Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] BQZip01

Final (5/19/6); Originally scheduled to end 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC). Withdrawn by bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BQZip01 (talk · contribs) - self nom — BQZip01 — talk 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Short story: I would like to be an admin to further the goals of Wikipedia and prevent abuse/vandalism by editors. Furthermore, I would like to use these powers to prevent edit wars as much as possible through semi-protecting/protecting pages before they get too badly into such a conflict.

My recent edit history (check the September-November timeframe) has given me more insight into the RfC and dispute process. While attempting to prevent vandalism, I was caught up in an edit war over a subject on which I was an expert. I know more about the WP:3RR now and have not violated it since. Additionally, in hindsight, some of my actions (which I hereby renounce) may be seen as inappropriate, though my general feelings about anyone actively editing my user page remain, I vow never to repeat those specific actions as they do not reflect well upon myself or Wikipedia.

In response to WP:CANVASS accusations, I implore you to read what was actually said in such requests. None were intended as a violation, but were specifically stated as a friendly notice for purposes of soliciting feedback. Personally, I expect some of these people to object. — BQZip01 — talk 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We have no way to prevent selection bias except to disallow invitations. We can't simply take your word that you selected them in a neutral fashion, because trustworthiness is evaluated here at RfA, and therefore it isn't assumed (per WP:AGF) as it is on most of Wikipedia's pages. (If it was, it would defeat the purpose of evaluation). Someone ready for adminship would probably already know (or intuit) this. Keep in mind that RfA is a test, or worse, one great big trick question. Everything you do here at RfA is critiqued for admin-likeness. That's why RfAs often implode. Don't worry about it -- if you don't make it this time, just gain more experience and come back again in a few months. There's a large assortment of tools for non-admins to keep you occupied in the meantime. See WP:TOOLS. The Transhumanist 14:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
With respect to a "vague answer" to Question 1, I would be happy to expound upon said answer; all you had to do was ask:
Specifically, I intend to use such authority to prevent vandalism from occurring through friendly warnings (admittedly it is something any user can do, but I feel a need to mention it as something I still intend to do) and then through blocks as appropriate. Additionally, I intend to use blocking authority as appropriate as I browse the articles needing admin intervention. — BQZip01 — talk 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Re DarkFalls comment about this comment: I saw quickly that this comment could be taken as hostile since it was in all caps. I opted to place a commenton the page showing my intent a few minutes later. I think it is disingenuous to include such an example out of context or without such clarification. — BQZip01 — talk 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Prevent vandalism, blocks, bans
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are the following articles: Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and Aggie Bonfire. Both have been featured as Today's Featured Article on the main page. As a user with less than 7000 edits, less than a year of experience, and a full-time job, having 2 articles of which I was a substantial contributor featured on the main page within 100 days of each other is one of my proudest Wikipedia contributions. I have also done my best to review other articles for FA status; though I am not always as tediously thorough as I once was, I certainly have added to the FAC process as much as I could. Additionally, I have been trying recently to have more patience with other editors and serve more as a facilitator of discussion to limit conflict and prevent/limit stress for others.
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: Yes, primarily with Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and its day as the Featured Article. Initially, I handled it well, but as time wore on, it quickly devolved into rehashing the same argument over and over (on both sides). Quite frankly, that experience wore me out. However, I quickly realized that a speedy response wasn't necessary, no matter how sharp the criticism was. By delaying a response for a day (or more), both sides of the discussion were forced to cool down and the conflict subsided; furthermore, by initiating a slowdown, those who want a quick fiery death for a perceived archnemesis (colorful language used strictly for effect), will be disappointed and move along.

Optional Question from jj137

4. Could you explain the difference between a block and a ban?
A. I certainly can go into more detail if you desire, but the short version is that a block is technical restraint on editing privileges (usually in response to a specific action, though other cumulative actions can be cause for a block too), while a ban "is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia." A block is the primary mechanism by which a ban can be enforced if a user does not abide by a partial ban or has been banned from Wikipedia altogether. If this does not answer your question, I would be happy to expand to include further details (who can block, who can ban, etc.) —  BQZip01 — talk 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Can you name a specific time in which you have greatly helped another user?
A: I would think that there is not one specific user I have helped, but rather an entire class of users, specifically those trying to get an article to FA status. I have helped quite a few beef up their articles. To that end, I wrote a guide as to how to get my support in an FAC. This summarizes my tips regarding the FA process and how to work on an article to bring it up to snuff. I chose this as a general answer. Are you wanting a specific user?
6. You state in Question 1 that you plan on enforcing blocks and bans. Where do you plan on finding the users to block and ban?
A: See above. An admin generally does not "ban" (unless he/she in on such a committee that makes such proclamations), but enforces such bans accordingly, much as they enforce other policies.
7. Do you plan to take part in any processes which require admins?
A: See above for more clarification.

Optional Question from Fnlayson

8. What will your approach on handling/blocking vandals and disruptive users? Fair but tough or what? Thanks.
A: In general, I intend to give vandals fair warning (several warnings on the user page with a ramped up intensity). If they are a user who shows no intent of slowing down despite numerous warnings, then they should be blocked. If someone is a registered user with a long edit history, I intend to give them a warning of my own (as an admin) before blocking, unless actions are egregious. I am also not above conversing with vandals if there is a dispute. In such a case, I would request another admin come in for a second look and review my actions. In short, fair, but tough. — BQZip01 — talk 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Optional Question from Trusilver

9. You have suggested that you have an interest in working with vandals and disruptive users. The procedures for warning and blocking vandals are well known. My question to you is: In what situations do you feel that its necessary to deviate from the outlined procedures? Under what circumstances to do you feel that it is necessary to block users without having exhausted the steps of warning? I'm not asking for you to go through and research rules on this either - I'm asking for you own words and thoughts on this matter.
A: I'm not sure I would intentionally deviate from the warning steps unless a pressing legal reason or physical threat was involved. Additionally, there might be something else that I haven't thought of that might warrant it. In such a case, I would rely on other policies. — BQZip01 — talk 07:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from The Transhumanist

10. What tools have you made extensive use of, and what did you do with them?

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/BQZip01 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support Looks good. Solid contribs and enough experience in mainspace. Could use more edit summaries for minor edits, but that's no reason to oppose so good luck. Timmehcontribs 03:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. I'd have probably supported anyone in the US military anyway, but having come across this editor during the Jim Bowie FA I'm doubly inclined to support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Solid contributions, but could be more diplomatic. .. Oldag07 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Moral support. Pile-on-opposing at this stage is not necessary. I'd agree that more experience in projectspace could benefit the candidate, but the current ratio (as of this comment) of 3 supports and 15 opposes seems like a wildly unjustified (albeit typical) RfA pile-on cluster-fuck. This is not a totally new or inexperienced newbie, s/he has more than 6.000 edits since February last year. Dorfklatsch 10:27, January 7, 2008
    This editor left a series of messages on people's talk pages informing them of this RfA and asking for 'feedback'. It's hardly a 'clusterfuck' when that feedback is received. Everyone's entitled to voice their opinion, pro or con and this increasingly silly convention that everyone has to applaud every RfA like parents at a six year old's nativity play is demeaning to those who put their names forward. We hear a lot about maturity here, even when many candidates are quite young, so how about treating adults like adults and being honest with our opinions? You point out that this is an experienced user, therefore it's patronising to behave as if they're a 'newbie' here. Nick mallory (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, what you say is not totally invalid, but I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. Do you mean that moral support should be given only to newbies? To that I don't agree. In the face of this ratio, everyone can use some encouragement. If this looked like succeeding, I would have opposed (that's basically what "moral support" means to me). Dorfklatsch 11:54, January 7, 2008
  5. Support, that's probably some of the most inoffensive canvassing I've seen here. Supporting to avoid the pile-on, and to encourage the user to come back in a couple of months, without the silly canvassing I feel you'll sail through RfA. Lankiveil (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose, sorry. Answer to Q1 is vague. No evidence of experience in the admin-oriented areas where the tools would be used, such as vandalfight and related blocks. The amount of friendly notices advertising this RFA is also not very positive. Húsönd 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Answer to question one doesn't inspire confidence when I am already unsure of your admin-related experience. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - user has been canvassing this RFA. Apparent lack of understanding of WP:NOR --B (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Recently licensing a image from the web as your own [1], not knowing the process to delete images [2], this comment: "FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE INDENT YOUR COMMENTS!!!", ridiculous canvassing[3] [4] [5] [6] [7], as well as unsatisfactory answer to Q1 makes me unable to support this request. — DarkFalls talk 03:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. This user seems to have a number of contributions to articles and is a good article writer. However, I can not say that I see particular need for the admin tools. Your Q1 answer does not instill much confidence, but when combined with the fact you have little AIV experience, it makes me nervous. The canvassing mentioned above does not help. So while I thank you for your contributions, I can not support at this time. SorryGuy  Talk  03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Changed to neutral(ec)Oppose - per above with regards to canvassing. Also, due to low edit summary usage for minor edits, and the fake message bar on your userpage (this confuses even experienced users, please remove it.) -MBK004 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per egregious WP:CANVASS violations. Avruchtalk 04:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for using WP as a free web host --Stephen 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Moral Support 'n1yaNt 05:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You are aware that the support section is above this one, right? Or was this meant to be phunny? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Just not ready for the tools yet. Jmlk17 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Apart from canvassing, agree with above - just not ready yet. Suggest withdrawing. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Regretful Oppose - I don't feel my questions were answered in a good way. I was kind of asking for processes which require admin assistance (WP:AFD/WP:RFPP). You just said you plan on banning and blocking, without saying where these banned and blocked users were found (WP:AN/I). Sorry :( Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 06:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. He's too likely to fly off the handle in an argument, even in circumstances where consensus is on his side, in my experience. As a side note, I found this RfA after seeing canvassing on a bunch of user talk pages I have watchlisted. -- RG2 06:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Saw the canvassing, understand that it was delicately worded to avoid the appearance of any votestacking, still don't like it. Antelan talk 07:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Unfortunately this user hasn't showed enough experience with Wikipedia's processes and policies, nor demonstrated an ability to apply discretion to a level which is required by an administrator, for me to support. Sorry, Daniel 07:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I don't feel that this user knows what adminship is, especially after the answer to Q1. Also, user was canvassing. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Regretful oppose - I think you're a great editor, but you need to fine tune a lot of areas just a little. I don't think the things you need to enhance are things you should be doing "on the job" as an admin. You need to understand mediation and civility policies above all else before coming up here. Your contributions are fine indeed, but not in the way that an administrator needs to display. Put your head into some policy and contribute to reporting vandals and do some monitoring at the page protection board. Once you've become thoroughly familiar with these things - the areas you advised you with to contribute to - and expand the general application of your skills, you should reapply, but I wouldn't recommend reapplying in the next three or four months. Head down, arse up and do these things, and you'll breeze through next time. --rm 'w avu 11:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - too much opposition with legitimate concerns. Needs more experience. Sting_au Talk 12:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Based on the above, is not in tune with the Wikipedia community yet. May be ready someday, but not today. The Transhumanist 13:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Doesn't have much experience in admin related areas, and some possible canvassing has been going on. Epbr123 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. I've been on your case to reassess you position on my ongoing FAC, and so far have only gotten a busy tone. If I have to pester you constantly to return and update your comments at FAC I have to wonder how open you will be to getting back other users at who will ask for your help or for a redress of greivences when you become an admin. In your defense, you have done a good job of editing the encyclopedia, and we do need more vandalism patrolers, and I am open to eassessing this if you can provide a good, reasonable, honest answers to my concerns. Also, I highly recommend that you leave this open for the entire time allotted, nearly every oppose vote you get will come with advide on how to improve, and since these are not deleted when completed you can constantly revisit the page to make sure that you are making the suggested changes. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. changed from oppose - I've revisited the canvass issue, and to avoid a pile-on about it, I've changed to neutral. My other comments, the low (mid-60s)% edit summary usage for minor edits, and the fake message bar on the userpage, still stand. (Please remove that bar, it confuses me every time). -MBK004 07:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In his defense, MBK, many users here do have the standard message bar configured with the practical joke header. It really isn;t a good reason to oppose, it merely reflects a user's personality. I would reconsider opposing on such grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I've see the message bar brought up quite a few times at RfA before (it would take some time if you request links). Also note that that isn't the only reason. The edit summary usage plays a part, along with concerns about the overall readiness with regards to the original answers to the questions (I know they were revised), and the canvass issue, even though the wording was compliant with the canvass guidelines. -MBK004 07:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
        • No need for examples, I believe you; I'm just saying thier are worse things on wikipedia than a practical joke monicure. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I don't feel this editor is yet experienced enough for the mop. I would like to see some more time doing admin-related functions as well as a demonstrated ability to think for oneself. It's one thing to be able to look up and quote wikipedia policy - it's another thing to have to make decisions in the gray areas around policy. Trusilver (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - As someone who has worked with BQZip on a number of occasions since he joined Wikipedia early last year, I cannot in good conscience give an Oppose vote just because of the supposed "canvassing" accusations. How else was I supposed to know this witch-hunt was going on? I don't watch admin-related pages for stress-reduction reasons. In spite of having had many contentious arguments with BQZ, we have still been able to form a good working relationship. He is cabable of being relentless when needed, especially in fighting vandals, trolls and crufters. Of one thing I am postivley certain: BQZip will not mistake good editors for vandals and trolls, and harrass those good editors while ignoring the real problems users involved. My main objection to him becoming an admin at this time is two-fold: One, he has only recently begun abiding by 3RR, as he himself eloquently stated. As someone prone to revert quickly myself, I too have had to throttle back by reversions, and work on implementing the "Be bold-revert-discuss" guideline in more situations. Two, I believe he has stated that he will be entering an extended period of training in his non-Wiki-world job. As such, I'm not sure he can devote the time necessary to handle the admin duties required. In short, I do believe he has the makings of a good admin, as I would say with anyone with US military training, especially an officer. I believe he just needs a little more time to apply that sort of discipline to his Wikipedia work, and to address some of the minor issues raised by other editors here. - BillCJ (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. The Canvass accusations coupled with the lack of experiences in admin related activities are too worrying to support. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2008 (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.