Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Blueboy96

[edit]

(24/17/4); Scheduled to end 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboy96 (talk · contribs) - I originally requested adminship in April, and now I feel I'm ready to make the plunge again. Some details ... I've been making the Internet not suck since 2004, when I happened on Wikipedia by accident while searching for information on the Conrad Black scandal. Now, over 17,000 edits later, I'm ready to offer my services to this wonderful enterprise. My interests run the gamut--broadcasting, politics, history, sports. I've since become more knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy, and have been fairly active on WP:AFD and have recently become more active at WP:SSP.Blueboy96 01:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Of course, I accept my own nomination. :)


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I discovered Twinkle some time ago, so I plan to do quite a bit of vandal-whacking. I can't tell you how many times I saw vandalism in progress and wanted to do more than just hit the ARV button. Also, I want to do more about unraveling socks. I was a moderator on political sims for some time, and my sock detector rarely fails me. I also want to help clear out the WP:CSD and WP:UAA backlogs--I've seen instances where items in those areas have remained untouched for half an hour or more.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: A few months ago, I noticed that Edward McSweegan was up for deletion due to BLP and notability concerns, among other things. I took it upon myself to see if it could be salvaged. Turned out there was enough coverage from highly reliable sources (CBS, the Washington Post) as well as commentary on his situation by a U.S. Senator. This was enough for me to do a heavy-duty rewrite, as well as get the offending original version oversighted. A few months before that, I was scouring new users' contributions when I noticed that Patsy Moore had created an account to complain about libelous edits being made to her article. It turned out that a new user and an anon had added libelous material to the article, and it had gone unnoticed for over two weeks. I was able to revert it back and get it semi-protected. Before then, I started most of the articles on my hometown (Charlotte)'s television stations soon after figuring out how this baby worked. I've started several other television station articles as well. On a few occasions, I've turned several political and television-related articles from utter crap to something serviceable. I also created the Becky Fischer article, and made significant additions to Jesus Camp.
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: Most recently over the Every Nation article--I'll admit to slipping up a bit in my civility, but eventually reached back to my high school debate days and was able to cool down enough to focus on the argument, not the person.
Optional questions from Daniel
I'd like to think that these are all tough questions, and interestingly many don't actually have a "correct" answer. I'm more interested in seeing what your opinion is about the situations, and how you reached/justified that opinion. Apologies for my over-reaching curiosity :) Daniel 04:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. When you are asked to block a malfunctioning bot, you check its' userpage and read that it operates from the Toolserver. What, if any, special precautions do you need when executing a block on the bot account?
A: Find out what effects, if any, a block on the bot will have on other users of the Toolserver. Blueboy96 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. In your opinion, are principles created by the Arbitration Committee binding on Wikipedians and Wikipedia generally, or only the parties to that case? Namely, in the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 19#Julia Earl about the Arbitration Committee's role in that review discussion, in your opinion which opinion is correct and how should it affect the closing of the discussion (remembering that administrators are not required to enforce rulings, however are required not to stop those who do)?
A: Principles apply to the project in general. In looking at the deletion review, I find it very hard to dispute Snowspinner's rationale for deleting it, especially given that there was apparently an OTRS ticket involved. The principle referenced in the discussion referred to WP:BLP. That principle could not have been more unambiguous--administrators must guard the project's liability conservatively. Blueboy96 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. In your opinion, do administrators as a group have a particular role in the dispute resolution process? Why or why not?
A: I believe that administrators have a role, especially if they are uninvolved in the dispute in question. Sanity looks at a dispute are mandatory, especially when it has escalated to the point that a ban may be necessary. Blueboy96 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. An editor requests that you undelete Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Urartu, which was speedy-deleted by now-retired administrator Essjay. Their request is, "Can you please undelete the page so I can use it in a user conduct RfC as evidence. I have to ask you because Essjay has retired from editing." In your opinion, what is the best course of action, and therefore what is your response/reaction to the request on your talk page?
A: I would decline the request, because the rejected request is already available for viewing here. Blueboy96 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Can an AfD be closed as "transwiki to Wikinews"? If yes, in your opinion should we be closing more discussions that way, to promote WP:NOT#NEWS?
A: Yes, we should definitely close more AFDs in this manner, provided that there is actually a Wikinews story there. Blueboy96 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(clarification per concern raised by MER-C) I apologize if I wasn't clear earlier, but of course material from a Wikipedia article can't be copied word-for-word into a Wikinews article. I take a very hard line on copyright issues, and would enforce all copyright policy to the letter. Blueboy96 06:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. (follow up) By "administrators must guard the project's liability conservatively", do you mean that administrators should be conservative in protecting biographies of living persons (in that action should only be taken in the most blatant of cases and where it is absolutely required), or administrators should apply a conservative approach to the articles (in that radical action should be taken to ensure they meet our policies and material is conservative in nature)?
Radical action should be taken regarding BLPs to ensure they meet Wikipedia policy. For example, no matter how true something may be about a living person, if a reliable source hasn't mentioned it, it should be deleted. I've run into this personally on several occasions--I've seen something on a blog that checks out factually, but haven't been able to mention it in an article because blogs are not reliable sources.
10. What does transwiki mean? WODUP 06:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. The entire text of a page is automatically moved from one wiki to another. Blueboy96 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Nat

11. What is the difference between banning and blocking indefinitely?
A: A block is a technical way of preventing an editor from contributing to Wikipedia, while a ban is a social construct that formally cancels a user's editing privileges. Some other key differences:
  • A blocked user is theoretically allowed to create a new account and edit under said new account so long as s/he edits constructively. By contrast, a banned user is not welcome to contribute to the project in any way for the balance of the ban. The latter is why a banned user's contributions can be reverted or deleted on sight once it's obvious who s/he is. A ban applies to the person, while a block applies only to the account.
  • A user is effectively banned by the community (as opposed to being merely blocked) when no admin will even consider unblocking.
  • A blocked user is allowed to edit his or her userpage or talk page, but a banned user can't edit anywhere on the project.
12. Is a block a punitive action? Why or why not?
A: A block is never punitive. Rather, the goal should be to protect the encyclopedia. Punitive blocks create the impression that an admin is "out to get" the user. This is why in most circumstances, an admin who is personally involved in a dispute with another user should either ask one of his or her colleagues to apply a block, no matter how justified the admin may be in applying the block him/herself.


Optional question from Malinaccier

4. Upon becoming an admin, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related activities compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I would probably try to keep somewhere around a 70% editing/30% admin split. At bottom, I'm an article writer at heart ... I just wanted to take this on to help the project where I could.Blueboy96 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard question from SQLQuery me!

14. Should this RFA pass, will you be open to WP:RECALL?
'A: In all likelihood, I would. Blueboy96 13:55, 20 November 2007 (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 Special:Contributions/Blueboy96 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • The opposition here seems a wee bit... overwrought? Seriously, opposition for a misunderstanding of precisely what fair use says about galleries and for not knowing that Wikinews has an incompatible licensing system? Come on, folks. --JayHenry (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more the cover-up which ruined the entire context of the supplementary questions. Daniel 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cover-up? You're acting like it's some kind of conspiracy or something. Come on, the guy was just fixing his answers. I'm really quite disappointed in the pettiness of the opposes here. We have an editor who's been with the project for three years, and we have a chance to let them help us out more, and people are opposing because he said that he thought galleries of fair use images were allowed? Considering the highly positive contributions that this user has made, I'm sure that the galleries thing was an isolated event, and decidedly NOT indicative of a lack of understanding of policy. Hell, now that Blueboy's had so many opposes about it, I'm sure he's read the fair use guidelines a bunch of times. I would please ask that everyone opposing, especially the "per such-and-such" pile-ons, please reconsider. GlassCobra 06:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He corrected his wrong answer by removing a part of it, not striking it so it could be read and evaluated by others in context. I'm not sure that I would have actually used the word cover-up, but Blueboy96 did conceal his contradiction and did continue to strengthen his answer without acknowledging that he got it wrong. I think that people here should be up front and own up to their mistakes. To fail to (intentionally or not) is to fail to exhibit a quality that I find important in an administrator, and that is why I have chosen to oppose this candidate. WODUP 06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. I've worked with the candidate on several pages of mutual interest. He's a prolific contributor and a valued collaborator. He's also been quite helpful to me, a relative Wikinewbie, in showing me how to take action against repeated vandalism of a particular page by someone with a pretty obsessive ax to grind. He'd be a good admin. Thanks for your consideration. JTRH (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A great user, who I have see round Wikipedia regularly. —Qst 02:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. Maser (Talk!) 03:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No major concerns here. Unlikely to misuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Although the user could do with longer answers, which would convey a greater understanding of policy, they have everything else needed for a candidate, and importantly, meet my criteria. Good luck. Rudget.talk 13:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I feel I can trust the nom with blocking vandals and CSD. I'm sure the user will go slow and seek advice on weak areas. Probably won't run amok and block ok usernames at WP:UAA. Will need to be careful with transwiki closures at AfD, but that wasn't an area of interest expressed in Question 1. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Adminship shouldn't be a big deal, and I've found out firsthand just how little I actually know compared to how much I thought I knew. Blueboy, you've displayed commitment to the project for three years now, and I think you can be trusted with a couple extra buttons to make things run smoother around here. A note, though: please do take the concerns raised in both of your RfAs very seriously, and ask other administrators for help with tough judgment calls. I can't stress enough how important collaboration is around here. Good luck! GlassCobra 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Majorly (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support changed from neutral I think you are ready for the mop, but as others have said, go slow in weak areas, but you should be fine with the new tools - and remember, just because you've got the extra buttons doesn't mean you have to use them. :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Don't know what the fairness issue is all about, seems like a fair user to me. Seriously though, there is worse, and it doesn't mean I can't trust the candidate to keep learning. |dorftrottel |humor me 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - great job. Keep on making the Internet not suck.   jj137 (Talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Its just the mop. My advice would be that you begin working in areas most familiar to you. Given that editors have expressed concern over copy right stuff, stay out of there for a while and start slow. Brusegadi (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, seems more or less OK to me. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I trust the candidate to keep learning just as I had to do--Golden Wattle talk 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This is Wikipedia not Wikinews. It's OK not to know all about wikinews. Hell, I don't know what license they use myself. Does that make me a bad admin? As far as NFCC/fair use goes, at least a couple of what I see as well-respected and downright good admins here, don't seem to understand our image policies so well (see, some image-tagging bot or another's block log). I don't think that makes them bad admins. In short, I see no reason why you can't be trusted with the extra bits, even given several people whom I respect opining otherwise below. SQLQuery me! 10:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I agree with SQL. Acalamari 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I think so... *MindstormsKid* 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support See no reason to oppose or abstain among the below noted oppose !votes. Discretion to correct mistakes is granted to everyone, and a lack of technical copyright knowledge doesn't make someone untrustworthy. AvruchTalk 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree that one can correct his mistakes, of course. I, however, would recommend that users strike the incorrect text to acknowledge the mistake and preserve the context of surrounding and subsequent comments. Without looking at the page history, or my comment or the diffs I provided below, you'd never know that Blueboy96 said of course material from a Wikipedia article can't be copied word-for-word into a Wikinews article. If the subject of an AfD doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, but meets Wikinews standards, it can be transwikied. WODUP 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For an example of how I think a wrong answer should be corrected, I invite you to take a look at my own incorrect answer to one of Daniel's questions. See question 7. WODUP 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I wouldn't expect an admin to know everything straight away, especially on arcane topics like transwiki'ing; however, I believe Blueboy is prepared to walk before he runs; there are plenty of backlogs to be addressed, and cutting teeth on mundane tasks is useful and character-building. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - All admins don't know all policies. That's why we help each other. And that's why we have easy access links to all of them. Mistakes are easily fixable in a place with revert options and talk pages for apologies. So I support per many of the opposers who state he "won't abuse the tools". I agree. Lara❤Love 02:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak support (changed from oppose, see below). I don't oppose admin candidates lightly, as I see a lot of pile-on opposes (as with the ridiculous fair-use confusion in this RfA). I asked BB96 for some specific evidence that he now only applies the epithet "vandalism" to actual vandalism, not to good faith edits. I'm not sure I worded it in a way that was clear, so I checked his recent contribs for myself. Although I saw some edits in early October that were questionable, I also saw that in more recent edits, BB96 does indeed make a clear distinction in edit summaries between apparent good faith edits and vandalism (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). Other than the issues I brought up, which seem not to be a concern anymore, I see no reason to oppose this candidate. In fact, I support his adminship rather than going "neutral". --Ginkgo100talk 19:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Wikipedia needs admins. Jimbo says it should not be such a big deal. The questions asked at the top were rather nerdy -- you should not need to know everything to be able to do admin chores where you have ability. I think the opposers are being a bit too strict. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Singopo (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Sting_au Talk 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. I feel doubtful of your knowledge of NFCC per this. "Oh, and galleries ARE allowed, as I understand it--just as long as the images in them all have valid fair-use claims.". Fair use images should be used only when no replaceable free image could be found. Galleries of fair use images are never allowed on Wikipedia. To put it simply, a fair use claim isn't enough. Minimal usage, and only when it's absolutely necessary. --DarkFalls talk 07:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With this edit, he seems to contradict himself by saying a Wikipedia article can't be copied word-for-word into a Wikinews article and If the subject of an AfD doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, but meets Wikinews standards, it can be transwikied. When answering my question 10 above, he removes the contradiction from his answer, and then further strengthens his answer to question 8 which further destroys the context in which I asked my question. Getting a wrong answer to one of Daniel's questions isn't so bad, but because he doesn't follow our talk page guideline (specifically WP:TALK#Own comments), I must oppose. WODUP 07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose An admin (and all users really) should know fair use policy. Happy Thanksgiving! (Sasha) 08:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per issues stated perfectly above. Jmlk17 11:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral. Jmlk17 10:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per WODUP and, to a slightly lesser but still concerning extent, DarkFalls. Daniel 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: Per the above comments on the Fair Use policy. Since there were clear misunderstandings of the policy on your part, here's a suggestion: Read the Non-free content (and the pages in the "See also" section) and demonstrate your knowledge of it before your next RfA (maybe join Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I would like to see more experience in the areas of Wikipedia policy. I think after you become more familiar with the policies, you should do fine. Icestorm815 (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reluctant Oppose I'm sorry but, I dont see much change from the last RfA. Lack of experience and understanding of policy seems to be the issue here. Try again in a few months, and I'll be happy to support you. —treyomg he's backForrmerly Know As TREYWiki 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused here; you say you don't see much change in this RfA from the last RfA and say that he needs more experience and knowledge of policy, yet you supported him in his last RfA, saying that Blueboy96 is knowledgeable with policy. What changed? Acalamari 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was quite the newbie in April and did not know any better.—treyomg he's backForrmerly Know As TREYWiki 01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Feeble Oppose. You wouldn't abuse the tools, but you need more experience with policy. Come back later. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Indeed, you won't abuse the admin tools, but per the above, I can't support. Jack?! 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No. NHRHS2010 talk 04:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per above concerns, and one more. A Wikifairy should be a good copy-editor, but this user proclaims his "right" to completely screw up his edits. Wikifairies do not have that privilege. Get rid of that userbox, and I'll reconsider. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    The last RfA where there was an oppose because of a userbox, at least it was a swastika. This oppose is... opposable. AvruchTalk 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Bearian (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Changing to weak support; see above. Many editors mistakenly call good-faith edits "vandalism". An admin never should. In reverting edits regarding a content dispute (a WP:BLP issue), Blueboy96 repeatedly auto-reverted good faith edits, using Twinkle, with edit summaries incorrectly identifying the edits as vandalism. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Although Blueboy's argument that the edits violated WP:BLP was a strong one, the revert warring raises the following concerns: 1. An apparent lack of understanding about what does and does not constitute vandalism; 2. An apparent lack of understanding about the dispute resolution process; 3. A red flag that he may incorrectly use the admin rollback and possibly the block user functions. (I should add I don't care about the fair-use confusion and such cited above; they don't indicate to me that Blueboy will misuse the mop, but the information I have presented here does.) --Ginkgo100talk 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'd had that to do over again, I'd have gone to WP:ANI after the second revert--something I'd definitely do if presented with the same situation again, as an editor or as an admin. In hindsight, I probably was a bit too overzealous in my approach to enforcing BLP (something on which I take a very hard line as a rank-and-filer, which I would continue if given the mop). If given the chance, expect me to be asking a LOT of questions. All I want to do is get it right. Blueboy96 13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can show recent activity that shows you clearly understand what is and is not vandalism, I'll happily reconsider. --Ginkgo100talk 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gladly. This diff and this diff, both from November 11, show my reversions of some pretty severe vandalism. Need more examples? I'll be more than happy to provide them. Blueboy96 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a participant in the above-referenced edit war (I may even have dragged Blueboy96 into it, now that I think about it), let me add some detail. This is the incident I referred to in my initial comments supporting BB96's admin candidacy. The material which was being repeatedly inserted (and which BB96 and I both repeatedly reverted) made undocumentable allegations including some which were libelous. The author refused to discuss the matter civilly or to provide a source for his charges (check the archives of his talk page), and he flatly refused to read Wikipedia's guidelines about POV or BLP (he was a party in the case he was writing about, and he had never participated in Wikipedia before this incident). He didn't care what the rules were and he wouldn't participate in any kind of dispute resolution process, but simply insisted on repeatedly re-inserting his material. I'll be happy to discuss the specifics with anyone who's interested, but let me just say that I don't think BB96 was out of line here. I'm not sure how else it could have been handled at the time. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits did need to be removed; I agree with that action. However, they were not vandalism. They were good faith edits by a new user ignorant of Wikiquette and policy. The question is not whether BB96 recognizes blatant vandalism, but whether he recognizes good faith edits that are not vandalism. I see this very frequently at WP:AIV -- content disputes described incorrectly as vandalism. I am still not convinced that BB96 assumes good faith when warranted. --Ginkgo100talk 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They may have begun as good faith edits, and BB96 and I both assumed good faith at the beginning. But the user then refused more than one polite request to read WP:BLP and WP:POV, provide credible documentation of his allegations, and edit his content appropriately. He simply (repeatedly) restored his content and lectured us on whether it was appropriate for Wikipedia. I defer to your knowledge of policies as to whether that constitutes vandalism, but it was absolutely inappropriate behavior and an absence of good faith on the user's part. I don't want to clutter this page with (even) more detail on the specific incident, but I'll be happy to share them with you privately. JTRH (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if the above comment makes it clear enough that BB96 (and I) gave the user considerably more than one chance to correct the problem. We assumed good faith as long as it was warranted, but no longer. JTRH (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. A basic understanding of copyright law is absolutely required. We offer training for those who want it, so no reason to come to an RFA empty-handed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand copyright law very well ... in fact, on several occasions, I've caught a bunch of copyright violations and either tagged them for speedy deletion (via {{db-copyvio}}) or blanked them and tagged them with {{copyvio}}. I know a cut-and-paste from a Website when I see it. Most recently, I caught several instances where CarloPlyr440 (talk · contribs) uploaded several copyrighted images that were deceptively labeled as free--something straight from the playbook of Verdict and ParthianShot. I immediately tagged them all for speedy deletion, per CSD I7. He was blocked for a week--only to come back a few days later and resume the same behavior. He's now blocked for a month--though if it had been me, I'd have indefblocked him, since misappropriation of copyright threatens Wikipedia's very existence. Blueboy96 03:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An understanding of copyright law would include fully appreciating fair use and copyleft. Instances have been pointed out where such understanding was lacking. You can choose to walk away with constructive criticism and a resolve to learn what you need, or turn up the heat. The choice is yours. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. oppose leaning towards neutral - Do i think that this user will abuse tools, no. There is nothing to prove that they will, but there are too many concerns raised above about policy knowledge for me to feel alright making this user a syop. Do not be discouraged, and if this does not turn out the way you want, wait a while, gain more experience and try again. Tiptoety (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per the above reasons and perhaps would like to see more effort to improve rather than delete articles. In any event, I do wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per WODUP and DarkFalls. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose More knowledge of policy needs to be demonstrated. --Strothra (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose An incident where this editor started an action against me proved to me that he would use any 'power' he might attain for personal reasons. He stated that the use of red-colored typeface ("I removed the red text you've added in, since excessive use of red text can cause reactions in some readers for which you or the WMF may be held responsible".) is dangerous! I am not sure how much medical experience an unemployed journalist has, but this accusation was the epitome of personal harassment to me. Duke53 | Talk 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I may have overreached in trying to have Duke53's userpage deleted ... had I been able to do this over again, I would have sought the advice of others on WP:AN or WP:ANI. I can assure you--and everyone else here--that if given the bit I'll ask for help on all controversial matters, no matter how strongly I feel that I'm in the right. Blueboy96 07:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May have overreached ? That was a very serious accusation, created by you from whole cloth, with absolutely no factual evidence to back it up. Did you think that such an inane accusation would go unchallenged? What advice from others would you ask for NOW... medical proof for that accusation, or advice on how to harass another editor in accordance with Wikipedia's policies? Past behavior such as this simply cannot be overlooked or forgotten, especially when it occurred less than six months ago. Duke53 | Talk 08:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no--I'd have simply asked if this was even worth pursuing. That's what I've learned about this place in my time here--no matter how strongly you feel about something, you can count the number of times where you can get away with acting on your own without asking the advice of others on one hand. Blueboy96 13:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "... no matter how strongly you feel about something" Huh? Even though there is still no basis in fact for what you allege? It is troubling that you still haven't admitted that you were wrong in this matter; WP is all about citing sources when stating something as fact ... if you were / are so convinced that using red typeface is dangerous to others then surely you could have proved it by now. You have not even attempted to prove so, let alone admit that there was any other reason for making this allegation. If this situation is truly as serious a problem as you seem to continue to claim then surely you would have done something about it by now. Any good admin would be able to admit when they are 100% wrong in a matter, even when they 'feel so strongly' about it. Duke53 | Talk 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Had I known what I known now, I wouldn't have done it at all ... I was just saying that I would have known had I asked first. Blueboy96 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per above concerns. Epbr123 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I see that you've done a lot of work in the Wikipedia space since the lack of it sunk the last nomination (that hasn't been sinking things so much lately). It probably means you can show more evidence of policy knowledge now, too. Don't have time to go through contributions now to actually support. Good luck! Dekimasuよ! 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like I'll have to stay here due to questionable answers to some of the optional questions. Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The answer to question eight is wrong. Articles from here cannot be copied to Wikinews due to license incompatibilities, as outlined at Wikinews:Copyright. This is not a vote, just an observation. MER-C 06:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, hence the reason why it was one of my questions. Daniel 06:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See my clarification above ... I apologize if I wasn't clear earlier. Blueboy96 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I'm not sure. I don't doubt you're an excellent contributor but your relatively short answers don't convey a great understanding of policy. Rudget.talk 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Changing to support. Rudget.talk 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral: It's just a mop, and I feel that everyone who understands policy etc should get it, BUT: I get a feeling that this user does not understand the copyright policies correctly yet. I'm just not sure about this candidate. This one will keep me pondering Yes/No for a while to come yet I think... Hmmmmm..... :-) Stwalkerster talk 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to support :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Change to neutral. I still have concerns, but That userbox is now gone. Listening is a good sign for a sysop. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral From oppose. I just cannot support at this time. Jmlk17 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blueboy96_2&oldid=1147870241"