Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Buster7

"two sides"

While I obviously have my own opinions, it is clear that B7 not only has held a grudge against me since his ARS days, but continues to do so. The RfC/U on me was started by renowned Ikip who canvassed 14 members of ARS and any who had disagreements with me over the years. The actual genesis of the dispute was my support of deletion of a large number of possible "bilateral relations of (two countries)" following which Ikip/Travb/Inclusionist/socks stated he would hound me off of Wikipedia. He darn near succeeded. Those who happened on the RfC/U, other than the canvassed editors, generally did not see any culpability on my part. Several of those involved have since been exposed as sock puppeteers, and banned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that most editors I have interacted with have found me to be a vigilant supporter of WP:BLP, even if they sometimes thought I must have some sort of "enemies list". (See User:Collect/BLP to see the opinions of one of those erstwhile ARS members) I would note that such is a small number - as I keep no such list, and have never kept such a list. In the case at hand, I suggest that B7, whose primary contribution to Wikipedia is making vast numbers of edits to a handful of articles, and otherwise being pre-occupied with welcoming new editors with boilerplate, does not have a long and wide-ranging experience with all the facets of the project.

User:Buster7/Wikiknights contains his Weltanschauung about behavior on Wikipedia:

IMPORTANT: Our Purpose must be clear to us BUT NOT necessarily the general WikiPublic. The editor may come and get us and expect us to take sides, preferrably his, but thats not what we do. Our hidden purpose, our secret agenda, is to be a 'cohort' to the GFE. It is not to figure out who is right or wrong. It is not to be a part of Consensus building. Its not to get drawn into the discussion EXCEPT FOR the fact that we will do a read of the History to see if the GFE's original point has been obscurred and he is now in a dog fight over some vague sublety that is far removed from his intended Idea or edit or addition. and so on (He uses "GFE" to mean "Good Faith Editing" but the context here is clear as to his intent)

I trust this is explanatory of my position here. I use the talk page, as I made a fairly simple case using diffs on the main page. Collect (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note User:Writegeist, my very own personal "stalker" if [1] is to be believed, shows up when one look at his own user talk page will show his infatuation with me. I assure everyone that I did not want to give 20 diffs of the irascibility of B7 when 3 would suffice. Nor do I allow that an edit from less than a year ago represents a new user 4 1/2 years ago. Collect (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral section

The numbers here go to 4, but there appears to be only 3 editors currently voting "neutral". Looking at it in "edit mode" I'm not seeing what's causing the problem. Perhaps someone can fix this (or tell me I'm wrong). Joefromrandb (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Indeed, there was a numbering issue and it just takes a little more time to rectify when there are lots of replies to an initial comment. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]