Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottyBoy900Q

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.

[edit] ScottyBoy900Q

Final (35/12/1) ended 05:12 16 October 2005 (UTC)

ScottyBoy900Q (talk · contribs) – I feel kinda awkward doing a self-nom, but I've been around Wikipedia for a couple years now and feel it's time I try for adminship. I spend my time in a variety of ways. I'm very interested and participate in uploading images, especially with uploading ship images for naval craft. I also have spent considerable time voting on featured pictures. Aside from images, I spend my time editing subjects, mostly history, that i'm interested in. A bit of my time lately has been spent discussing the need for a possible Featured Diagrams listing. I'm coming up on 2,200 2,600 edits and a definite wikiholic. Wikipedia is such a great resource and I think that through my objectivity and usually neutral point of view, I could be a good admin.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Selfnom, accept. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Grant him the mop.  Denelson83  05:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    My support is now much stronger.  Denelson83  22:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Not all admins have to be active all the time. There are over 1000 500 of them, and some of them are not very active. It doesn't mean that they don't do good work. There is no reason that any user who has some experience in wikipedia and has shown that they can be trusted shouldn't be an admin. --Rogerd 18:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually we only have around 600 of us =(. Sasquatcht|c 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support 2200 edits is more than enough. freestylefrappe 20:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support because we need more good admins! Sasquatcht|c 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, confident that he will not misuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support I don't know this editor much, so I sample checked some of their edits and all seems fine to me. Alf melmac 08:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support ScottyBoy's edits speak for themselves. His edits are quality and while he has quantity going for him as well, it is the quality of his edits that wins my vote of support. --Caponer 23:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support as per Caponer, Alf. Hamster Sandwich 01:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Scotty just sent me a request on my own talk page about supporting his adminship. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support I see no reason to not support him.PiccoloNamek 03:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support We had a slight disagreement recently, but he was most reasonable about it. I'm sure he will be an excelent admin and try to do what is right. Raven4x4x 06:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Really good user and I often find his analysis of a photo on FPC exactly what I would say. Very nice guy, and I certainly don't think that his edits are not enough. You can't expect someone to always to be active - most people (I think) have a life aside from Wikipedia and can't be expected to be glued to the screen 24/7 (not that such users aren't extremely valuable). Anyway I agree totally with his idea's on diagrams on FPC - in my opion they don't belong. --Fir0002 09:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. I'm confident that he will be a valuable addition to the ranks of administrator. Enochlau 10:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. —wwoods 00:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support... after all, he's from Wild, Wonderful, West Virginia! –Uris 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support  Grue  13:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. No substantial reason to oppose. "Campaigning for a delete vote", I have to say, is quite routine and desirable admin behaviour. Slac speak up! 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong support per Slac; putting in extra effort should be rewarded not punished. freestylefrappe 23:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Self-awareness and humility, as expressed in reaction to the opposition's comments below, is how I know that an admin will strive to act responsibly, and will work to correct mistakes. Stan 02:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. I think I was too hasty and harsh opposing. After taking a closer look at this editor's record, I see a long time contributor who generally interacts well with others. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 14:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. See no substantive current issues. Jayjg (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. ScottyBoy900Q has rightly and judiciously raised questions about editors working on articles about themselves, a very difficult issue that a lot of us haven't had the guts to touch. I don't see that as a reason to oppose. Chick Bowen 02:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. --Bjarki 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. El_C 03:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support User meets my admin requirments on my userpage. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support Monicasdude 18:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Guy who's leading the opposition is retaliating. No spurious AfD, almost half responses say he's non-notable or borderline case. Tanya! Ravine 20:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. -- DS1953 05:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support --Celestianpower hablamé 07:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support MONGO 12:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. With respect with the AFD incident, everyone is allowed to have one bad day. And while RFA campaigning is a bad thing, it does not strike me as a reason to oppose a candidate. Titoxd(?!?) 17:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support Seems like a good editor, reasons for oppose are lacking to say the least. Martin 23:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Been here for over a year, and only has over 2000 edits, user doesn't seem active enough to me, to be an admin. Private Butcher 16:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC) I now oppose for reasons that have been brought before me. Private Butcher 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    How many have been over the last few months though? I think i've been a lot more active than most in that time period. Been here for over a year does not equal has been active for over a year. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    But you should be active at all times. I don't want an admin that'll be active for a few months, leave for awhile, come back then be active for a few months again. That's why I'm opposing. Private Butcher 17:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Its totally unreasonable to ask a person to be active at all times. People have family issues that must take priority over wikipedia. I'll discuss in private with you the reason I was absent if it will put your mind at ease, it's not something I need to prove myself on here on this page. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Fine, I've retracted my vote. Private Butcher 17:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. A recent spurious AfD is a bad sign (and doesn't reflect knowledge of notability guidelines). (restored per Fawcett5) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is voting to oppose because I listed a page, of which he is the subject matter, up for deletion as it seems to me to be a vanity page for self promotion. If this is of concern to you, please check out the AfD here and see for yourself why this user is voting no. If you feel so inclined, cast a vote to keep or delete as well while you are there. --ScottyBoy900Q 18:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    I was aware of the guidelines as a matter of fact. That's not really what I was protesting by listing it for deletion. I'm just a little concerned the article is extremely prejudiced as you yourself have done a considerable amount of the editing to the article. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I withhold judgement about whether the above mentioned Vfd vote was spurious or not (the old Vfd vote was a resounding keep). However, when ScottyBoy900Q set up the new Afd, he simply overwrote the archive of the old discussion instead of creating a new Afd article. This to me clearly indicates that he has insufficient knowledge of administrative procedure at this time. I would be happy to reconsider my vote in a few months when he has demonstrated more knowledge about "the way of the wiki". Fawcett5 21:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Can you please show me where the directions are for listing articles that had already been voted on that come up again? I didn't just delete the previous vote page, it can be found right here. I didn't want the new article to show up as a possible 2nd vote, that is why i kept it on the original voting page and moved the archive to the new one. No one else seems to have had any problems finding it. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, now I see that the situation is even worse than I first suspected. You did NOT create an archive, what you did was execute a forbidden cut and paste move that fails to preserve the page history. As I cannot see the edit history in the so-called archive, we are just expected to take your word for it that this is what everybody actually said last time around. Anybody that wants to be an administrator should know enough not to make this beginners mistake. In any case, the usual practice is to leave the old Afd article alone and to create a new one titled something like "Pagenamefordeletion 2" or some such. Once again, if you had been around long enough, you would know this. I reiterate that I would be willing to reconsider in several months. Fawcett5 12:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah I guess you're right. I should have known better. I'm fully aware of how to do a move properly (as you'll see i'v done it plenty of times before). I just wasn't thinking i guess since I don't often deal with AfD. --ScottyBoy900Q 13:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I rarely oppose a nomination, but feel I need to in this instance. What drew my attention in the first place was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz incident. While one can see reasons for putting the article up for deletion, I wan't very happy with the tone of the nomination and there is some evidence of ScottyBoy900Q campaigning for a delete vote which is unbecoming in a potential administrator. Also this is a self-nomination and there is evidence of campaigning for support - allowable, but it bothers me a little. All in all, oppose this time round, but hope to be able to support in a few months time. Dlyons493 Talk 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Just for note, to put David's mind at ease I not only informed the people who voted against the article, I also contacted all the people that SUPPORTED keeping it. There were certain conditions that I feel were placed, namely David not editing the article anymore, that just weren't met. The fact that David is so stuck on himself and feels his article HAS to stay here is one reason we got into a debate. All of my arguments though were for the sake of preserving the integrity of wikipedia, when we start allowing complete vanity articles exist here, I feel we're doomed. What other kinds of other unimportant non-notable stuff will be posted after that kind of thing is allowed. --ScottyBoy900Q 21:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually ScottyBoy900Q initially notified only editors who had previously voted "delete". After I complained of this behavior, he reluctantly agreed to also notify the previous "keep" voters. After that, he engaged in quite active campaigning for his self-nominated RfA (and in the course of that made quite snide comments about the AfD vote, and my opposition to it. Overall, very unbecoming of an admin, IMO. And it seems somehow hypocritical to complain that I made autobiography edits (which are completely NPOV, and far more minor than the AfD purports), while simultaneously self-nominating for administratorship. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    David is correct, originally i notified those people because I figured they were the ones who's mind might have changed. As far as snide, let's not even go there. People can see for themselves when looking at your arguments and the way you talk down to everyone what kind of person you are. People have told me since I nominated myself they would have nominated me if i would have expressed interest. This whole episode started when David over-reacted about me not thinking he was important enough to need an article. I am perfectly happy to let the voting take its place and have the outcome be the outcome. I told him I would appologize for offending him after the voting was completed. He just seems unable to let it go and accept that other people may not view him as significant or important enough to have his own article. He has accused me of secretly talking to other people through non WP channels about listing him for deletion, which is completely outrageous. He has also campaigned for his voting as well, leaving messages on people talk pages and asking them to vote. While I see nothing wrong with this, as I have done it myself obviously, David seems to have developed a personal vandetta against me and anyone who would vote to delete his page. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    No, this is plain wrong: and is really the exact reason I think ScottyBoy900Q isn't temperamentally suited to administratorship just yet. My issue didn't start because Scott "didn't think I was important enough for an article." It started because the AfD nomination was quite dishonest in tone, purporting a number of false, or at least dissimulative things (mischaracterizing my edits to David Mertz; trying to pretend earning a Ph.D. is identical to being admitted to an M.A. program; claiming a vanity-press book with no ISBN is the identical to a book from Addison-Wesley; and overall just a really snarly and combative tone). FWIW, I wouldn't make a good admin either; largely for the same reasons ScottyBoy900Q wouldn't—but then, I'm not nominated, and wouldn't accept if I was :-).
    Frankly, the AfD nomination is just plain wrong per noteriety guidelines. I can accept that ScottyBoy900Q hadn't seen the Google scholar results, Alexa ranking, 85k Google hits, or evidence of 500k-ish readership at the time of nomination. People make mistakes. But a good admin shouldn't dig in his heels and stick to his guns after making a mistake; rather, he should correct it as best possible (i.e. change his nomination text and vote, and apologize for the judgement error). That's exactly opposite to what ScottyBoy900Q has done. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Once again, these are all thing David has come up and created on his own. The nomination was NOT dishonest and nothing was purported incorrectly. Quite frankly, there hasn't been a judgement error as far as I'm concerned. David created the idea on his own that I said anything along the lines of an MA being identical to a Ph.D., not did I ever make a claim that my book was anywhere on the scale as he claims his to be. He also claims that I reluctantly contacted his orignal supporters which is also completely false. There was no reluctance about it. I did it because it was the right thing to do and as soon as he had a complaint I took the liberty of doing it. As far as those accusations go, feel free to read my wording on your own and you will see that David has made these factors up himself and it never got out of tone until David starting taking personal offense to having the page listed for deletion. As a matter of fact, I never said anything at all about MA's or Ph.D.'s until David decided to compare them himself. I informed him it was important, as stated on the deletion page, that he not take anything personally, but it seems he has been unable to do so. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yes please follow the link, and read the AfD comment: I myself have published books, have taught classes, and have many of the same qualifications as this man seems to have, but I don't feel the need to glorify myself or make a completely vanity-like article.. Then decide if you want an admin who writes in that tone (and given that Scott explicitly claims that being admitted to [not completing] an M.A. is the same credential as earning a Ph.D.; and the thing with vanity and major publishers). Look: if he had claimed "only publishing one book isn't enough" that would be fine (though no follow noteriety guidelines; and in this case miss that most of my readers are in periodicals), but his actual tone is plain dissimulation and false insinuatino. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Simply amazing. As I mentioned in my last post, i never said anything at all about M.A.'s or Ph.D.'s so thats not an issue in any way shape or form except in David's head. I have said (on my user page) that i am in the Master's program and have never one single time equated that to having or being a Ph.D. student. It's childish to even bicker about that point as it is only you making that an issue. And as far as the other material goes, I HAVE been published and I HAVE taught classes. This whole issue winds down to you taking personal offense to this (which you absolutely shouldnt). I listed the article for deletion because i truely believe it covers non-notable subject matter. The whole point of voting is to get other people pov on that issue. And as I keep saying time after time, i'm fine with whatever people decide on. Relax and stop taking it personally. If you weren't a wikipedian and there was no one to argue for keeping the article, it would be deleted in a heartbeat. --ScottyBoy900Q 00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    It's exactly the opposite. If I weren't a Wikipedian, no one would have nominated it for AfD, or voted for deletion. The delete votes are almost exclusively on the grounds of your false claims that my edits violated NPOV. Well, two or three people with some personal animus about past editing conflict (yeah, I'm gruff). It's still hard for you to back away from your comment: many of the same qualifications, I think. I don't think everyone with a Ph.D. should have an article, by any means, but to even for one moment equate earning a Ph.D. with being admitted to a Masters program shows just how very inexperienced you are to the academic world (and you can't even bring yourself to write "earning a Ph.D.", but in every instance equivocate with just being a Ph.D. student). I think in your edit history you write about some military stuff: imagine if someone completely failed to understand or acknowledge that the difference between a General and Major rank really means something, it's not the same qualification. If you ever earn a higher degree (no, not a masters), you'll eventually be able to understand just how youthful you were this year. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I'm fine leaving this conversation as it is. As I continue to say, you're the only person hung up on the M.A. vs Ph.D. so i'll leave that alone. I wouldn't equate MA's and Ph.D.'s as I am fully capable or seeing the difference between them. By saying i've accomplished many of the same things as you, i did not necessarilly mean in terms of academics. I'm sure with everything else i've done in my life i could come up with an equally encyclopedic article (not that I ever would). And to be honest, I still think I would have listed the article for deletion regardless as I still do not believe you are as important as you think you are (that's what the voting is for and i'll still be big enough after all this to appologize when the voting is over). Drop me a line on my talk page if you would like to continue talking...its getting to be a bit entertaining actually and i'm sure you're a good guy aside from this issue. --ScottyBoy900Q 01:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. I'm not a big fan of RfA campaigning, if this one fails I'd be happy to vote in support in a few weeks on an RfA without it. --fvw* 22:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I think a prospective admin should have enough involvement in the community that they don't have to spam users talk pages soliciting votes, It looks to me like bad form to cut and paste notes asking for support. It comes from a fairly narrow particapation history, I think an admin needs to have wider experience to have the backround to act on policy. There isn't much work on some of the activities listed in the first question, most don't need any admin powers to at least pitch in, no reason to jump on in some of those backlogs! Vote reinstated after reading User:Flcelloguy's qoute and realizing that nominee challenged six of the voters, he just doesn't show that he has any real grasp of policy/pratice here. Rx StrangeLove 03:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I certainly appreciate the opinion, and would have to say that most of my activities have been pretty theme specific and i usually do not have a lot of contact with the people involving my edits for some reason. One thing I really would like to start doing would not necessarilly require adminship but would certainly help. I'd like to be more active in the welcoming committee and publicity issues where adminship would be helpful to have. Im not trying to get it just to have it. And I see nothing wrong with asking people for their opinions or votes. If they feel my contributions have been unacceptable i would expect they would vote to oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Personally, I like that he informed me that he was up for adminship. Not everyone in this community follows the RFA page religiously, so I found it to be a chance to vote for a candidate I found suitable in an instance where I probably wouldn't have checked the RFA page (I usually check it maybe once or twice a month). Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I agree with User:Mike Halterman above. I think that in no way should asking people to take a look at their nomination be counted against them. In most cases, if someone has worked on a particular area for quite a bit, the people he/she has worked on would probably know that editor best, and those editors might not necessarily check this regularly (I certainly don't - I have better things to look at). Enochlau 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    That's what watch lists are for, you don't need to check this regularly. Asking for votes is just another way of gaming the system, people don't spam talk pages of those that might oppose, they ask editors they think will support. Rx StrangeLove 18:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose For spamming of user pages alone. Is the RFA process turning into something akin to a US presidential campaign? -- Egil 06:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I don't really see how that is a problem. If ScottyBoy hadn't told me about it personally, I wouldn't have even known about this. Enochlau 08:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Votes for self in self-nom and a cutnpaste AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I went ahead and removed the self vote as after reading further...you are correct and I should have left that off. I've seen plenty of other people do it in the past so I just assumed it was a common practice. As far as the cut/paster AfD issue, no one has been able to provide me with clear instructions posted anywhere about what to do in that case. I have admitted that was done as a last resort as I did njot want to start a new vote with the old information on the page. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    The self-vote has benn deleted from the page so that one has to visit the page history to see it. RobyWayne above is receiving a lot of flack for a self-vote but has just struck it through leaving it visible for new potential voters and this seems to me to be better practice. It says at the top of this page that self-noms should not vote for themselves, it's surprising that aspirant admins miss it so often - should it should be bolded or added to the nomination form? Dlyons493 Talk 01:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose, based on the behavior I see on this RFA and the AFD that's mentioned. I'm open to reconsider in the future. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (changed vote, see above)
  9. Oppose for vote-pimping. Proto t c 08:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose based on comments above.  ALKIVAR™ 10:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose — not only do the AfD and the self-vote worry me, but this comment from above to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters: People can see for themselves when looking at your arguments and the way you talk down to everyone what kind of person you are. It doesn't matter how heated the argument is or how frustrated you are, but I don't expect admins to insult other Wikipedians or to infer that someone is a bad person. While I feel you are a good contributer, I just don't think you're ready yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 18:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I wasn't the b'crat who extended this (though I believe the extension merited) and I won't be the promoting or removing b'crat, but as often happens with extensions, nothing definitive has happened. Voting as an editor, not as an admin, I believe that the substantive objections in both content and number indicate that this nomination should be brought up again at a future time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
This last vote from Cecropia came in 10 minutes late so im not sure that it counts....but I wanted to address it because I actually think the issues brought up by the opposers all revolved around one major issue that was heavily promoted by a certain user. The comments all really deal with the AfD, which was ultimately voted down, but had a great deal of support. The issue of the AfD was blown way out of proportion by this certain user simply because he took the deletion vote way too personally and sought to ultimately avenge my listing his article for deletion by campainging/hampering the voting here. --ScottyBoy900Q 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The issue, however, was never that you wrote an AfD, but the unprofessional tone you took both in the AfD, here on this page, and in spamming many editors to solicit delete votes. Moreover, the multiple administrative errors you made recently were the actual reason for many oppose votes here, not anything about the AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Since the candidate responded directly to my vote, let me say this: I am expressing my opinion as to where I believe this nomination stands as a non-promoting/removing individual. As another bureaucrat(s) will make the final determination, the numerical effect of my vote is not, IMO, material but I would expect its substance to be taken into account (agree or disagree with my analysis) when a decision is made. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

Suggest that interested parties read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz which is what is being referred to in the above comment about A recent spurious AfD. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 17:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. The cut and paste was unfortunate, but was certainly an error, and can presumably be undone by an admin if necessary. I don't think this RfA should be turned into an RfC on the AfD – what a lot of abbreviations! In my view, the timing of it showed poor judgment from a would-be admin for his own sake, but if it had been done in bad faith, he would surely have waited until the RfA was over. It's worth noting, also, that ScottyBoy is not the only one to recruit votes [1]. I would hope that anyone who feels that the David Mertz article should be kept would vote accordingly in the appropriate place, rather than here. By the way, I'm voting neutral because I don't know enough about ScottyBoy to decide whether or not he'd be a good admin. One piece of advice I'd give is that you need to use edit summaries more frequently. Your nomination will probably pass next time. Good luck! Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Upon further review of the recent spurious AfD, the opposition's arguments seem to be based more off of sour grapes than off of pure objective criticism. Fawcett was able to produce one situation in which the contributor in question did not follow administrative procedure to a tee. If we were to judge all administrators on singular slip-ups here and there...we wouldn't have many admins to criticize or to vote down. Just as I believe that the David Mertz article would have been easily deleted if he hadn't been a contributor himself, I believe ScottyBoy would have been easily confirmed without harsh opposition if he hadn't have taken action against this one article. He should be judged by his body of work, not by this one instance.--Caponer 00:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • FWIW, at least the votes of Tanya Ravine and Monicasdude are solely meant to disagree with me, rather than to express any opinion on ScottyBoy900Q. Neither, certainly had ever heard of teh RfA before casting this vote (via links from the failed David Mertz AfD. Take it or leave it. The rest of the support votes are certainly quite sincere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, Lulu/Mertz is simply fabricating a statement of my motives; he's been engaged in a long-running vendetta against me since I slighted his (quite inaccurate) comments about "fair use" on a talk page some months ago. His malicious comments should shed light on his motives for opposing this nomination, qhich are quite inappropriate. Monicasdude 18:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Before voting ends, I just wanted to say that I am sorry if there were any hurt feelings regarding the RfD. It was done with the best of intentions. I definitely would not have put the article up for deletion at the same time as voting was open on my adminship if I was doing it for a negative reason. It's unfortunate that some of the votes (both supporting & opposing) on here were simply products of that deletion vote and really have nothing to do with whether or not I'd be a good administrator. I also believe that some of the opposing comments are misguided in the sense that they really all reflect one single thing and not my overall ability/contributions to wikipedia. --ScottyBoy900Q 05:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. As an admin I hope I'll be able to do a few more things than I do now, including joining the group who welcomes newcomers, being more diligent in monitoring vandalism, and also monitoring new pages. I would like to continue to be an active member of the featured picture community and also get a bit more involved in finding and fixing copyright issues. I am also starting to get involved in working on ways to promote Wikipedia, either through the media or maybe a campaign through universities (that's something i've just been giving a lot of thought lately)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I rather like the work I've done in regards to the Baltimore Maritime Museum and each of the articles branching off of it. They definitely aren't that impressive, just something dear to my heart. I also think i've done a good amount of work i'm proud of in regards to some musical band templates and also of course my work in finding ship images which I have spent considerable time on.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I Have never really been involved in any edit wars, but I have definitely gotten into some heated discussion. A big issue I brought up recently is that I don't think it's fair to judge diagrams/charts using the same criteria as we judge photographs and pictures on. That's an ongoing discussion but I believe I've been able to prove my point and bring the issue into people's minds.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.