Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buster7

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

Buster7

Final (56/33/6). Withdrawn at candidate's request by WJBscribe @ 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Buster7 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to present Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a candidate for adminship today. I believe I first met Buster through our mutual wiki-friend/role model Dennis Brown. Together, Buster and I started the Editor of the Week project, which has now been in existence for over six months primarily due to Buster’s behind-the-scenes diligence. Buster’s best qualification, in my opinion, for adminship is his ability to be helpful without being patronizing, defensive of policy and/or other editors without being ridiculous, and welcoming without being insincere. Buster’s dedication to helping new users is truly admirable – at one point I believe he noted his aspiration to welcome 25 newcomers daily. On the content side, Buster has amassed over 9500 edits to article space, including over 100 each to each of the timelines for the four years of Obama’s presidency. He manages to remain level-headed in the face of conflict that inevitably ensues on controversial articles such as those. In addition, he has mediated at the talk pages of both Sarah Palin and BP, two additional controversial areas in which Buster’s professional attitude and calm demeanor are worthy of accolade. No matter how Buster eventually decides to utilize the admin tools, should you choose to bestow them upon him, I can unequivocally state that he would use them as he sees fit for the betterment of the encyclopedia and would undoubtedly be a net positive. One final note: Buster informs me that today is his 66th birthday; happy birthday, Buster. Go Phightins! 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Co–nomination

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Buster7 in his request for adminship. He is a very experienced editor, with more than 30,000 edits in a little over five years. However, statistics only tell a small part of a candidate's story and I believe personality is a far more important issue. With Buster7, personality is not a problem. To me, he is a very approachable, friendly, down-to-earth person, one who is not likely to let the position of administrator go to his head. Although is not afraid to get involved in contentious areas, Buster7's may be at his best when he works to provide encouragement to his fellow Wikipedians, through such venues as the Editor of the Week project. We can always use more admins who are seeking to acknowledge the efforts of others. I am willing to trust Buster7 with the administrator tools and I hope that you are too. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw my Request for Adminship. Thanks to everyone that participated. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: My first order of business will be to attend the New Admin School. I'll look into participating at WP:30, WP:Teahouse, intervention against persistent vandals and I will continue to welcome new editors. Note: I will not block (or unblock) for the foreseeable future. WP:DRN is something I will pursue.

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

A: I have written two essays I am proud of, User:Buster7/Wikiknights and User:Buster7/Incivility. I dispense the 100000 Edits Award. I've welcomed thousands of new editors. My best contribution might be that I stay out of trouble...and, therefore I don't waste other editors time. I'm very proud of what fellow clerks and I have created at WP:WER/Editor of the Week. I have been a sane, sensible long-term member of the community. I don't think that will change. The article Lincoln Park Conservatory is a worthy contribution as is my continuing editing and monitoring of the various Timelines of the Obama Administration.

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, I have. After repeated attempts to reconcile our differences I realized we might always be adversaries so I walked away. If he(?) showed up where I was editing or "talking", I walked away. I removed him from my watchlist and went on my way.

A2: This answer was a rather stumbling attempt to respond but without to much information. It has become quite obvious that the editor I didn't want to name is Collect. There are two sides to every story. If necessary, I will tell mine.

Additional question from Mark Arsten

4. In your view, when should a WP:CIR block be issued?

A: Only in the most extreme case of "lack of clue". I would be concerned for the fragile nature of the person lacking the capacity to edit responsibly. The more I think about it, I'm not sure I would ever block for CIR. More than likely, I would ask for advice.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

5. A while ago you left a message on my talkpage asking me about where I was from. Do you believe Wikipedians should be compelled to answer these types of questions?

A: It was quite a while ago. Not necessary to answer at all and I never pursued it. It was a personal question to appease my natural curiosity. I have a house 20 miles outside of Ottawa, Il. Just wondered if you were a neighbor.

Additional question from Mkdw

6. Would you mind providing more clarity as to why you believe you'd need the sysop tools in the areas mentioned in Q1? (The reason being you can participate at the WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:3O, and WP:DRN with out the sysop tools).

A: In an effort to elaborate on what my plans are, I gave examples of areas I'm interested in. When I started at Wikipedia 5 years ago, I had no idea what doors I would open or what projects would catch my interest. If I'm granted the mop, I'll walk into Admin School, have a seat and see where the wiki-wind blows me. Where ever it is I will do my best, be a good citizen, be an active participant and collaborate toward Peace.

Additional question from Joefromrandb

7. While responding to oppose #3, you said you would likely begin using admin tools in matters regarding civility. Could you please expand upon this?

A: I said I would follow where the mop would lead me. I didn't say I would use the tools in matters of Civility. Its not about the tools. Its about who I am as an editor, what I would bring to a conversation about Civility. My views on the subject can be found at User:Buster7/Incivility. If you are asking if I would block or ban because of some breach of civility, No, I would not. Would I step from the crowd and comment as an administrator. Yes, I would.

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

8. What is the difference between an Indefinite Block and Ban?

A: An indefinite block is open-ended; it has no fixed duration but is usually not "forever". It is imposed by an administrator but can be un-blocked by an uninvolved administrator if properly requested by the blocked editor. User page use is most times allowed. Assuming you mean a site ban, the editor is no longer a member of the community; he can not edit Wikipedia...anywhere. Only ArbCom, Jimbo or the Foundation can impose a site ban. Any negotiations for return are outside the jurisdiction of administrators. The differences would be who imposes each, whether the user can still edit (in a limited capacity or not at all) and who can undo each (admins or ArbCom.

Additional question from Iselilja

9. Dear Candidate. In a project you take part in you nominated a user to Editor of the Week, among other things for “Defending our reader from the influences of COI editing of all types.”

Can you expand a bit on how to identify and fight conflict of interest editing, and give some thoughts on the dilemma that may arise between fighting potential COIs and the principle of assuming good faith?

A: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote a COI’s interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups they work for or have an interest in. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia Encyclopedia, that editor stands in conflict of interest. It is not always easy to identify conflict of interest. If a new editor joins WP, User:AcmeTools, lets say, and begins an article on Acme Tool Company, the conflict is obvious and is dealt with. The situation is identified and the new user gets instructions on how to proceed within the rules and guidelines. Other forms of COI are hidden and not so obvious and are enumerated at WP:COI. Mostly there is an incompatibility between the interest of the COI and the creation of a fair and impartial encyclopedia article. It is not always easy identifying the incompatibility. At the article the nominee was working at, identification was easy. The COI editor had self-identified as an employee of the company. Because of his upfront admittance of working for his employer, it was easy to evaluate the effect of a COI on an article. There was never any question of not assuming good faith. There were questions about what was best for the article and our reader. The COI editor had the best intentions when asking for changes, since he could not, in good faith, directly edit the article. The problem was that his request were being implemented without any discussion or deliberation. Supportive editors made the changes merely because he asked for them to be made. You might say they “over” assumed good faith. Without the due diligence of volunteer, unpaid editors (the nominee in this case) those change would have remained in the article without the slightest concern for verifiability, balance, neutrality, or any other important WP concern. The reader needs to be defended. Readers are blind to what goes into creating an article. I would bet that most don’t know that a talk page exists behind every WP article.

Additional question from Gtwfan52

10. Buster, how do you think having admin tools (the "mop") will enhance your ability to serve the goals of Wikipedia?

A: The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among its contributors. The icon of the mop is a good one because basically that is what an administrator does; he cleans up when those contributors make a mess. Or, he reminds contributors of their purpose here when the atmosphere is less than harmonious. Can any editor do that? Sure. But the administrator comes with a mop in his hand signifying some training and some diplomatic ability. Also, the administrator comes with the capacity to remove the one thing everyone here wants---the ability to edit. Not that I would be heavy-handed or pompous but butting heads with less than friendly editors in order to deliver some much needed diplomacy can be a challenge. I respect administrators as I’m sure the vast majority of WP editors do. As for my personal ability, it would be advanced by the advice and grooming I would get from other administrators. In answer to a previous question, I said before I would not block or unblock. I should have included “right away”. I would wait months before I would consider myself ready and competent to decide to block a fellow editor.

Additional question from IRWolfie-

11. Can you give an example of when it is correct to invoke IAR?

A: The democratic “come one – come all” nature of Wikipedia means that disagreements and conflicts are to be expected if you are an active editor/contributor. I deflect disagreements, and would say I am generally approachable and have a friendly and open communication with almost all editors. I rarely find myself in a disagreement with another editor. If I do, I reach out to them on their talk page about the issue, and we work toward a common ground that we can both agree on. The pillar says I should assume good faith and I almost always do. But, there are some editors I have had conflicts with and I do not assume good faith, ignoring the rule. Once you have been bit a dozen times by the same person its ridiculous to extend your hand to a fellow editor, expecting a handshake in return when you know in your heart of hearts, he is going to bite you. As it says somewhere, AGF is not a suicide pact. It can be ignored.

Additional question from Beagel

12. Could you please elaborate in more detailed way your content creation experiences, e.g. articles brought to FA or GA level, participation in the PR process, DYK and ITN nominations etc?

Additional question from Beagel

13. You have said that the reader needs to be defended from COI editing. I would like to ask what will be your actions, if any, in case of the BLP article, which is rewritten by SPA, most-likely by the subject of the article?

Additional question from Beagel

14. By your understanding, does COI in articles about corporations applies only in the case of editing on behalf of the corporation (e.g. paid editing) or does it applies also to activists, organizations etc having anti-corporate stance? If yes, could you please elaborate your viewpoint in more detailed way.

Additional question from Beagel

15. According to your subpage and comments, you value civility in Wikipedia very highly. Is civility the core value of Wikipedia which should be always preferred to the other values or is it still possible that the editor with a battleground mentality (history of personal remarks and false accusations against other editors who having different POV) will be acknowledged by the community? If yes, what are these values which overrun the need for civility?

Additional question from Beagel

16. If we will have a line with classical encyclopaedias like Britannica in the one end and radical partisan websites on the other end, where in on this line in the ideal world Wikipedia should be located? Should the bringing of the article to FA-class to be the ultimate goal with every article in Wikipedia or is there any other more important goal overrunning this goal?

Additional question from Lucky102

17. Why did you join Wikipedia, and why did you decide to keep editing?

General comments

• Links for Buster7: Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Buster7 can be found here.
• I have started to work on a composite of my history dealing with Collect at my talk page. It starts in late 2008 so it might take a while. I'll accept fellow editors deciding when they have more of the facts. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Enthusiastically, as nom Go Phightins! 13:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Support I've worked with Buster for over a year now, unquestionably ready for the bits and can be trusted. Excellent attitude, calm demeanor and a willingness and desire to serve, which are the traits we need in admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Support I do not believe they would abuse the tools or the position.--MONGO 13:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Looking at my admin criteria, looks like there's no problems at all. ZappaOMati 14:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - looks okay to me.Deb (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Support; I have seen Buster7 calmly talk someone down from the Reichstag over unbalanced editing; he possesses the temperament suitable for adminship. He also has a good deal of clue. Horologium (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Polite and coherent. While the need for tools isn't clearly established per answers to #1, Buster7 is a trusted editor with pleasing attitude and approach. Let him help us. Alex Shih^Talk 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Thought Buster already had a mop. I've seen his interactions and activity and strongly agree he'll use the tools to benefit Wikipeda. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
10. Support - I've seen him around and he has a very good attitude, calm demeanor and a willingness to serve the community. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
11. Support I'd trust him with the tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
12. Support No major problems I can see. Intothatdarkness 19:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
13. Support Magnificent editor. At this point in the projects development, the community is in great need of folk who gracefully resolve conflict, spread goodwill, and generate enthusiasm for editing. Buster is one of the very best at this. Without spending hours reviewing the context, Collect's diff to Writegeist's talk seems to show a rare lapse in chivalry, but on balance Im still 100% confident Buster will make a fantastic admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
14. Support. I like the answers given as they indicate that as admin, they will work in areas...THAT NEED some admin attention, even if these areas do not require one to be an admin. Shoot, most of the venues where admin do frequent do not require one to be an admin to participate. Yes...its a mop, not a club, not a badge and not a crown. We need more admin wanting to clean up where needed and not be overlords of any particular area.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
15. Support I met Buster7 over the past few weeks and I have been impressed with his helpful and kind attitude. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
16. Support highly unlikely to break the wiki, and should be a WP:NETPOS with the tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs)
17. No reason not to support. Go for it. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
18. Support especially because of his willingness to wear lots of hats if necessary, rather than concentrating in just one or two areas. Collect points out a problematic edit, but as Buster says farther down, he quickly realised and removed it. I daresay he won't make such a mistake in the future after hearing so much about it here. And as far as not needing the tools frequently — so what? Every good admin action he performs is less work for the rest of us, and it's not as if we have a limit on the number of admins. And what's wrong with someone urging a little courtesy on his userpage? Why is a courtesy requirement seen as a negative? Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
19. Support I have spent a few hours today looking over his contribution history. I would be more impressed with an admin wannabe if there had been more participation at WP:AFD. He seems to be opposed to hurting the feelings of new editors by deleting their first article, which is fine as long as the encyclopedia does not become a mass of vanispamcruftisements. I would like to see more than 8 articles created, but he has done many edits which improved articles, and his recent edits have used the cite web template. Maybe he has reverted and warned vandals in the past, but I only saw a little WP:AIV action in recent months. He is a very collegial editor in general rather than a power-mad ban-hammer swinger like some if he joins the ranks of administrators. We are not limited in how many admins we can have at a given time, so it is not crucial that the tools be limited to those keenest to block and delete. I would trust him with the mop. Edison (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
20. Support Yeah - I see nothing that would make this anything other than a net positive, and that's really my criterion. Oh, and he's a good guy, working on good stuff, like retention, too - and speaks common sense whenever I have cause to notice. No red flags apparent, lots of experience and clue. All good. Begoon ^talk 22:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
21. Support and happy birthday! LlamaAl (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
22. Support I trust him enough to hold the mop. Good luck. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
23. Support Despite concerns raised by some of the opposes, candidate still seems like a trustworthy net positive. Nobody's perfect. Miniapolis 01:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
24. Support Agree with Miniapolis. -download ׀ talk 06:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
25. Strong support Begoon said it. Buster is very literally the nicest person I've met on Wikipedia. He is also one of the wisest folks I've met here, and endlessly patient. He is the reason I came out of retirement, after a very moving request on my talk page. He keeps me in line and checks in to make sure I'm not getting burned out. What's not to love? petrarchan47tc 10:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
26. Buster7 is a longterm editor with a clean block log, I've also done a trawl of Buster's deleted edits from the last year or so and not spotted anything that troubles me. That includes several times when he nominated articles for deletion, and I who count myself quite picky can't fault the tags that I saw. But more than that Buster is someone I've had several positive interactions with online. I have no hesitation supporting Buster. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
27. Support - The candidate has been here a while and as WSC notes has never been blocked despite a substantial edit history in contentious articles. That is saying something! There are names in the supporters I greatly respect who have looked into him in detail, and despite some weaknesses I am casting a !vote to support though I have urged the candidate on his talk page to withdraw and to come back in six months or so to try again. No one would be happier than me to have misread this situation, however. The opposes do not sway me, frankly. I do believe this candidate can be trusted with the tools and to avoid using them in any way whatsoever on editors he has had old disputatious interaction with. Jusdafax 11:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
28. Support - does he need the tools? Probably not. Could the answers to the questions be better? Probably yes. Will he abuse the tools? Absolutely not. A long-standing, super-trusted member of the community; what work he does do with the tools will be purely for the benefit of Wikipedia, as everything else he does here is. GiantSnowman 12:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Comes across as genuine person who is committed to the project and wouldn't abuse the position. Clearly not a user who has devoted their long tenure to getting adminship but I'm confident they are capable of learning on the job Jebus989^✰ 12:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
30. He may not be the most well-rounded administrator ever, but I trust him to act responsibly with the tools. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
31. SupportIntelligent, experienced, neutral minded, helpful, reasonable, civil. Pretty much all that I might look for in an admin. As can be see, has handled himself well even in the face of opposition. Is obviously trustworthy and will make good use of the tools.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
32. Support. I am familiar with this candidate, and would trust him with the tools. I do understand some of the "objections" below, and in fact there are times where I disagree with him as well; however, I've seen enough to trust Buster to use additional abilities wisely and with compassion. — Ched :  ?  16:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
33. Support, after taking time to consider the rationale for the opposers. I believe there's still a net positive to giving Buster the tools, though I remind him that blocking and unblocking is part of the job. Best of luck, Signalizing (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
34. Support - The lack of content work is definitely a bit of a concern, but there's no way I'd see Buster abusing the sysop bit. TCN7JM 17:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
35. Support Gamaliel (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
36. Support I'm one of Buster's many fans. I like that he volunteers in the Welcoming Committee, DRN, and Editor Retention. A review of his current user talk page yields numerous acknowledgments of his efforts to optimize the Wikipedia experience for other users, e.g. "Thank you, Buster7, for the heart you put into this project" . . . "I thought I would let you know that your pure heart shines through your work" . . . "Thank you for striking the comment. This is really appreciated as unfortunately that kind of honest acknowledgement of own mistake is quite rare at that talk page" . . . "I'm recognizing you for all the work you've done for your fellow Wikipedians" . . . "Just wanted to say thanks for all the information regarding Wikipedia! I was a bit lost but reading it has helped. As a newcomer, it was very nice of you to give me that information" . . . "Your diligence and kindness amaze me. You are my teacher. I won't ever forget you. Thank you." We need admins like that. Writegeist (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    My dear old friend Collect, in directing us to the cherry-picked psycho quote—which he similarly showcases without context on his talk page in a sneering invitation for users who "approve" to join in here—omits not only the context that illuminates Buster's whimsical query to me on my Talk (namely the comments by another user that triggered it, e.g. [1], not to mention such gems as "if I ever saw you in person I would let out my excess liquids from my kindneys [sic] onto your feet", and "Fuck you! . . . If I ever saw you in person I would love to beat the living shit out of you, I would only not do so because it is against the law."). He also omits Buster's sincere and unreserved apology, also on my UTP, in response to the other user's own apology to me [2]. The comprehensive omission of contextual diffs is a purely accidental lapse I'm sure, given that Collect, as he informs other users from time to time, is so scrupulously impartial; therefore I'm sure he won't mind me rectifying it on his behalf.

    Buster is a straight arrow. We need straight-arrow admins who are mature, modest, fair-minded, honest and helpful; who aren't pompous asses, arrogant pricks, aggressive little twerps or clueless infants; who display good humor; and who, most importantly, value service above power. Opposition cavils about modest content contribution and absence from adminny disputes and RfAs fail to impress in light of, say, the RfA rout of Malleus Fatuorum, a prolific content creator who was also a regular and outspoken participant at the drama boards. Writegeist (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    I would prefer not to be dragged into this. The reasons why my RfAs failed are quite different from those that seem likely to cause the tanking of this request. Eric Corbett 19:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    As an aside, I don't think you are always the most civil, but I think you would make a good admin otherwise (as far as I am aware), IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    We'll never know. Eric Corbett 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

37. Support x 20 Buster is exactly what we need here. He is slow to anger, open to criticism and suggestion, and most importantly, predisposed to solving problems with discussion ahead of using the tools he should be given. I would like to speak of the criticism leveled here about his level of content contribution. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that unless you really crank out the content, you are incapable of understanding the needs of those who do. I find that to be completely illogical. I couldn't play a violin if my life depended on it, but I am certainly capable of detecting if someone who is playing a violin is playing it well, competently, or would be better off sticking to playing the radio. Same goes with content creation. People are blessed with different skill sets, and although the primary mission here is to create good content, that content cannot be created unless we have people who can handle administrative functions justly and efficiently, with an eye towards long-term solutions rather than short-term fixes. Content creation and administrative skill are not the same skill set. Buster's desire to encourage and coach, along with his well documented editing in very contentious areas such as the presidential articles and the BP articles, would make him a very desirable admin. The co-nominators, Buster and myself all intersect at WP:WER, a project Dennis Brown started. I feel that Buster would do his best to emulate Dennis's style of administration, which, IMHO, makes Dennis one of the most effective admins we have. Some of Buster's detractors below have valid points, but overall, Buster's "Wiki-personality" outweighs them. Everyone has some bad moments. Buster's good moments far outweigh the bad. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
38. Support. Any man who knows who Charles Felix Van Quickenborne is and writes the article about him deserves to be an admin. I always look for article creation because I think it's the real reason for the project. He doesn't have a lot of articles but what he does have are solid, well written and really make a fine contribution. I liked what Writegeist said, I just wouldn't use that same language. Good luck Buster7. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    Malke, did Buster7 ever get the hang of doing refs properly? I looked at the Quickenborne article at the time of his last edit (March 2011) and the References section was not formatted per MoS. Personally, I would expect an admin to pay attention to that sort of detail. --IP108VA (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    He might have done it that way just to have refs and then forgot it. That's easy to do. Plus, there are editors who enjoy article clean up. I look for article creation because admins have the tools to delete articles. They should have an appreciation for what it takes to create an article. I could point you to the article creation list of one admin. He's got just 6 articles and all need complete rewrites. It's apparent he only wrote those 6 to pass his RfA. Buster7's articles show he actually cared about the subject. He wasn't writing his articles for show. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    I looked at Buster's creations and he did use a citation template in one of the later articles. My overall impression is that his article work indicates a lack of attention to detail; and, in my opinion, in the writing of an encyclopedia, attention to detail is a very high priority. Our admins must master a very detailed set of policies and procedures in order to apply them correctly and consistently. Perhaps Buster7 will do that when he attends New Admin school. --IP108VA (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

39. Support. Jianhui67 Talk 05:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
40. Support. --cyrfaw (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
41. Support Insulam Simia (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
42. Unconditional support. :) John Cline (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
43. Support. Although some of the opposes are substantial, I find others are not very well reasoned, so I would like, in some small way, to help counteract them. Reviewing a random sample of the candidate's edits did not reveal any major concerns for me.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
44. Support. Buster7 is a mature editor, an individual who brings extensive breadth of life experience to Wikipedia. He is a veritable troubadour of civility, which he exhibits even in the most contentious of subjects. It is my pleasure to support his candidacy and it is a shame that there aren't more administrators like him. Coretheapple (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
45. Support. Mentally and emotionally mature, Buster will make a fine admin. A real salt of the earth person, we would do well with more like him. Gandydancer (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
46. Support Buster7 has a long history of constructive editing and is the type of editor one expects to uphold Wikipedia policies without regard to personal beliefs. TFD (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    Back in my day, had a user put in the quality work Buster7 has, we would have promoted him to be the next Jimbo Wales and advanced his usserrights strait to 'crat. Though... I do remember something about IPs not being allowed to !vote, I will show myself out. Y'all are sterling. 201.237.136.162 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry you must have an account to participate in these sections. Mkdw^talk 08:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

47. Support For his statement: "Most likely it will be in arenas dealing with new editors, vandals, civility, speaking up for editors that need a voice." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
48. Support Buster has been a warm and welcoming editor, one of the best I've encountered on Wikipedia. If only we had more editors/admins with his temperament, we would have fewer retention problems. Buster and I have worked tirelessly on the various Obama timelines and I have seen his hand all over Wikipedia. Buster7 is a name I trust. It would be a true disappointment if his nomination fails. —Diiscool (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
49. Support I didn't really know what I wanted to do with admin tools when I got them, and buster sound the same. I'm sure he will have occasional use maybe even tackling some of the WP:Admin backlog. A cautious editor is less likely to abuse the tools and i don't think buster will do this.--Salix (talk): 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
50. Support I don't see any issues with being cautious. I'm sure he won't misuse the tools - which is the most important thing to ensure. He may take a while to block his first editor, but I'm sure he'll get into the swing of it once he starts.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
51. Support Found them to be balanced in my interactions with them. Would like to see more content work.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
52. Support Buster has the positive attitude and helpful demeanour that I'd like to see more of in our administrative corps. However, Buster should take on some of the advice of some of the opposers, particularly boning up on aspects of policy he seems to be a bit foggy on. The Interior (Talk) 17:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
53. Support We need more of his brand of sanity. The answer to question 8 is wrong, but he can learn more about blocks and bans before he touches that part of the toolbox. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
54. Support Looking over some recent contributions, and considering the oppose votes below – many of which I find unconvincing (for instance, isn't the point of New Admin School to clarify the details on rules regarding admin behavior? So who cares if he isn't super clear on ban vs block, especially given his disinclination to get involved in blocking per Q1?) – I think that Buster7 would make a suitable new admin. AgnosticAphid talk 00:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
55. Support per editor's work to improve the project. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 09:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
56. Support I find many of the opposes are meaningless and without merit. Some of the remaining ones are valid but I still feel that its unlikely this user will abuse the tools. Kumioko (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Noting the camdidate's statements [3]: I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding ***. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless *** pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).And then, lets just go back to being fellow editors with an extreme dislike for an editor whose name begins with a C and ends in a T, which he follows with a disclaimer - and then a slew of personal commentary directed at me anyways <g>. Not to mention his never-ending colloquy with Writegeist and his "precious" edit [4] about another editor Do you have a psychopathic schizophrnic I can borrow? in April of this year. Demeanor unworthy of being an admin IMO. I do not consider calling someone a "psychopathic schizophrnic " is indicative of calmness nir of collegiality, and this was within the past few months, so can not be considered "old." Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Noting [5] 9 November 2012 (less than a year ago) I do have an agenda...to reveal Collect for the provocatuer that he is., No one who says that is their prime goal "to reveal (an editor) as a provocatuer(sic)" should be able to assert that they are a model of civility. In fact, it shows immaturity to keep an enemies list of any sort, to retain personal info about an editor and threaten to reveal that information. I tried to be moderate here - but the "Sam Spade" comment is so clear as to its effect that it hardly needs further exposition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Citing WP:IAR, is it really so wrong to define exactly what an editor is, as evidenced by todays input? I don't know where I said that or where Collect found it, but I would imagine it was in some out-of-the way corner somewhere in wikiworld. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Seems to me like User:Collect is misrepresenting those diffs. Anyone interested in a fair shake should look at the links themselves, don't take Collect's word for it. He's only a 'provocateur' on nice days. El duderino ^(abides) 06:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose due to your answers to questions 1–3. Q1 asks what admin work you would take part in, and you answered with nothing that is admin work. Do you know what admins do here? Your answer to Q2 doesn't paint a picture of very much content work at all, which leaves me in doubt about your understanding of what content editors go through here. Your answer to Q3 is vague and not very useful. --Laser brain (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - You list ambitions to work in areas that don't require admin privileges. Having yourself voted here before, you aren't a complete novice at RfA and I would've expected more elaboration. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   I really don't know where the mop will lead me. Most likely it will be in arenas dealing with new editors, vandals, civility, speaking up for editors that need a voice. I could scour previous RfC's and give you a long list of what I would do and where I would do it. But right now, today, I'm really not sure. In real life, I AM a janitor at least I was one for 20 years. So I know how to swing a mop (keep things clean and tidy), how to keep the peace between warring tenants (here it would be warring editors), I know how to use tools to repair things and get them to operate as they were intended. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Most editors expect that if you don't know specifically what you want to do, that you at least have contributed to areas that deal with admin matters, (e.g. AIV, RPP and AfD). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, I have contributed to AIV with positive prompt results. I've requested some Page Protection, specifically Belgium. I was at one time an active member of ARS. Not so much lately. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I'm sorry, but I find your answer to question 3 unsatisfying, especially given Collect's link and your past history.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   I really have had very little conflict over the years. The conflict I reference in my answer to question 3 may bubble to the surface here in the next few days and I will explain my position then, if necessary. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Specifically, you're not being very specific in your answer to question 3, especially with regards to conflicts you have had a while ago as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Do you have a specific conflict in mind? I don't edit war. I've never been banned. My talk page has never been vandalized. Have I had words with editors? Sure, but nothing major. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Describe those "words with editors" in detail (in particular, you should also know that the "I AM" above and this edit summary on this RfA can both be considered (not saying they have to be) WP:SHOUTING).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   The "I" is capitalized because it leads the sentence, the "AM" is capitalized to make proud emphasis that, in RL, most of my adult life was as a Janitor in the Service Employees Union Local #1 in Chicago. I apologize if you thought I was shouting at you. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC). As to "words with editors', you could go to the talk pages of Bahai Faith, Mythology and Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and peruse discussions I am currently (the past week or so) having with an editor over the word "humankind". ```Buster Seven Talk 20:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Might you explain your far-less-than-cordial verbal interaction with user R-41? I daresay that calling someone a "psychopathic schizophrenic" is not precisely an example to be proud of, coming only a few months back (April 2013) (not in the "distant past" by a long shot). . Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   The comment was mean and hurtful and completely uncalled for. I made a joke that was insensitive and inconsiderate just to be funny. I reverted it 40 minutes later. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose I'm not convinced by any of your answers to the first three questions. It makes me confused that part of your answer to Q1 says that you'd like to deal with persistent vandals, and yet you don't like the idea of blocking people. By the looks of your project contributions I don't think you've spent enough time working on some of these administrative areas. Q2 says that the best article you've contributed to is Lincoln Park Conservatory, but at the moment half of the article is not referenced at all! According to your answer to Q3 "walking away" is not always the right thing to do while in a conflict. To make things worse part of your reply to one of the opposers was "I really don't know where the mop will lead me." and yet you still decided to accept the nomination without thinking about what you really want to do with the tools. I think that's a case of poor judgement in my mind. Minima© (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   Well, said, but a little absurd. Walking away during a content dispute is one thing...but walking away from CONFLICT is another thing entirely and IS the right thing to do. Not knowing what they wish to do with the tools is EXACTLY why many would consider this candidate more apt for the position as they are not thinking how they will use the tools. I asked for rollback and have yet to use that tool. Adminship is nothing special, yet you feel that it is and that good judgement calls for a predetermined idea of what one intends to do with the tools. I would assume he will use them to clean up where needed. This is not a judgement call issue, but one of honesty. I would hope that Buster does not have an idea where the tools will lead them. I like that. I think it shows that he is does not have any predetermined ideas of what an admin is or should be.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

6. Oppose Buster appears to be part of a small clique at the BP article. When a member of said grouping appeared at WP:ANEW about a different corporate related article, Buster and another "wiki-friend" piled in without seeming to understand exactly what was going on, calling it an RFC at first, then referring to the post as an "'Admin Notice'" [6]. Buster appeared to defend the editor without really knowing what was going on, or the situation at the other article Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:Petrarchan47_reported_by_User:Bobrayner_.28Result:_No_action.29. This does not inspire confidence that he would act neutrally, or with any WP:CLUE as an administrator. It also shows that he lacks the necessary experience and competence to even identify different admin boards. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

   I am not all to inspired by this !vote. Accusations in the oppose seem all to telling about this opinion.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 00:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Was he wrong to support me? No - the 3RR noticeboard was being misused, and the case fell through. (I appreciate your support, Buster.) Speaking of the BP page, Please do peruse the talk page archives to view Buster's absolutely exemplary work there - always moderate, truthful, gentle and kind in an extremely challenging venue. petrarchan47tc 10:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Let me quote the closing admin " No action. It is hard to believe that Petrarchan47 is editing in a neutral manner on this article, but there is no 3RR violation. Issues of POV pushing are usually handled at other noticeboards.". i.e POV pushing but this isn't the right board for that. For someone to jump into an incident like this with "... Petra is doing a stand-up job to improve the articles of WP. Let us all get back to the pleasentness of WP editing. " requires a level of cluelessness. It's also apparent from his answer to question 9, that from an ideological perspective he agrees with your perspective on the BP article, hence why he jumped into other unrelated areas, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   I will note that the notoceboard was for 3RR violation, and was trumped up to get me banned. The closing admin made statements outside of the bounds of the noticeboar, for some reason, and did not provide a shred of evidence for his claims - so i fail to see why he would have made them, as it does an editor no good to have a sideways remark follow them around for the rest of their Wiki lives, but have no idea what they did wrong, or how to improve their editing. Thus, i don't give much weight to the remarks of the closing admin in this case. And as you have been running around trying to delete anything against Monsanto, namely the March Against Monsanto article and the Organic Consumers Association, who heads the "Millions Against Monsanto" campaign, I question how you could point the finger at others for POV pushing. Further, anyone who agrees with me at the BP article, which is to say that yes, we actually should mention the BP spill, and give it more than two paragrpahs, is actually in the majority, as you can see from the most recent RfC closure. Your use of the word cult, and trying to badmouth Buster for even agreeing with me at the BP page or at a bogus 3RR accusation shows a certain desperation and says much more about your position than anyone else. petrarchan47tc 21:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

   I have never seen anyone to respond to a question about IAR with an example like that detailing when they assume bad faith (it's also not a valid example of IAR, because what to do when bad faith is actually occurring is addressed in the guidelines: Wikipedia:AGF#Dealing_with_bad_faith) IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I don't think Buster quite yet has the judgment and understanding of the nuances of policy to be a successful admin, per Collect. I'm also concerned about his relative lack of content work. Maybe in time. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose per Collect, who raises valid points regardless of any past disputes the candidate has had. Such issues should be dealt with upfront in an RfA, rather than ad hoc later on... that's not a dealbreaker in and of itself, but the way you've refused to engage or explain it does not allow me to support. My sincere apologies, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Explanation in the works. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

9. Weak Oppose – While Buster seems well-intentioned and capable of using the tools responsibly, parsing through his edit history reveals little work (none recently) at AIV, UAA, AFD, and no CSD requests within the last few years at least. While I'm not suggesting incompetence, I do think he should familiarize himself more with the back end of business that he's asking to be responsible for. Deadbeef 05:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Oppose Far too much talk, not enough content and too focused on civility issues. 86.157.181.4 (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Sorry, only users with an account get to vote. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

10. An obvious attitude to defend wiki-friends, cited by IRWolfie- and demonstrated as recently as two months ago, is incompatible with this position. Wikipedia will not gain from PoV pushers and their enablers in the administration. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    And I second the voter below: the answer to #8. is unsatisfactory not only for a sysop, but for any non-content-only user at all. It is sad that the community tolerates the current rampant positive discrimination of well-socially-accepted users, who sometimes, like in this case, are utterly incompetent in all other aspects. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose There's plenty of good reasons to support, and I did waver but your answer to Question 8 is troubling me. "...can be un-blocked by an uninvolved administrator if properly requested by the blocked editor" - um, well yes but a "proper request" should be just one consideration before overturnig an indef block (you don't mention asking the blocking admin for example). "Only ArbCom, Jimbo or the Foundation can impose a site ban" - no. Jimbo has (mostly) given up that kind of thing in deference to ARBCOM. And if a user is indeffed by an admin and no other admin will unblock then that becomes a de-facto site ban. The statement "whether the user can still edit (in a limited capacity or not at all)" is also confusing me - if an editor is blocked then the only thing they (possibly) can edit is their talk page. Pedro :  Chat  08:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    As far as I know, the community can also impose a ban, including indef. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. No AfD !votes for over a year, and the last one isn't persuasive. I am struggling to find comments at AIV, RFPP or other admin-related areas. Also, with my display setting (green-on-black skin), I am unable to see Buster7's signature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
12. Oppose Poor and incomplete answers to questions; troubling dispute with Collect; no evidence of admin work, competency or interests; no evidence of any substantive article work. The existence of User:Buster7/Sam Spade, Private Detective is very troubling. --John (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC) --John (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose per IRWolfie and Max Weber, who wrote "The decisive means for politics is violence … anyone who fails to see this is, indeed, a political infant". The collection of quotes at his draft-essay on civility includes Ricoeur (the best of the fuzzy) but even as a draft it is disorganized and soporific. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose I'm sorry, but after your poor answer to Q1, and then your answer to Q6, along with your other answers, I just don't see much admin qualities in you. buffbills7701 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Insufficient body of article work, negligible content creation and/or improvement. 33.1% mainspace contributions at RfA is inadequate. Nick (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
16. Oppose as per Nick and Jasper Deng, the answer to question number one was not work that can be done by administrators, any user can do such a task it doesn't require the administrator bit, I personally think you are better off a normal editor rather an admin. Plus the lack of contributions to mainspace is rather concerning. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    Oppose In all the copious text above, I see not one indication of scholarly interests or motivations. The apparent hypocrisy on "civility" isn't particularly relevant, as the only reason Wikipedians are endlessly debating it is due to a lack of a clear intellectual mission which would give us something else to talk about.24.19.234.62 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    As already noted above once, IPs are not permitted to vote in RfA. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

17. Oppose I'm very unimpressed with your answers to Q1–3 and also Q7. You appear to be very unclear about what you would do with the tools if they were given to you, which doesn't seem like a good sign. Your comment, "If you are asking if I would block or ban because of some breach of civility, No, I would not. Would I step from the crowd and comment as an administrator. Yes, I would." is unclear to me—you want the mop so you can "comment as an administrator"? This whole RfA gives me the impression that you accepted the nomination without giving any real thought to the idea. I also have to agree with Jebus989's comments about your "Always Assume That Ladies/Women/Females/Girls/Your Mom Are Present. Discourteous behavior will not be tolerated even if not directed toward them" talk page banner—it strikes me as very sexist, and your reply about how most men wouldn't be crude in front of their mothers fails to explain the "fairer sex" attitude of listing the other four groups. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
18. Oppose The candidate seems to exhibit earnest good faith, and a keen interest in promoting civility. Buster, you seem like a good person, and trustworthy. If I had to rely on Buster7 to feed my cats while I was on holiday, I expect my cats would have no complaints. On the initial smell-test of "is this person not a dick?" you seem to pass with flying colours.
    But this RfA stumbles at the first substantive hurdle: what do you actually want to use admin tools for? The discussion conducted below shows that you seem to have no intention to actually use any of the admin tools. I can understand why some may wish to either go easy on blocking or abstain from blocking altogether, but what one has left is this: handing out lower-level user rights (candidate has expressed no interest in that), protecting and unprotecting articles (again, no interest in that), and handling deletion (again, no expressed interest, and a quick look shows minimal participation at AfD). I take his nominators at their word when it comes to him being a sensible, down-to-earth person, but I'm not keen on handing out admin rights if there's no actual justification for doing so.
    A minor additional point: I'm not one to oppose solely on the grounds of style, but the linked essay on incivility which you proclaim to be one of the contributions you are most proud of contains dozens and dozens of typos. Simple stuff that any half-decent spellchecker in any current web browser would catch. Might be an idea to fix those. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
19. Oppose with regret, after being in the project for so long, you should be able to understand the administrative portions of Wikipedia, not to mention question 2 is weak as well. User:Buster7/Incivility reads like a rambling essay that was placed together by a middle schooler. Question 3 is completely vague as it doesn't go into detail about the conflict, just walked away and remove from watchlist, which isn't the best solution in many circumstances. Secret ^account 21:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
20. Oppose - The first 3 questions were either dodged or poorly answered IMO. I'm also concerned about the candidate's past with Collect and some certain uncivil comments the candidate made. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 00:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
21. Oppose, though I'm not happy to say so. The grudge Buster still seems to hold against Collect is worrisome for someone who wants to promote civility and enjoy greater responsibilities in the project. Keep up the good work you do with editor retention, gain some more experience in admin areas, and bury old hatchets. I'll hope to support you next time around. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
22. Oppose There are good points like intending to go to Admin School first, to take advice on difficult issues, to hesitate to block/unblock in the early days. But nurturing a grudge for so long and airing it by putting a record of it where others can find it is not encouraging. Q3 focussed on that alone and no discussion of how he handles disagreements in general. In Q4, speculation as to the "fragile nature" of an incompetent editor given higher priority than the disruption they can cause. Several other answers mediocre, too. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
23. Regretful Oppose, Why ask for the tools now if you have such an indecisive opinion on where you would use them and how you would use them? I cannot help but feel you're collecting a title to separate yourself from the "crowd" and the answer to Q3 and Q7 were leaving much to be desired. Many of the other answers do not appear to be well thought out or even the RFA. I would be more than happy to support your RFA in the future once you have gained some experience in 'administrative' areas and to find out if you'd actually be conducting mop and bucket activities. Mkdw^talk 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    In a very recent successful RFA, the candidate stated ...My primary reason for becoming an administrator is to give me something to work on while I am between article ideas... And that candidate appeared to have even lesser experience in administrative areas. I think it is better that the candidate does not have any specific areas in mind to work on. Admins are supposed to have a disinterested, judge-like attitude to their tasks and having a specific area in mind could be an indication that they will not approach the area in a disinterested manner. So, it may be better that they want to improve the pedia generally and do not have any specific area in mind. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    Followed immediately by this sentence, "If I am successful I intend to cruise the CSD and PROD nomination categories, familiarize myself more with RFPP, and keep an eye on AIV". Also, I always hesitate to compare editors or make the argument if that this person was granted the tools so another and completely different person should also receive them. While I understand you've singled out the argument, the other editor had thought well about the process and answered their questions clearly, concisely, and made it abundantly apparent as to 'why adminship now'. Mkdw^talk 05:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

24. Oppose For the record, I've only had pleasant experiences interacting with Buster, but I'm not really keen on supporting the request here. The responses to Q1 and Q6 do not advance a compelling case that Buster, as an administrator, would be able to more effectively edit or allow others to edit. Q2 does not demonstrate strong content contributions, and the essays are not well organized, lack a clear message, and are difficult to read. Q3 requires concrete details of conflict because it's something any experienced editor encounters and must deal with. The response to Q4 is shaky-- WP:CIR blocks should only be issued in "extreme cases" (it is not clear what kind of situation this would be) but then Buster steps back saying he would never block for WP:CIR. There are concerns with other questions, and so I'd encourage Buster to reflect on this RfA to consider some of what has been said from those opposing, decide whether he needs to be an administrator, and if so, dedicate effort toward areas he is interested that are related to adminship. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
25. Oppose - I feel the answers to the RFA questions are quite poor, and in my opinion this shows that he may have not fully thought out what he would do with the administrator tools, or that he would be effective with them. Sorry. (Previous comments: "with what I perceive as a lack of maturity causes me to think that the candidate is not ready at this stage to be an admin. Sorry. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)) - My "lack of maturity" comment was made as I looked at the responses to the questions and to me it showed that Buster may not have thought through this completely. It was not meant as an attack on the candidates personality, and I apologise if it appears that way. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    A look at Buster7's userpage shows this this perceived "lack of maturity" to be wildly misplaced. Unless he's lying about who he is, which would be par for the course on Wikipedia, but I see no red flags here. Juxtapose this with the purported "maturity" of teenaged administrators running Wikipedia from IRC, and 23 year olds running WMF chapters and we're well into Bizarro World territory. I opposed this RfA, but this is a remarkably self-unaware and hypocritical reason to do so. A priori, I would trust his judgment above yours.24.19.234.62 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    @Steven Zhang: - that does seem a very poor choice of unexplained adjective, and should probably have been avoided altogether for this User. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    In defense of Steven's vote, he based his decision on Buster's answers to the questions on this page and perhaps on Buster's behavior on other pages. He is under no obligation to know Buster's age or how many grandkids he has. An accusation of hypocrisy is a failure to Assume Good Faith. And not knowing Buster's age is not "self-unawareness". --IP108VA (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    Age and maturity are very different things. (This is not a comment on Buster, just generally.) --Stfg (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    Please see my comments above. I have amended my vote to clarify my intent. I rarely if ever oppose, so I apologise if my intent was not accurately conveyed in my words. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

26. Oppose - Sorry but your answer to question 8 has told me that you still have a bit to learn about the difference between an indef block and a siteban. Both CAN and most commonly have been imposed by the community via consensus. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    Since the candidate has already said he has no intention of using the blockck/unblock buttons for the foreseeable future, is it relevant if his current knowledge of policy about them is imperfect? If you've seen something in Buster's editing history that gives cause for concern then that would be good grounds for an oppose. But the reason why questions such as on the block unblock policy are not in the standard set is so that people can tailor the questions to the candidate. If they have recently shown poor judgement then that is a relevant thing to bring up at RFA. If they lack knowledge of a policy area that is relevant to the area of adminship that they intend to work in then that is arguably worth highlighting in the RFA and making sure that they learn it. But what relevance is it for someone who doesn't intend to block or unblock anyone to be fully conversant with thee policy on blocks and bans? ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    I don't know about you but I expect admins to have a sound understanding of ALL policy areas regardless of what they may or may not do! I thought it was one of those things that comes with the job and if you do not have a sound understanding of policy then you don't get the job! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    I expect to see a good understanding of policy in those areas where a candidate is currently active or where they feel ready to use the tools. But the role is so diverse that no I don't expect people to understand all policy areas. For example I have never closed an RFC, never got involved in file deletions or edited the spam filter, and whilst I've submitted a few DYKs I've never worked in that area as an admin. So there are many policies that I don't know, and I suspect the same apples to most if not all admins. Remember this is not a job but a volunteer role, though frankly if it was a job I suspect people would specialise and no-one would be expected to know all policies. Worse still if this turned into some sort of policy exam where every candidate was expected to know every policy; It would distract from the important side of RFA - checking the candidate's contributions and seeing if they have what it takes to be an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 15:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    Well you obviously have less stringent requirements for giving editors the "demi-god" buttons than I do! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    Not less stringent, I've opposed where there was over 90% support before now. But I focus on judgement and you are focussing on policy. I can't remember an admin being desysopped for lack of policy knowledge in an area they don't work in. But I've seen someone with over 95% support in their RFA have to be desysopped. If I'd been in the 95% rather than the 5% I'd be wondering how they got through RFA and what one should look out for in future. ϢereSpielChequers 07:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

27. Oppose The response to question 1 suggests to me this editor is not yet ready. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    If I might ask, how so? Go Phightins! 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

28. Oppose Strong oppose. You were building your answers to Qs in the Civility Questionaire just fine, then decided to withdraw because another user (was it Collect!?) was also participating in the survey?! [7] That seems immature and even irrational to me, sorry. (If I've misinterpreted, please correct me. Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry for the delay in responing. By the time of that survey I had firmly established a governing rule for myself that if Collect showed up anywhere I was working I would leave. Perhaps not completing the survey was an over-response. But, at that time, I was more concerned with my “Editing Wikipedia Pleasure Ratio”. Collect seemed to show up wherever I went. If I went to the help desk to ask a question, within minutes, in spite of our animosity, would be the one to answer. If I started a thread at one of the Newt Gingrich articles, Collect would appear and mis-guide the direction of it. BTW: Somewhere, early in your career here, you and I conversed and I advised that you not to kick a hornet’s nest . . . that you should walk away from a conflict that was not getting resolved. I don’t think the manner in which I achieve peacefulness and harmony at WP or in real life is a maturity issue.```Buster Seven Talk 19:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    No response would have been better I think Buster, since I was only looking if I'd misinterpreted anything, and it is clear that I didn't (your withdrawl was based on Collect's participation in the survey). As long as you've responded with multiple stuff I didn't ask for, here we go ... I don't see how Collect's participation in the Civility Questionaire makes a "hornet's nest" for you to "walk away from". (Did you anticipate he might interact w/ you there? No, that's not how the Questionaire was structured at all. And if he did initiate interaction with you at that location, *then* there might be a basis for qualifying it with descriptor "hornet's nest" or "conflict".) You wrote "Perhaps [...] was an over-response". After thinking about it for your reply here, you weren't able to determine if you exhibited overreaction or not by quitting that survey abruptly for the reason you did?! Also, you've elevated my criticism of your level of maturity and even rationality in the decision and action you took, to questioning "the manner in which [you] achieve peacefulness and harmony at WP or in real life". Gosh. (Is that the kind of unnecessarily blow-up-out-of-proportion argument we're to expect from you as an admin in disagreements and discussion?! I wasn't attacking your life philosophy for Christ's sake.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

29. Strong Oppose. Oh, wow, where to even start... (1) Massive unresolved feud with experienced editor Collect, which Buster unimpressively dealt with by "I walked away". Not exactly a sign of healthy conflict-resolution abilities. (2) Q1, refusal to block anyone as an admin. While some admins use the block tools more than others, it's a vital part of the responsibilities of an admin, and I'm highly wary of a user who straight-up says they won't use it. I wouldn't elect a sheriff who refused to arrest anyone or a judge who refused to ever hand down guilty verdicts either. (3) Is one of the editors responsible for the misguided "Editor of the Week" sideshow. (4) Downright bizarre userspace comment about "Females/Girls/Your Mom" (etc.) pointed out by Jebus989. Has been toned down but still one for the WTF file. (5) Strange obsession with "civility", as outlined in their rambling essay, which is at best out of step with community practice and at worst shows hints that Buster, armed with admin tools, would be a civility warrior. Just about the last thing Wikipedia needs, in other words. (6) Per the diff provided by Collect. Finger-wagging at other editors for their supposed 'incivility' whilst tossing out over-the-top personal insults like "psychopathic schizophrnic" [sic] reveals the absolute worst, most poisonous type of editor: the hypocrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    By your logic, would a person who's been obese be a hypocrite for advocating a healthy diet? The Collect diff happened after extreme attacks on Busters friend, and he still retracted it very soon after making it. Buster values civility, but he doesnt advocate harsh sanctions for folk who have occasional lapses. No sensible person can call him a hypocrite. Id suggest its your kind of harsh judgments, reading the absolute worst into the actions of a good editor, that are the last thing we need here. They make folk not want to edit. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    We have a couple of hundred admins who have never blocked anyone, some of those have done thousands, one over 17,000 admin actions. I could understand opposing someone because you thought they'd misuse an aspect of adminship, but it is usually counted a positive if a candidate says they will start out using an area of the tools where they have relevant experience and be very cautious about branching out into other areas. ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    Wikipedia definitely has a civility problem. Civility is lacking in general, and when it is cited it is often used as a bludgeon in content disputes, or enforced unevenly, with administrators self-exempting. It would be nice to have an administrator who recognizes this as a problem, one that has kept away good editors. Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

30. Oppose. Much as I respect the nominators and the supporters, I must oppose. I'll assume that Buster is as nice as people say he is (I don't recall any personal contact with him), but his answers to the questions demonstrate major misunderstandings of policies and guidelines. If it were just one instance, I wouldn't care, but it appears to be pervasive. Also, even if he's unfamiliar with a policy before this RfA, he has an opportunity to study the policy before answering the question, and yet he still comes up with flawed responses. I'm sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
31. Oppose Sorry but I feel unable to support the candidate this time, although would still like to wish a (belated) happy birthday! I'm unconvinced by the need for the tools, with reference to the answer to q10, and I also share BDD's thoughts on civility. Regarding content work, if Lincoln Park Conservatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) represents showcase article space contributions, this dates from November 2009 and would benefit from further work now that the candidate has improved content contribution skills and knowledge. Perhaps a further peer review for the article could be requested. -- Trevj (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
32. Oppose I see a lack of attention to detail that I find rather troubling, especially when coupled with a lack of experience in admin-related areas. For example, I found instances of Buster7 welcoming editors whose sole contributions were vandalism, without either commenting on or reverting that vandalism. The essays that are supposed to be among Buster7's best work seemed rather rambling to me, and I wonder whether Buster7 really wants to use the Teutonic Knights, as portrayed by Eisenstein, as a model of editor conduct. Then there's the civility issue. I certainly agree that editor retention and civility are important, but I doubt describing other editors as villains is the appropriate means towards that end, nor is dancing on the graves of retiring editors. Huon (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
33. Oppose In the last 6 months I see 1 help desk participation, no activity at AfC, and that the principal interaction with new editors has been leaving them standardized form welcome notices. I see a great deal of discussion about how to help new people here, and almost no activity in actually doing it. I suggest the candidate put less effort into developing new complicated procedure like EoW, and use his good intentions and good ideas to actually effect some improvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Leaning support, but I'd like to see Buster's comments on Collect's !vote beforehand. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my answer to Q3. If my RfA hinges on not responding to Editor Collect, so be it! ```Buster Seven Talk 18:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral moved to oppose I am unclear in what giving this editor the sysop tools would accomplish as all the areas listed in Q1 do not require them. Mkdw^talk 21:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, don't you believe that a little humility is helpful in a new administrator? He wants to learn the job. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, I've always believed humility as being one of many qualities those interested in 'service' should embody. I'm not entirely sure the point you're trying to raise as my concerns are not based around whether this candidate has that quality or not. Nor do I have issues with his willingness to learn the job. The expanded rationale for my oppose is above in the oppose section which outlines concerns over thoughtfulness and motivation behind this step in his activities. I would also like to point out that indecisiveness and humility do not go hand in hand. Mkdw^talk 22:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral _{misunderstanding now resolved} I'm uncomfortable with the banner the user has placed on their user page stating: Always Assume That Ladies/Women/Females/Girls/Your Mom Are Present. Discourteous behavior will not be tolerated even if not directed toward them.. I'm not sure bold exclamation of what appears to be an antiquated "fairer sex" attitude aligns with Wikimedia's mission to address deep-seated issue of gender bias amongst editors; gender should really be irrelevant, particularly to someone welcoming new users and working at the teahouse. This doesn't necessarily preclude my support for adminship but shall stay neutral for now Jebus989^✰ 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The banner has nothing to do with the any "fairer sex attitude". It has to do with a solution to the Civility problem. Most men aren't crude, rude, or lewd in front of their Mother. How do we get editors to stop agitating each other with cursing and aggressive words? It's just an idea. So far its working ...on my talk page, at least.```Buster Seven Talk 21:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If you'd just said "don't say what you wouldn't say in front of your mother" it would be fine, I suppose, but you specifically mention any female (or lady, girl, woman). In my experience it doesn't seem that Wikipedia has any endemic problem with swearing or aggression—we are building an encyclopaedia afterall, it's not quite that exciting. Maybe you could remove the 4 other gender-specific terms to address this concern? Jebus989^✰ 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia suffers from a lot of civility problems. Even if we were not, I'd be incredibly disappointed to find someone taking exception to a notice that requests others to be courteous. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ive made the change Editor Jebus suggested. I think it clarifies the message. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You spectacularly miss my point AutomaticStrikeout, I'm not starting a campaign against requests for courtesy, just expressing my discomfort with what could possibly be construed as sexist undertones ("even if it's not directed at females! Good heavens!") but Buster has now clarified the intention and resolved my concern Jebus989^✰ 22:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I understood your point quite clearly. I don't see Buster's note as having been sexist, but we might as well agree to disagree. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, just somewhat strange of you to reply with an unrelated strawman argument if that was the case. In fact it's now resolved (and marked as such) so agreement or lack thereof isn't necessary Jebus989^✰ 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Meh.Moved to oppose. I'm rather unimpressed by the answer to Q1. The only one of the tasks listed that requires the tools is "intervention against persistent vandals", and how that's to be done without blocking them remains a mystery to me. Huon (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I see, so....in other words, trying to educate the editor as to our policies and guidelines on vandalism and attempting to rescue the editors to retain them as productive volunteers is a mystery to you? The idea of a heavy trigger finger on the block button is still the default answer to almost everything. it shouldn't be.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that the one task I thought would involve the tools doesn't actually do so (at least not for Buster7), and that none of the "administrative work" Buster7 intends to take part in actually requires him to be an administrator? If that were so, he would have completely misunderstood the first question. Also, trying to reform persistent vandals into productive editors is fine, but not at the expense of letting them run wild during the attempt. If Buster7 has managed to talk persistent vandals into becoming productive editors, I'd like to see an example. Huon (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I would send them this and I would continue to challenge them to be a productive editor instead of a vandal. Have I? Maybe half a dozen times. Was I successful? I don't know. I didn't take a survey. But, maybe the next time they came to "graffiti" an article they thought twice. How do we measure that possibility? ```Buster Seven Talk 02:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

First off, that one task does not require tools unless, as I said, you are a trigger happy admin who blocks immediately and does not attempt to engage the editor first. Sorry Houn, There is absolutely nothing on Wikipedia that has ever, or will EVER require anyone become an administrator on Wikipedia. Letting them run wild? I see....from one extreme to the other. If you want an example, first tell me why that is required. It isn't about retaining every single editor, its about the honest attempt to retain" the editor instead of just rubber stamping a block.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Neutral Tough call here. I'm satisfied that he doesn't intend to get involved in civility blocks. I'm troubled that he would change the banner on his page to get Jebus' vote, especially since the notion that chivalrous behavior is somehow disrespectful to women is one of the most outlandish ideas I've ever heard. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   I didn't change it to get his vote. I changed it because it was good advice. When you get good advice, you don't respond? ```Buster Seven Talk 05:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Per your response, I've stricken that part of my statement. I'm still troubled that you found that to be "good advice". Joefromrandb (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Please don't misrepresent what I said, it was really a straightforward issue of phrasing which has since been resolved. This is not the place for discussion of gender equality issues Jebus989^✰ 09:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   I didn't misrepresent anything you said. Yes, it is indeed "a straightforward issue". No, it has not been "resolved". And you are misrepresenting me if you think I'm here to discuss "gender equality issues". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning oppose. What on earth is going on with that Sam Spade, Private Detective page? The organization is disjointed, and missing signatures obscure who said what. Some of the sections are incomprehensible, and the first section is... something bad Buster7 himself said? I can't quite tell. I seriously hope this isn't the explanation promised regarding the Collect dispute. At least until I get some answers about this page, I can't support. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   • I too would like an explanation about what's going on on that page. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Looks pretty much like notes to himself. Has he made a comment here that would lead anyone to think these notes might have been promised as an explanation of anything? Has he even directed our attention to the page? Maybe I missed it. Writegeist (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   More or less its just a notepad...a closet...a pile of papers over in the corner of the room. A way to remember a series of attempts at reconciliation w/ Collect. The second entry [8] explains that I discovered the Sam Spade innocent quote was prominently displayed as the lead on Collect's talk page. I kindly and repeatedly asked him to remove it. he repeatedly refused. It went on for a few days till I decided to drop it. The more detailed draft of the explanation is on my talk page. I may or may not continue working on it. Most of the rest are notes in case I was going to a Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention.```Buster Seven Talk 20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   The page was started well less than a year ago (in November 2012, and not back in 2008 or 2009), and well after B7 "found religion" about treating other editors civilly, and not threatening to "out" them in any way (as his "detective work" implies). Cheers. BTW [9] on 5 November (a day before you started you "investigating Collect" page, did not ask for the quote to be removed - you asked that I specifically credit you with the quote. On 9 November [10] you stated that using the quote was "plagiarism" and implied that you would complain that I plagiarized you <g>. But that was after you started the problematic page which you apparentlyt stood behind at the date you created it - in November 2012. Collect (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Get your facts straight. See [[11]] at the thread titled "Strangers in a Strange Land", dated 15 October 2008. Editor Factchecker archived the page in July of 2009. The Sam Spade page was a way to save it. Otherwise I would forget where it was. I only needed to save its source because you had it as a billboard on your talk page```Buster Seven Talk 20:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   Are you saying I lied about the date you started the Sam Spade page? That Wikipedia somehow messed up on the date you placed it in your own userspace with your comments? Less than a year ago you did it, and insist you reformed years ago -- the R-41 "psychopathic schizophrenic" comment is not an exception to Wikipedia civility rules last I checked, and was only back in April 2013. How deep do you wish to dig? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

   The initial comments Buster7 copied to his own talk page under the "Sam Spade" page were originally posted 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC), at the link he provided above. What about this is hard for you to understand? Edison (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

   Reposting an attack/threat on a new page in his own userspace is what counts. If he had any sense, he would not have reposted an attack/threat and added comments but let it stay in the netherworld. I did not link his name from my talk page for a very good reason - it was not an attack on him, but an "attack" on faux civility. Is this hard to understand? If editor A attacked Editor B back in 2008, that would be of little value. Iterating the attack in 2012 is, however, indicative of an unwillingness to let things go, and I did not link to the dozens of snide asides he made from 2008 to 2013 in his posts to, inter alia, Writegeist. I think anyone tracking their interactions on their talk pages would note that they each make repeated snide comments about me which I scrupulously ignored. (FWIW - I am the "Dave" they frequently refer to). Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

   ... and now the page has been deleted. Great. Sorry, I'm just not getting a good feeling about this. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral but leaning Support. I've not had much experience with Buster7, but back in 2010 he made a couple of helpful comments to me when I was having a hard time so I'm confused now about this psychopathic schizophrenic comment. It doesn't seem like something he'd normally say. Changing to Support. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Neutral for now; A#11 is puzzling, perhaps a non sequitur - did the candidate understand the question, or am I misreading the answer? Concerns are raised here, but the candidate seems to mean well. I'm concerned about level of maturity and understanding (competence). Handing a sharp tool to a confused person, no matter how well-meaning, can be a net negative. -- Scray (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

   My understanding of it is that Buster answered the question (to give an example of IAR) by saying when the AGF "rule" could be ignored. --Stfg (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, I think you're right; nonetheless, I'm leaning toward oppose. As an editor the candidate is an asset and I would not want them to take an unsuccessful RFA as criticism of the work they've done taken as a whole, because it's not. The mop is not a big deal when wielded properly; I'm worried that this candidate isn't prepared to wield it properly. -- Scray (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

   Given the strident comments on other !votes that invoke the term "maturity", I want to clarify that (especially on WP) maturity is not measured in years but in the clarity and succinctness of one's responses. I don't know or care how old the candidate is (yes, I can read - I'm just being consistent in applying our standards). -- Scray (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

   That's an unusual measure of maturity. Succinctness in particular is a quality that can decline once one hits about 50, sometimes earlier. The umbrella term maturity is more commonly considered to include qualities like emotional control; good regulation of the ego; the wisdom to recognize lost causes, and to see where one can make a difference. All qualities that editor Buster has in abundance. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

   This medium, in which our only means of interaction is written, imposes limits on what we can construe. Maturity, on WP, is inseparable from its written expression, and I would describe a mature writer/editor as clear and succinct. I have no idea how this varies with age, nor is that germane here. Emotional control, regulation of the ego, and wisdom will contribute to clarity and succinctness, so I think we're not disagreeing on the fundamentals. In this specific instance, though, we clearly disagree. -- Scray (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

   "Clarity and succinctness" describe writing ability, which is independent of maturity. (Proof: Give me a written statement you think demonstrates immaturity. I'll copyedit it without changing the meaning, making it clear and succinct.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

   I did not say clarity and succinctness were equal to maturity, just necessary for its expression here on WP. I think this discussion has gone far enough - I've expressed why I'm neutral (though a very productive editor, I'm not sure that providing the bit will be an asset for the project). -- Scray (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

3. Neutral: On one hand of things you have that he's got the right attitude for the sysop tools, on the other hand you've got that he lacks experience in areas where admin tools would most commonly be used. (AIV yes but what about UAA and RFPP besides others?) MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

   Hi MM, I am not sure it is entirely fair to say "where admin tools would most commonly be used" as that varies from admin to admin. Maybe those are areas where many of our administrators most commonly use their tools, but not for Buster, who expresses interest in having them and learning more with how to use those he isn't familiar with yet. Knowing Buster, he isn't going to delve into an area where he doesn't feel 100% comfortable. Go Phightins! 20:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

4. Neutral: with strong moral support. Hesitancy to block doesn't bother me, I'm glad to see new admins err on the cautious side. Paucity of AfD votes not a problem for me either, it's not everyone's cup of tea. Buster7 has done tons of good work that makes Wikipedia a better place. Apology at Jasper Deng's oppose is impressive to me. I am not in the support section because I can't get past the answer to question 3. No problem you've had a conflict with another editor, but what did you learn from it, and how could you handle better in the future? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

   The conflict mentioned in Q3 extended over a long period of time and many varied locations. From my vantage point, the editor was stalking me. The conflict was effecting my health in real life. I am not going to relive it here by searching for incidents and diffs. I'm sure Collect sees it differently. What I learned is that if the things that happen to me here, at WP, start to "leak" into my real life, I need to disconnect from those things. To the best of my recollection I extended my hand in an effort to end the adversity and it was rejected. I'm not sure I handled it poorly, considering everything. I could have handled it differently, sure, but that's for others to decide. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

5. Neutral: Someone who wants admin tools has usually identified a clear area where they would be most useful and can demonstrate what they have done competently in those areas right up to the limit of not having the tools to complete the tasks; however I don't really see that here. I'm not confusing this with the sometimes perceived requirement to prove a need for the tools, but the answers to some of the questions are sufficient to give me pause. On the other hand, I can't find anything sufficiently egregious for me to want to oppose, so I'll stay here in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Neutral from weak oppose After revisiting this request, and reviewing the support comments, I think an oppose is not quite where I should be. I can't support at this time, per the reasons outlined in my prior opposition statement and other comments (in particular DGG's). I hope the candidate will take the feedback from this RFA and I look forward to a more succesful outcome in perhaps six months. Pedro :  Chat  09:21, 13 August 2013 (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.