as much as I did when I joined in 2007.
Additional questions from Fetchcomms
4. Consensus at an AfD is clearly to merge and delete an especially ugly article. However, two users only said "Merge", without "Delete". What do you do?
A:Here is the answer
5. Communication is essential to Wikipedia's success and a daily part of administrators' work. You have relatively few articletalkspace edits—just wondering why?
A:Questions about my edits are discussed on my own talk page. I usually don't have questions about my mainspace edits and that's why article talkspace has a small slice on my edit count. I discussed articles such as whether to create the Phillies–Pirates rivalry after is was deleted by AFD with SNIyer12 for example. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Beeblebrox
6. In the interest of clearing the air on this issue, could you clarify your stance on WP:IAR and if possible present a hypothetical situation in which it might be appropriate to ignore a rule?
A:Okay, I needed a break to answer this question. Given that my answer ruined my first attempt, I'm going to try with a capital T to give the right answer. IAR means that cratin rules and guidelines can be ignore for the sake of improving the project. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Additional optional question from Reaper Eternal (talk)
Resolved
7. Why did you delete Jasper Deng's and my comments with a disingenuous edit summary of "Answer question 5, I need clarification to the question on AFD closures, please be patient. Thanks"? [1]
A:This is due to an edit conflict. when I posted, your comment disappeared, feel free to restore them. This has been discussed and resolved. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Amatulić

I'll ask a couple of questions about fairly typical situations that administrators encounter.

8. Suppose you notice that WP:RFPP has a backlog, and you see that someone has requested semi-protection for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you see among the handful of edits per day, a slow edit war going on. Not all the edits are warring, and although there have been more than three reverts by both sides over the past week, it doesn't really qualify for 3RR. In the edit history you see hardly any actual vandalism, maybe once every three days or so. The most frequent anonymous edits, however, involve an anon IP editor attempting to add well-sourced material that a registered editor has been reverting as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This registered editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request to stop the disruption. The anon IP hasn't participated on the talk page, but has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
A:I would first try to warn the registered editor to stop pushing the POV. From when I've seen, editors usually push POVs either to call attention or when they don't agree with the other edits. If the disruptive editor persists, then the user will be warned. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. We have four levels of user talk page warnings to apply to vandals, spammers, people who push a non-neutral point of view, people who insist on adding unsourced content, etc.
a. Would you require escalation through all four levels before you'd block an editor? Why or why not?
b.Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning? Why or why not?
A:It depends on how the warned editor reacts to the warnings. I'd first try to warn the editor away from whatever behavor he is doing. If they stop, well and good. As for not blocking after level 4, they would be very rare. Blocking should only be used as a last resort, but sometimes I'd have no choice. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up to Reaper Eternal's Q7 from Strange Passerby
10. You say the removal of legitimate comments was due to an edit conflict. Why did you choose not to, and continue to not, resolve the issue by restoring the lost comments? Your current comments seem to suggest you're taking a "You can do it yourself if you want, but I won't" stance on this. Could you clarify? StrPby (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: I wasn't aware the comment were deleted, so I had no idea of knowing they were there. I probably could surmise I was editing an old verson of the page on another open browser. In any case, I have no problem with the comments at all. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't all these intermediate edits disappear too? [2] Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I probably edited the revision right before the edit in question and it was not reverted to your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuickCenturyDriver (talk • contribs)
Not possible. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Apparently possible. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist... –BuickCenturyDriver 02:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Longterm user, seems to have the right attitude. The 2007 incident is so distant that I'm more than happy to disregard it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My first ever support. :)–BuickCenturyDriver 10:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support trustworthy which is all that matters. Egg Centric 11:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - the comment about Feezo's RfA, to me, seems to state this: because Feezo was successful in the RfA process with a similar situation with regards to edits as himself, he feels he is also within a chance. It's not a case of I voted in this guy's RfA, so consider me good. I think this statement has been largely misunderstood. Putting that aside, you seem honest, you care about the project, you take feedback from others and work hard on it, and all-in-all you want to help out. Good, honest person who I'm willing to hand the tools to. I trust you fully not to abuse them. Orphan Wiki 11:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, it looks like you beat me to addressing it below. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs :) Orphan Wiki 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that I'm getting support and I am able to address the opposes make me feel good enough. Compared to the first nom which crashed in a few hours, I can't wait to read all the feedback tonight. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good man. All the best! ;) Orphan Wiki 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – long-term user, no solid reason for otherwise. I think four months is long enough since the last RFA (Wikipedia's rules aren't set in stone!). Also per user Orphan Wiki's comment. It's a little shame that you didn't replicate your 2007/02 editting spree. All in all, I trust you with the mop. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 12:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support User seems cluful, n reason to oppose adminship. mauchoeagle 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support BuickCenturyDriver has always given me a good impression. They seem like a clueful and reasonable user and are well qualified for the mop. Swarm X 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Supportmoved to Oppose. I recommend withdraw. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 03:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moral support. I hate to see an RfA go this badly for a long-term, good-faith editor. Many of the opposes have given you some useful suggestions as to what they'd like to see done differently before they can support; probably the best thing to do at this point would be to withdraw and work on those areas (the simplest, of course, being a higher activity level), and try again when you're confident that their concerns have been addressed. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral support - This is going downhill rapidly, so I would recommend withdrawing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You are the fourth person to suggest the candidate withdraw. I already suggested to the candidate via their talk page (and two others echoed that thought there also) that he should withdraw, but apparently he is choosing otherwise.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just that I had to work today. I will comment below. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I don't know how to put this into words. I am going to withdraw for now and try my very best to address the concerns of those who felt I was not ready to move up the ladder. I've spent the past 2 days with anticipation and I must admit was blown away when I had 6 supports against 2 opposes. The 2 opposes were activly being discussed and I never dreamed that this was would be my lucky break. That is, until those extra questions and pile-on opposes reared their ugly heads. Some doubted my experiance, while other cited my wrong answers to the extra question. Unlike my first nom, nobody said exactly which questions I was wrong on so I'm unable to pinpoint what needs to improve. I have to say I was surprised my ability to AGF was put in question, given my degree of tolerance to new users and blocking procedure. I hope to gain more knowledge as I move on. Since I tend to edit more often during the baseball season, I hope those who cited my lack of activity will find a more steady stream of activity in the coming months. Please feel free to discuss these issues on my talk page. Thank you very much. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]
  1. Shows no understanding of need or use of tools. Feezo's RfA shouldn't even come into play. Too recent since last failed RfA without showing needed clue. Oppose. StrPby (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? It does come into play, we had similar edit histories. And 4 months is more than enough. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Five months, FWIW. Amalthea 09:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Amalthia. If I didn't understand the tools, I wouldn't have been editing since 2007. My stance on blocking is that caution should be used when blocking any user. Of course you're free to discuss this on my talk page. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What do I mean? I quote your nomination statement: "I think I could handle the job of admin, based on the fact the I recently participated in Feezo's RFA". Why does your participation in Feezo's RfA mean that we should support you? How does participation in another user's RfA show a !voter that you're ready for admin tools? So again I ask, how does his RfA come into play here? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the latest comment below. The fact is, we share edit histories, so I knew some people were going to oppose because I have gaps in editing so I cited Feezo's edit history in own request. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what BuickCentury is saying is that comparing himself to Feezo leads him to believe he's ready, not "I can be an admin cos I !voted at Feezo's RfA" - at least, that's how I read it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "I could handle the job of admin based on the fact that I participated in Feezo's RFA", can that really be read any other way? In any case, this point aside, I'm still not comfortable enough with this user's contributions to trust him with the mop. I agree with Worm below that his content contributions leave a lot to be desired. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I'm trying to clarify that I was citing Feezo's edit history which like my own, has a long gap across 2009 in it. Strange Passerby thought I nominated myself simply because I voted in Feezo's RFA. I've voted in many RFAs but was motivated by Feezo's RFA because his also had more opposes but he was able to address them and won enough support to pass. I encourage anyone to study the RFA's edit history. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the subject of what you claim was an "edit conflict" - I'm not buying that, sorry. If it was a legitimate edit conflict, why did the edit not remove Tofuwitch's edit right before yours, but affect comments up to 10 minutes prior? StrPby (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose for now - in fact, call this a "Moral Support". Looking back through your contributions, you've been around a while, but not been editing as much recently. the 2007 incident doesn't concern me and the work I've seen you do looks perfectly fine, but you do still seem to be experimenting and learning a lot. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd expect more experience from an admin. You could do with some more content work. For example, in the article Ghostwriter (book series), you did some good copyediting [3], but did not add a single source, nor have you in Ghostwriter (TV series), something you consider part of your best work on wikipedia. Your userfication here was a copy and paste move - losing attribution (I can't see the original article), I don't think that was right. (I'm sure someone will correct me there if I'm wrong!). So overall, you're doing a good job, keep it up, but I can't support you in a request for adminship at this time. WormTT · (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfectly to the point. The userfication was by request, BTW. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I saw that. It's just that userfication should be done using the "move" button, not by copying and pasting the text, as should all moves. Otherwise there's a loss of attribution, meaning we're not complying with the GFDL (or is it the CC-BY-SA.. or is it both). WormTT · (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was in AFD, so I copymoved it so the closing administrator could just delete it without move. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at WP:Userfication#Userfication process - you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to get on at you for this, honest! WormTT · (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I'm commenting on two vote already :) –BuickCenturyDriver 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, text editors post to Wikipedia is licensed under both the cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I've just repaired the userfication. I do agree, Worm That Turned, that the userfication per copy&paste while losing attributions was improper and resulted in a license violation. Amalthea 12:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It's not an area I'm particularly familiar with, and would be making more of a deal over it if it was in article space. WormTT · (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it really amounted to a license violation in this particular case is probably debatable anyway, since it was userfied by request of the original creator to his own userspace, and he was AFAICT the only contributor of copyrightable content. Nonetheless, should have been left to the closing admin, who tried doing that afterwards anyway. Amalthea 12:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose: The block log isn't clean, even though it is old. However what concerns me is your low activity in recent months and your edits on talk pages. You do not show understanding of the BLP policy. Does not seem to have learned from past mistakes (a key quality for admins).Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which edits are you concern about, JD? –BuickCenturyDriver 18:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't edit talk pages enough.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions about my edits are discussed on my own talk page. I usually don't have questions about my mainspace edits and that's why article talkspace has a small slice on my edit count. This answers FetchComms's question above. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But you don't have much edits in the user talk namespace either.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What do user talk edits have to do with WP:BLP? Or are you opposing on two separate criteria? It appears that you think user talk page edits correlate to an understanding of the BLP policy, or maybe I'm just confused.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The two are completely different but I'm citing both.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I'm speechless. Swarm X 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose is now strong because of comment deletion (as in Reaper Eternal's question).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was due to an edit conflict, as stated above. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shows a problem with handling edit conflicts.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, what? You do know what an edit conflict is, right? StrPby (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    JD, no matter that I say or what I do you're going to find a new reason why I can't function as a admin. I have no further comments for you. And yes SP, I know what an edit conflict is. I was using my portable computer and I pressed back on my browser after JDs comments before I read them. My new edits probably overwrote his. I had no intention of deleting his comments. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the indenting shows, I directed that question at Jasper, not you. StrPby (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what an edit conflict is, and, really, I just was looking at his ability to handle accidents.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and dearth of recent activity. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose You say you have a busy work schedule preventing you from being active on Wikipedia, and your edit count in recent months certainly agrees with this, I would say run for admin when you have more time to devote to the extra responsibilities you'll be taking on Jebus989✰ 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Fastily. Summed up my concerns nicely. Also, in the past 27 months, candidate has averaged a little over 84 edits a month, and not the 100 they stated.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Fastily. I would also add maturity concerns after witnessing the candidate lash out in some of the above Opposes.--Hokeman (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate has been completely justified in answering opposes they feel have got something wrong, and I don't detect any incivility whatsoever, so it's a pretty low blow to call a candidate immature. Swarm X 20:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to go for damage control. I have a couple of supports that affirm my experiance. I'd like to know what activity is proking Fastily to doubt it. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Regretful Oppose - regretful because I see an overwhelmingly good-faith, long-term candidate and I don't like to give the impression that the work is unappreciated, because the exact opposite is true: I appreciate the work I've seen and I understand the candidate's desire to help. Unfortunately, I have serious concerns about communication shown on this page. It may seem picky to some, but most people who stand at RFA are unknown to the participants, so I think it is important for a candidate to really put their best foot forward as soon as the RFA is transcluded...you only get one chance to make a first impression. Some examples: unfortunately, while we can all guess what was meant by mention of Feezo's RFA, the reality is that the newbie user would be far less likely to be able to translate that comment, so I consider that something that might harm the project. (I'd sit this out otherwise; I don't like to even appear to pile on unless I think there is a real chance of problems.) There are also misspellings ("administrator" misspelled three different ways, for example)...referring to blocked users as vandals in a blanket fashion (not all blocks are for vandalism)...lack of demonstrated communication regarding unblock requests (you don't need to be an admin to see and respond to unblock requests, even if you shouldn't actually decide an unblock request)...grammar errors in conversations on this page...they all add up. I'm not saying admins are (or should be thought of as) perfect, but some of these things individually give pause, and, taken together, put me in the oppose camp. This is not a "never" oppose - I think all of these things can be improved and would like to support at a later date if they are improved.  Frank  |  talk  22:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose, for now. This candidate seems borderline. I don't understand the candidate's hurry to gain the sysop bit. I'd like to see more participation in conflict resolution (WP:3O is a good place to start, as well as WP:AE). I'm not bothered by the idea of a part-time sysop, but I'd still like to see more consistency in participation. I'd also like to see a better ability to communicate (the edit summary record disturbs me somewhat). I'm willing to change my mind as the candidate answers more questions, but my overall impression is "not ready yet". By the way, BuickCenturyDriver claims that Wikipedia disallows multiple logins. Since when? I've never been prevented from logging in on multiple devices. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that when you log on from one device, you're automatically logged off the other one. If you log in from Computer A and edit, then log in from Computer B and edit then try to edit from Computer A again, the cookie is deleted and you must log in again.–BuickCenturyDriver 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, that's not true - I regularly switch between two computers and edit with the two of them without getting logged out -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way that could happen is if both computers are tied to the same IP. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I usually have two computers logged in as me: one at home, one at work. Very different IPs. One possibility is that since the account you used was seen as compromised, a dev flipped a switch to force the logout. Or maybe simultaneous sessions weren't allowed in 2007, when this happened? Either way, a minor point, I think. 28bytes (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Too little activity over the last 14 months (or, if I wanted to look that far back, 27 months, as previously stated), too soon from previous RfA in which the candidate did not get one supporting comment, and only ~300 edits in the (full, not counting April thus far or November's total) time since that RfA means that I can not offer my support at this time. I'm sorry. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 00:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per recent apparent misunderstandings of various policies. For example, this very recent edit shows a lack of understanding that "Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia". Furthermore, this edit removing legitimate comments (explained in Q7 as an "edit conflict") should be regarded with suspicion. In my opinion, Freezo's RfA, which the nominator compared this RfA to, should not be taken into account at all. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I don't think there's anything wrong with asking if a user is interested in something. As for Feezo, only one supporter – Orphan Wiki – connected my nomination. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose - Deleting others' comments with an edit summary which doesn't give an indication as to what you are doing. Then, when asked about it, you claimed an edit conflict occurred. When asked why you didn't restore the comments, you said that you didn't know what had happened and that you had probably edited an old revision. When I pointed out that doing so would have eliminated all edits between Jasper's and yours, you made some nonsensical claim about which version you had to have edited to have produced that effect.Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Stricken per a discussion on my talk page regarding edit conflicts and their possible effects. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Concerned about the user's knowledge and competence with blocking in general. "With a few exceptions, indefinitely blocking a user (who has not been blocked before) as a vandal-only account is not a good idea since it might provoke that user to behave worse than before." So if a user is a pest, but doesn't have an inherently disruptive username, we should give them the benefit of the doubt, give them tea and biscuits and have a nice conversation by the fireplace? Sorry if I come across as snide, but that's basically they're obviously not here to do good, so rather than try and re-educate let's just what I'm getting from their user page. Very few vandals turn a new leaf, it is better to revert, block and ignore than to poke, poke, poke. Per discussion in the Neutral section, I believe the user needs to assume good faith] more rather than instantly pointing the finger. "Sysops that apply WP:AGF to their actions are less likely to be targeted by vandals. While it is indeed necessary to take steps to prevent vandalism, most of it is done by new users who know little about how the site works. Talking them away from vandalism and encouraging them to do something constructive is a good way to avoid blocks. Look for ways not to block someone, not the other way around. Remember your actions come under great scrutiny." The user's actions are being scrutinised here and now, also I don't see much application of AGF... I like the user's contributions and hope they continue but I can not support at this time for the reasons above. Also, I am perplexed as to why they are listed as an admin. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:00pm • 08:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose --N KOziTalk 10:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose due to answers to just about all of the questions. —SW— express 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose due to recent low activity and the plain wrong answers to the questions. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 22:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - I believe you need to get back on track and more involved with the Wikipedian community, and begin to understand the need and usage of the mop. After you have done that for a while - I think you will be ready for adminship. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, but regretfully. I see a candidate who has made good contributions, certainly, and seems to have the right motivation. But answers involving policies disturb me a little, as I find them lacking thought - it's hard to put what I feel into words, sorry. I perhaps get the feeling that understanding of policies is rather superficial, like someone who really doesn't grok them. I hope to be able to support a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Per the comment, JD, no matter that I say or what I do you're going to find a new reason why I can't function as a admin. I have no further comments for you. Also per the Assume Good Faith concerns discussed in the neutral section. Not fixing an edit conflict, answering an RFA question on a user's talk page instead of here, low edit summary usage, are all minor points that combined make me a little concerned about your general knowledge of how things work (or are done).--Banana (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Because of too little activity during the past few months and the answers to the questions. Steve2011 Chat 03:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral User has never been blocked. User has decent work with images. User has not answered one important question.Zombie Douche (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, this user has four block log entries, two unblocks and blocks, both blocks indefinite.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Zombie Douche (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a new user yes, but my IP is legit.Zombie Douche (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you somehow learned how to vote and comment on RfAs by your third edit. Quack quack. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been reviewing RFA for awhile now but just created an account. Please do not derail the focus from the candidate in question.Zombie Douche (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, if you say so :P -FASTILY (TALK) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note User:Zombie Douche has been blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sockpuppet. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I'm not impressed with the 75% edit summary usage for Major Edits, and the 43% usage to minor edits. I'll evaluate more later. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Technical Neutral. I recuse myself due to the discussion of my own RfA and the fact that the candidate requested that I participate. I will say that I like the answer to Q1; unblock requests are often an unpleasant business, although I would prefer that the candidate have demonstrated experience in conflict resolution. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comments: I've been watching this RfA go downhill, and some things puzzle me. BuickCenturyDriver, I'm confused as to why you cite my RfA as a model for yours. We have very different editing styles, and the only tentative connection I see is that we had both, at one time, taken wikibreaks. RfA is not about number of edits, beyond perhaps 5000, so there's no comparison there either. As far as this nomination is concerned, I see many valid concerns about you, although for the reasons given I will retain my neutral position. However, you should be aware that replying to too many opposes is strongly, if informally, discouraged. Unless you are pointing out simple factual inaccuracies, it is often perceived (wrongly or rightly) as "hounding the opposition", and may lead to more opposes. I know it's hard, but on RfA at least, it's better just to take criticism stoically, without rebutting every argument against you.
    In addition, I completely agree with Frank that RfA is a chance for candidates to "put their best foot forward". As you have seen, the ambiguous wording of your nomination statement, and responses to questions, have influenced several editors to oppose. If you can't make yourself understood in your own RfA, how do you expect to be able to deal with conflicts that arise during use of the admin tools? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I get you into this mess. I thought I could use this opportunity to adress the concerns of other users, but then again it's not working out. On a positive not, I might as well sit back and watch this nom run it course and see what happens for the next six days. I never dreamed I'd get 7 supports and peek out at 6 supports against 2 oppose. What I'm trying to do is pinpoint the reason why my own experiance is being doubted. The issue at hand I've been trying to deal with is an edit conflict that caused two comments to be removed. Reaper Eternal did all he can to blame me for doing it intentionally. It was only after I directed hom to the article about Edit conflicts that he rescinded his oppose. So I think that might change things.
    As for dealing with conflicts, I am thick skinned. I can take the heat and harassment that comes with being an admin without lashing out in return, but sometimes I think it's necessary to refute the opposition and try to pinpoint what my shortcomings are. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reaper Eternal did all he can to blame it on me intentionally"? Really?! Wow, way to shoot your own RFA down. You need to AGF a lot more. StrPby (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF is my specialty, but that doesn't mean I should sit back and not discuss why someone opposed or supported. I'm sorry that you take that approach personally. I'm also disappointed that you think I'm assuming bad faith in trying to address someone's concern that I deliberately tried to hide someone's comment (which would have been ground for more opposition), when I was able to prove it was a mistake. See the discussion on question 10. After a long discussion, he dropped his oppose. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I see nothing egregious here that would make me oppose (even the blocks don't bother me; they are old and the actions that resulted in them don't seem malicious). But I also don't see all of the things I usually look for in a candidate such as extensive edits to the Wikipedia: namesspaces. I think if this candidate participated constructively in more maintenance areas I would support the next time around. Best regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I see a lot of good editing, and nothing overtly untrustworthy from this candidate. At the same time, there are some concerning items on this very page that cause me to go Neutral. I'll keep an eye on this one, and may revise my !vote at some point. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:56, 14 April 2011 (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.
Category