User:Buffs/Sandbox RfA5

This is just a draft and notes on what happened in the last RfA. Even the comments are not final as I reserve the right to change my mind, learn new things, better phrase my comments, etc. Learning is a constant job!

BQZip01[edit]

Final (75/38/10); Ended 01:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC) – closed as no consensus by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Three flips from oppose to support + 3 indef blocks of users (1 support/2 oppose): 77/33/10 as of 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

BQZip01 (talk · contribs)

Previous Co-noms

As an editor who witnessed first hand his ability to encourage improvement and participation of "newer" editors, I an honored to nominate BQZip01 for adminship here on Wikipedia. He first hit these pages in early 2007 and since then has accumulated over 13,000 edits and, as was noted at his last RFAs, has worked on several Featured Articles and garnered a decent number of accolades. Following on his first requests for adminship I believe he has continued to improve and become an even better editor... one who continues making terrific contributions to the project. He has roll-back rights, which shows the trust of his peers. He is a frequent contributor at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and shows understanding of the processes and procedures that keep wiki running smoothly. I was there first-hand for some of the disagreements of last year. No need to rehash, but only note that valuable lessons were learned by all involved which helped us become better editors. BQ's experience and abilities are of tremendous benefit to the entire project. If handed the mop, he will make wiki proud. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by TomStar81: BQZip01 is one of those people you can not help but admire, even if you disagree with him on a matter. Since his arrival to Wikipedia in 2007 BQZip01 has learned the ropes very quickly, and he also strives to learn from past mistakes. His activity in the files for deletion process is a blessing, and his well thought out rationals behind a support or oppose position are a much needed yet often absent point of our encyclopedia. He was trusted enough to gain rollback rights in January 2008, and I was and remain grateful for his input during the Illinois affair (the FAC and subsequent afd for USS Illinois (BB-65)) a little over a year ago. Beyond his contributions to the FFD process BQ has eight featured articles and one good article under his belt, which demonstrates a clear understanding of the article improvement process, and I can not remember a time when he was not polite to others; even in instances in which BQZip01 and I have disagreed on a matter he has always stood firmly and fairly to his position. When all of these qualities are combined, I believe that Wikipedia will have an outstanding administrator in BQZip01, and I therefore offer this co-nomination for BQzip01. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Co-nomination by Henrik: I'm not one of those people who think adminship is no big deal: It's no privilege, but a great deal of responsibility. I first encountered BQZip01 over at a long past disagreement back in 2007 at one of those hot political topics of the day. Neither I nor him were at the center of the conflict, but at the time, I thought him to be a good example of the kind of person I would not like to an administrator: Somewhat argumentative with a bit of a temper. I even watchlisted his future RfA, making a mental note to oppose. It seems it had slipped my mind by the time he got around to running, so I never did. But I have kept watching his contributions occasionally over the months and years that have passed. Over time, I realized that my initial judgment was hasty: BQZip has matured into a very good Wikipedian, calm, thoughtful and deliberative and one that has definitely learned from his earlier mistakes. In addition to his featured articles, he does a lot of impressive work in deletion discussions, and has given time to help a troubled new user which was my second direct encounter with BQZip where he left a very pleasant impression when he was not only helpful but also gracefully bowed to consensus. It's time. People grow. Let's give him the mop already. henrik•talk 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination — BQZip01 — ^talk

Optional Statement by nominee[edit]

Personal beliefs:

An Admin's job is to twofold: be an example of what to do/what not to do to aid civil discussion even under extreme pressure/and to appropriately apply policy to the use of technical features not generally available to the general user. You don't have to agree with anyone to trust and support them for adminship. Your views and a nominee's views may not line up on flagged revisions, Christianity, or nationalism, but that's of little importance. An individual's !vote with regards to changes in policy is the same whether or not that person is an admin, bureaucrat, steward, etc. A person's political or religious views have nothing to do with their ability to apply Wikipedia policy/guidelines appropriately. Should I be appointed an admin through consensus, I will continue to voice my opinions on controversial subjects, but despite those opinions, I'll appropriately apply policy with regards to situations that arise on Wikipedia. I am well-versed in this odd dichotomy as I am in the U.S. military; there are policies which I do not support, but as a "good soldier" I enforce them without prejudice/preference. Though I may vote for or against my commander-in-chief in any given election, I am bound to follow his orders and, unless illegal, I am legally/morally bound to do so. This is the same position I view admins: policy and consensus are their commanders-in-chief; while I might not agree with the outcome, I will abide by and enforce policies/consensus.
I agree that nationalism, fringe groups and corporations are problems on Wikipedia, but resorting to name-calling, driving away users/contributors strictly because of their views, and other uncivil acts show that our rules of conduct only apply to newcomers, when in reality, they apply to everyone. That means if tendentious editing is a problem, uninvolved admins should step in and prevent an onslaught.
Should I be appointed an admin, I will abide by consensus. If my opinion doesn't line up with what is stated, I will not take unilateral action against consensus. Rather, I will simply express my opinion and allow another administrator make the call. While, at heart, I generally lean towards keeping things within Wikipedia rather than delete (in discussions which result in no consensus or an ambiguous conclusion), that doesn't mean it overrides consensus. Majority does not rule on Wikipedia and a single dissenting opinion with appropriate logic can override others with ill-founded logic. That said, stuff on Wikipedia needs to have a purpose within an encyclopedia (or at least on a user page). If it has no use, then it needs to go. Copyrighted materials need to be appropriately used in accordance with Fair Use and WP policies/guidelines or removed. If you'll look at my contributions at WP:FFD, you'll find quite a few examples to better illustrate this point.
Just because something hasn't been done in a certain way before doesn't mean someone is wrong to do something non-standard. If something needs to be standard, then it needs to have consensus-support and be appropriately codified in a policy or guideline. It is inappropriate to malign/chastise someone because they have done something non-standard. Effectively "We don't do it that way" with no policy or guideline to back it up can result in a conflict and should be avoided. Such actions should be brought up on the related talk page and, if consensus decides that the particular method chosen can/shouldn't be used, then it should be permitted/removed (respectively). Care should be taken when referring to recent changes in policy as a devoted minority may, for a short time, change a policy without or counter to consensus.
Policies and guidelines are crafted slowly over time and are the "rules" by which content is kept in check on Wikipedia. Doing something that is explicitly in accordance with one of these policies/guidelines and then quoting the appropriate reason you did such an action is inherently appropriate. It is not "wikilawyering"; it is following the procedures/content rules of Wikipedia. If the rules need to be changed, then change them. If clarification is needed, then clarification needs to be added. Common sense dictates that not every situation should be expounded upon in-depth, but common sense is not common and policies/guidelines should be spelled out as much as possible to prevent problems down the road.
This is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. That means that semi-protection and full protection should be used as little as possible. In general, IP users should be able to contribute to the encyclopedia without registering for an account as much as is reasonably possible.
People should be held accountable for their actions and there are certain kinds of behavior that shouldn't be condoned, no matter who it is that is contributing. I will oppose that kind of behavior if made an admin. That said, We are all humans here (except the bots...and those are controlled by humans...in general...) and everyone makes mistakes. Those Wikipedians in good standing, if genuinely remorseful, should not have things held against them long-term and don't need to be desysoped or indef blocked unless there is a serious, long-term problem. We type things we don't exactly mean and the lack of specificity in the English language doesn't help; if there is a misunderstanding, clarification is always welcome. In short, I don't hold grudges and neither should anyone else. However, some people do things that warrant removal from Wikipedia altogether and consensus bans from the site should be upheld barring exceptional circumstances. If someone recants and genuinely refutes poor behavior, we should forgive them and let bygones be bygones.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

All questions seem appropriately answered (subject to later review)

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

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

A: I intend to work in the XfD arena where I will close discussions that are already complete and act upon the WP:CONSENSUS obtained while appropriately applying policy. Specifically, there seems to be a perpetual backlog in WP:FfD (though that seems to ebb and flow sporadically) & I intend to clear that out as necessary; this is not to say I will use such tools to take any arbitrary action, only that which is in accordance with policy (on a related note, 99% of my feedback since in WP:FFD has been implemented, so at least I'm "on board" with other admins). On top of that, I'll work on other backlogs as needed on other XfD pages.

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

A: I feel my best contributions to Wikipedia are within the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and Aggie Bonfire articles and helping User:MichaelQSchmidt understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Both articles were promoted to featured article status and featured on the main page. User:MichaelQSchmidt was an interesting case-study in WP:AGF and the importance of mentorship. Mr. Schmidt is an actor in Hollywood whose publicist put some stuff on Wikipedia without his direct knowledge. This led to tension due to WP:COI and WP:OWN...and the publicist wasn't exactly the most tactful in his discussions. I arrived in the midst of the discussion at about the same time Mr. Schmidt did. I tried to diffuse the situation by explaining the rules, and at the time Mr. Schmdit felt unhappy that the article was even on Wikipedia. I explained to him that notability of the person is what determined placement on Wikipedia, not the quality of the work, nor the editor who placed it there, and certainly not the wishes of the subject. Once the situation settled down I went through the article line-by-line and beefed up/tweaked it until it met our standards. It wasn't a long article, but it was adequate and appropriate. I stuck with Mr. Schmidt, despite continued problems, because I recognized his intent to "do the right thing" even if he didn't understand Wikipedia policy. To date, the article about Mr. Schmidt has survived 3 AFDs with the last being a "snow Keep". But what is more important is that he has taken the situation to heart and is now becoming a serious force in the art of rescuing articles on Wikipedia, He is also now a respected editor who himself now shares guidance. This is my personal keynote experience on Wikipedia for WP:AGF and I am extremely glad I helped him out as he has become a significant asset to Wikipedia.

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: I have been involved in conflicts in the past and stress certainly lends itself to anything where you are trying to reach an objective (such as improving an article). I intend to deal with conflicts in one of two ways:

Ignore it. Ignoring senseless vandalism and just fixing it often takes care of the problem.
Confront it if it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Should I personally be involved in a disagreement, I will not use admin rights to block a user and will submit it to the appropriate page for community feedback and let another administrator make that sort of determination.

3a. What about User:Cumulus Clouds?

A:I have had a significant dispute with this user (now deceased and account inactivated). First let me state that I am sorry for his loss and have no desire to malign the deceased, however, the impact of such a dispute between myself and this individual was an impact in my previous RfA and I think it bears mentioning here. Short version: Per ArbCom, removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. With this guidance, I felt that his repeated removal of such sources, changing what sources stated, twisting/intentionally misquoting what I said to vilify me, etc. were disruptive to Wikipedia. His tendentious/disruptive edits generally ceased shortly after the RfC and seeing that was all I ever wanted, I consider this a closed subject. However, I should have reacted better, I wish I could have that chance again. I acknowledge my part in the drama and pledge to avoid such problems in the future.

3b. Any other issues we should know about?

A: In the interests of full disclosure...

Another indefinite-blocked user has decided to use this situation with CC as a personal rallying cry to protest his indef block (done at my request) and has left death threats, accusations of murder, and other inflammatory, insulting, demeaning, and inappropriate nonsense on my talk/user pages, bypassed semi-protection by creating new accounts with benign edit histories...and then repeating the same disruptive behavior. As stated above, removal of such information (these comments did require Oversight involvement) and simply ignoring it for the most part seems to have avoided any serious drama.
Lastly, User:SandyGeorgia and I had a dispute in the past (like a year and a half ago). Whether or not my point was valid, the manner in which I went about only fanned the flames and it actively derailed any useful discussion. I think I've learned from that and haven't repeated such behavior again. I was a young Wikipedian then and I've learned from that experience.

Optional question from Skomorokh

4. Could you give an account, in your own words, of why your previous requests at this venue were unsuccessful, and why editors who opposed in the past ought not to be concerned this time?

A. There are a host of reasons for which the past nominations did not succeed. The first one was mostly due to a misunderstanding (on my part) where my actions were construed as canvassing. After better understanding such policy, I understand how it could have been interpreted that way. The second was a little more complicated, but several socks of a now-indef blocked user, interjected problematic comments/lies. There were also problems with people who felt I hadn't waited long enough. While I disagree with waiting three months to reapply as being a reasonable reason for opposition (an arbitrary, uncodified criteria is not appropriate IMHO), I also understand that the impression given was not positive and certainly understand opposition based on that. Accordingly, I waited to reapply only after waiting a substantial period of time (and only then after being nominated by another user). Lastly, some people felt I was being argumentative when I was trying to be thorough. That can certainly make for long and tendentious reading (if you'd like you can certainly see for yourself in the previous discussions). As I said, my intent was to be thorough, not argumentative; accordingly, I will refrain from responding to any opposition below other than requests for clarification. Additionally, there were disputes between myself and other users that were not resolved and the associated WP:DRAMA, I'm sure, left a bad taste on the palettes of my fellow Wikipedians. All I can say is that I have done everything I can to put those interactions behind me and learn from my mistakes.

I believe those who opposed should not be concerned this time as my demeanor has significantly improved since last time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from Steve Crossin

5. Administrators, on a day-to-day basis, will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form. What past experience do you have in dispute resolution? (MedCab, RFCs.) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A. Upon the request of an admin, I got involved with User:Axmann8 and his interactions on Wikipedia (which had been quite disruptive). I find it quite useful to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they begin contributing to Wikipedia and, despite previous interactions on Wikipedia and openly being a skinhead, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so I did my best to work with him. He quickly backed down from certain confrontations and seemed to better understand our policies, once I showed him (which, considering the vastness of Wikipedia, I think we can all agree that even veterans of Wikipedia may not be aware of certain policies). This new persona seemed to be doing fine for about a week, but, unfortunately, did not last and inappropriate comments by this user were followed by an indefinite block. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions from CIreland

6. It is a common occurence at WP:RFPP that an editor involved in an edit war will make his third revert and then attempt to game the system by quickly making a request for full protection. How would you deal with such a request?

A: I would look at the situation at hand and see what the reversion is. If it is vandalism, I would simply revert it myself and place an appropriate warning on their user page. If it were a short-term dispute on content (such as 3 reverts each), I would encourage all parties to discuss it on the talk page first and decline to protect the page (noting to all parties the implications of WP:3RR). If it is a long-term issue with people gaming the system by repeatedly reverting 3 times and then stopping to avoid a block for WP:3RR or similar situation, I would carefully consider the version of the page which was being temporarily protected erring on the side of neutrality. But it doesn't really stop there. I would then try to do what I can to create a possible solution amicable to all parties by discussing it on the talk page and guiding parties down a more appropriate path of dispute resolution than edit warring. It should also be noted that no matter what version is protected, it will undoubtedly be the the wrong version — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

7. You have said that you would help at WP:FFD. Could you explain or give some examples of what constitutes an "invalid fair-use claim" that would permit deletion using WP:CSD#I7?

A: Absolutely. A copyrighted image of a living person whose prior image does not have any significance. An example of this would be a current sports figure's publicity photo with an inappropriate fair use tag. Additionally, quoting from WP:CSD:

Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately.
Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:rfu}} may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability.
Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.

If further clarification is needed, feel free to ask! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Currently, the BLPs are policed much like any other article (with people simply watching them), but, because of the potential for very real harm (professionally, physically, legally. etc), we must be vigilant and make sure they meet our standards. As long as we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we are going to get the nut jobs, fringe groups, oddballs, etc. that view some individuals with disdain or ridicule. Without protecting pages, there is currently no system by which we can stop such inputs across Wikipedia. That said, we generally do a good job of rapidly fixing inaccuracies and quickly deleting problematic material. The real problem is that Wikipedia is so vast; with 6,826,611 articles, it is becoming increasingly difficult to cover them all. In short, the problem is no more significant than other issues. If someone is hell-bent on writing something malicious, they are going to do it. As soon as they do it, we should remove it and warn them accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I hesitate to provide feedback on a system for which there is not a definition (it is still in the works), so, I'll decline to talk much about flagged revisions other than generalities. I think the idea of protecting articles isn't necessary. If there is a problem, it can be addressed through other means that already exist (revert, page protection, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:RfC, WP:ArbCom, etc.). Patrolled revisions are simply another implementation of flagged revisions. I don't think blanket page protection is the way to go because it takes the discretion from Wikipedians. While situations like the Seigenthaler incident are certainly problems, they are largely isolated problems. All of that taken into account, I will certainly abide by consensus and do what I can to help users understand what the potentially new processes do and how to use them within Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

8c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: As I stated earlier, I am an inclusionist. I believe in keeping the article, in general. That also means that such an article meets other criteria for inclusion. It cannot contain unsubstantiated rumors, demeaning material, etc. Those components should be removed on sight regardless of the status of a keep or delete decision. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

8d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: I'd give consideration to their desires and do what I can to alleviate their concerns, but in the end, it is about what meets our criteria for inclusion. If there are false/unsubstantiated claims, they should be removed. If they are more than simple vandalism ("George Bush eats poop"=simple vandalism; "Johnny Smith killed 14 people in the Springfield Southside Mall"=defamation/slander), consideration should be made to remove such an edit from the edit history. If, after removal of problem material(s), they meet all of our criteria for inclusion, they should be retained as an article on Wikipedia. If problems continue to arise, other venues already exist to fix such problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Significance is in the eye of the beholder. Some people think this speck is pretty significant. Others may view it as a minor point of a much more significant topic. They are both wrong. The question is: Is it notable and can it be verified?

Questions from Rootology

I see allusions and concerns from the edits in this RFA and some of the linked comments, in the opposes, that you may have or do have nationalistic tendencies, toward the United States and it's defense on the encyclopedia. I see you're in the Air Force, and a pilot to boot--I thank you absolutely for your service (and like every AF pilot I meet I'm a little jealous, since my eyesight precluded me from that ;)). However, would you say

9a. Would you describe yourself as a nationalist/nationalistic editor? We typically see this more overtly with "other nations" (especially of late with Eastern Europe and Israeli topics), at least when it's hauled before WP:RFAR and other WP:DR venues, but any such edits in defense of any nation aren't appropriate, since our own love of our nation--I'm sure I love the United States just as much as you do--has to be buried and hidden in the face of WP:NPOV for every single edit we make to the article space, with never a single exception. We all fail from time to time--it's inevitable, but how we trend in this is what matters, and one measure of our worth to this website. The closer we walk the line to love NPOV more than our own nations and homelands, the more valuable we are to this website; the further we walk from NPOV, the more worthless we are, and the more likely we shouldn't even be allowed to edit, let alone be admins.

How would you characterize your editing in this regard, through today? rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A: I would categorize my interests as being focused on things in the US (especially those related to the Air Force and Texas A&M University). However, that doesn't mean we should keep nationalist and nation-centric content if it violates WP:NPOV. Positive things about countries need to be balanced by (appropriate) negative things and they need to be content that would be found in an encyclopedia. That means that, for example, while I believe the F-22 is a superior fighter aircraft to just about everything out there, it doesn't mean we should push that POV. We can point to concrete statistics (thrust-to-weight ratio, ability to supercruise, and others) to show the differences between jets, but personal beliefs are not appropriate as they are WP:OR/WP:POV that isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. (I realize the topic is about nationalistic tendencies, but comparisons between the Raptor, the Eurofighter, and various Russian aircraft have been points of contention for some time on Wikipedia with nationalistic bias on all sides). Everything should be appropriately cited by reliable sources. I concur that the further we walk away from NPOV, the worse we are for Wikipedia. To clarify, I have approximately 100 pilot hours, but I am a navigator, so I don't fly the plane directly...but I do fly and I am in the military. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

9b. If you were confronted with a situation where you found yourself seeing someone adding extremely to utterly negative--but impeccably sourced and 100% WP:BLP compliant--information to a living person such as Barack Obama, John McCain, or about US Government personell--what would you, or wouldn't you do, keeping again in mind that while you're here, for anything you actually "click" or write, our local rules have to take 100% precedence at all times per our internal policies over any commitments, obligations, or views you hold "outside" of Wikipedia? I apologize if this feels like a loaded question--I really don't mean it to be. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A:Ooooooooh. A loaded question. :-P Well, I'll give it a crack. If information is "impeccably sourced and 100% WP:BLP compliant" I would fight to make sure that information was as neutrally phrased as possible, but included. Something can be negative while still neutrally phrased. It also has to pass other content criteria (like is it relevant to the article). As an example, let's say George W. Bush threw out the first pitch at a pro baseball game, but threw the ball so badly the catcher had to pick it up out of the dugout. Baseball article after baseball article is written about the incident for about a week. If someone then insists on adding a paragraph about the event because they think it is meets all BLP criteria (despite sources galore that are critical of him), they are wrong. It is not notable within the context of an Encyclopedia. In short, within the context of Wikipedia, there are different rules as to what I can and cannot do in real life. If there is a potential conflict between the two, I will refrain from getting involved as much as possible. If there is something in which I cannot act due to professional, legal, moral, or other obligations by which I can no longer act as an administrator, I will resign as an admin. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from a dynamic IP editor

10a. One of your nominators actually received an Oppose !vote from you during his RFA. It even sidetracked to being about you for a short period. But what was interesting was that in your Oppose, you actually focused on a technicality, He missed the fact that an IP address 'Hypothetical Situation: Say IP 156.33.0.11' in the question belonged to the US Sentate (I assume he was supposed to run an IP check, as 'US Senate' was stated nowhere in the question) You stated: 'Your lack of knowledge in that area could be a major issue.' So my first question:

Using your own support/oppose criteria, would a technicality, of say not being able to set the scheduled end and time date of your own RFA be a valid reason to Oppose?

A:

10b. Attention to detail in the areas that you want to admin is imperative. You spent over a month drafting your RFA #4 to the point that Your transclusion should have been solid. I was surprised to find that your opening paragraph was from a prior RfA[1].

How can you reassure us that critical work will not be botched up if you were to be entrusted in critical admin matters?

A:

10c. Many remarks from others in this and past RFA's seem to allude to you being self centered, self promoting or not able to understand or care about the views of others. It seems that since RFA #3 your edits have focused on removing this stigma.

Is this a sincere change in your temperament or is the same BQZip01 in there just dying yo get back out? Please use this as an example in your answer.

A:

10d.You have a habit, as seen in this RFA of trying to paint the perfect picture. You have gone back and modified your answers 'for clarity' after the fact, even after others respond to it. This is without the use of strikeout or 'update' statements. Additionally you have been answering the 'difficult' comments on the commenter's talk page instead of here at the RFA. As an Admin, it is of utmost importance to keep discussions easy for all to follow.

Do you feel that your habit in revising your edits and dispersing your answers is an effective method of communication?

A:

10e. Concerning IP Communication on your talk page: There are tools for reverting and oversighting. A candidate for admin should have developed a thick skin, and I believe that page protection is a temporary solution to protect the fragile and the bombarded. I do not see an unmanageable amount of reverted or oversighted edits. Some might say this insistence is the manifestation of the stubbornness, as seen in your many past conflicts. The question is not why to protect, or how bad a vandals comment may sound but:

Why do you feel that you cannot handle the vandalism?

A:

10f. Your 'thank you' notes linking to this RFA, while the RFA is still open, could cause concern that it gives even the appearance of canvassing. Using AGF, the conclusion is that it is not. Given the inevitable possibility for the appearance of an issue:

Why not wait as is standard, for the RFA to close, before sending out such a large amount of communications that link back to here?

A: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.114.188 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with, "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if supported by evidence.", I am declining to answer question 10 in its entirety because they are severely loaded questions and are from an IP address of an indef blocked user/sockpuppeteer. Please note that this individual appears to live in the Washington D.C. area and other comments have been added below from WP:SPAs located in the same area. (clarification: the location of all IP edits and apparently User Accounts come from the same area). That said, I will comment on the questions and some of their content though:

10a.: I indeed did oppose TomStar on his 3rd nomination. My opposition was that he planned to block an IP address without consideration for its status as a sensitive IP address and required follow-on actions. He learned from his mistakes and has become a fine admin. Later he came to me to offer a nomination as an admin.

10b. Insinuating that I somehow was cheating or stacking the deck for an RfA is ludicrous (note the wikilink to cold deck in the "question"). It was a draft, ergo, it was incomplete and I was working on the phrasing/reviewing how best to answer potential questions as TomStar, Franamax, and others advised (and I agreed). Extremely careful consideration of words used in an RfA is important as the slightest thing can be misconstrued. To form this RfA, I copied (almost verbatim) from my previous RfA; Mistakenly, I included comments of another user that were not part of this RfA. Accordingly, I removed them. I cannot guarantee that I will not mess up again; I'm human...but then again, so are all the other admins. Mistakes do happen in Wikipedia, sometimes with colossal consequences, but there is very little that cannot be fixed. If I am of the opinion that, if my view largely differs from others in an XfD debate, I will follow User:Quadell's example and simply comment and allow another administrator to make the call; this way, my opinions are appropriately expressed, yet, I am not taking unilateral action. Furthermore, since I would then be involved, it would also be somewhat improper to delete it (that is a personal view, not a Wikipedia Policy)

10c. If I work on something and they meet the criteria for Featured XYZ status, I'll nominate it. I fail to see anything wrong with making Wikipedia better.

10d. (See initial response)

10e. I'm sorry you feel that page protection is only for the "fragile and the bombarded". Wikipedia policy is that semi-protection is for many other reasons. In short, this whole situation is about a single, determined indef blocked user who has taken it upon themselves to issue death threats and make accusations of serious felonies (murder). I believe that you are this person. Appropriately, such comments were oversighted. Given that this user is creating multiple accounts in multiple locations, making innocuous edits followed by the aforementioned behavior to bypass the block, etc, I believe such protection is appropriate until such a time as such harassment stops.

10f. Thank you notes were issued at the exact same rate as were notes for appreciation for feedback regarding oppose votes (i.e. as soon as I saw them). If I were canvassing, I could hardly do it in a worse manner. Canvassing is "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process...":

It would be quite futile to send a message to inform someone about a community discussion in which they already participated.
I fail to see how saying "thank you" to someone who already supported me can influence anything

So by definition alone, I was not canvassing anyone. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

11. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: I do not believe that Wikipedians have legal rights beyond those given in their host countries. Wikipedia is not a government entity and it does not have the power to grant such rights to anyone. Within Wikipedia, there are things that should be done and we should uphold those standards of behavior. We do so through various means: popular pressure, administrative actions, WP:RfC, WP:ArbCom, etc.

Not so optional extra questions from Rootology

12. What is the deal with this edit to this RFA, and why did you seem to go out of your way to attack an IP editor that asked some fairly 'hard' questions, but not even I don't think as 'hard' as my own could have been? And--especially answer this--what "banned user" is this supposedly, and what is the purpose of pointing out where they appear to live?? rootology (C)(T) 21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A: I believe this particular editor is the same one who has made death threats against myself and accusations of murder, User:TomPhan. This particular user has gone to great lengths to continually harass and defame me. Accordingly, I have no desire to answer loaded questions such as these from a user who has been effectively banned. My point in noting the location of this individual is that it remains constant I am quite confident that a checkuser will eventually prove these issues well beyond a shadow of a doubt. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

13. The IP editor you 'went after' asked specifically about the talk protection, on your talk page. In practice, no admin's talk page should be indefinitely protected, especially if they plan to employ any tools that could require an IP to talk to them. Will you unprotect your talk page if promoted? rootology (C)(T) 21:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A: I'm sorry you feel I "went after" him. I'd also like to clear a few things up. My page is not protected, but semi-protected. The protection policy on Wikipedia states,

User pages and subpages may be semi-protected, but not fully protected, at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption. User talk pages are usually not semi-protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism. Users whose talk page are semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.

I believe I have followed this to a T. My page has a red banner at the top with a wikilink to such a page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up questions from a dynamic IP editor From 10 above

14. for my 10a above, I think you went off on a tangent so I will ask directly:

Are you going to adjust the End stop date and time for your RFA or will you continue to leave it in error and have someone else fix it for you?

A couple of notes: I am a dynamic IP with ISP Comcast in Richmond Va. If you feel I have done something bad in these questions or am tied to threats that you refer to, please contact my ISP. I am sure they will take any corrective action needed. On 'Tough Questions', a word of advice: Sometimes at RFA, people will ask tough questions, not for the textbook answer, but to test the character of the editor. You have answered my questions conserning your character, thank you. 71.62.114.188 (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no errors. If I've missed something, please feel free to fix it...anyone... — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

When you transcluded the RFA, it had no end date nor tally [2]. This was added by NuclearWarfare, but s/he scheduled it to end a day early (no doubt a harmless mistake, being that UTC had already flipped over to the next day). Now fixed. –xeno ^talk 17:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to NW for the fix and to xeno for the explanation. I obviously missed that in the copy & paste and the single digit error later. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from Kafka Liz

15. Looking through your contributions since this RfA began, I couldn't help but notice that you have created a page where all the opposes to this RfA are juxtaposed with a series of user accounts that have made oversight-worthy attacks against you, and also with a series of IPs perpetuating a silly edit war at BQ. What, in your view, is the connection between these three groups? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A: There is no connection, of which I am aware, between the first two groups and the last set of people. It's a sandbox. The first two groups, I believe are sockpuppets of indef blocked User:TomPhan whose contributions are not welcome on Wikipedia until such a time as the block is lifted. I am waiting until after this RfA to file a checkuser accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the possible connection between the first two groups, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to juxtapose all oppose votes with these attackers/vandals... It certainly sends the suggestion that you equate the various opposes with these oversighted attacks, or at least see them as related, a view I'm not at all comfortable with. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bet ter? As for "juxtaposition", I'm not entirely sure which one you meant, but definition #4 applies best. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Opptional question from Ottawa4ever

16. If a wikipedia page were made a a home page for a popular product (Ie an aggressive marketing campaign changes their website to redirect to wikipedias stub article). Under what criteria would you protect the page? thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A: There are several issues posed within this question.

Why would a company make such a choice? On a professional level, I would immediately be suspect of the PR department of the company and quickly check my stock portfolio to make sure I wasn't invested in the company...(I'm kidding!) Seriously though, I would first verify that this was indeed a product and not something made up. If something doesn't even exist, it stands a much higher chance of not being notable outside of any other context. Who knows? It may just be an attempt at a new marketing campaign of a very notable product and Wikipedia may be getting the big scoop...of course, Wikinews may be a more appropriate location for such inputs...
I would make sure the article was about a notable subject. The Wii is certainly an appropriate topic, but my son's Thomas the Tank Engine Magnetic Train set and Tunnel isn't.
I would make sure the article was appropriately sourced using primarily third-party references (where applicable). If it isn't, but it is possible to make it so, I would consider doing what I could to beef up the article or perhaps enlist help in finding such references. Regardless of whether I/others found sources, I would also ask the creator of the article for appropriate references and assist, if necessary.
If it failed the above 3 steps, I would recommend first moving such information to Wikinews (if verifiable and simply not notable) and then nominate it for deletion as failing to be non-notable. If it met the criteria for inclusion, I'd leave the page alone unless there was further disruption. If there were disruption to the point that semi-page protection is appropriate, I would put it on WP:RFPP if I were previously involved (as in actions previously stated). If I were not involved and I saw an inordinate quantity of disruption, I would seriously consider semi-page protection. I would not use full protection unless long-time registered users were involved.

If you'll notice, none of these steps pertain to the existence of another website redirecting to a Wikipedia page. That's because the internet allows such links and there is nothing we can do about someone linking to our page. However, if the page is deleted and repeatedly recreated, we should consider salting the article to prevent further problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

Nothing requiring review here

Links for BQZip01: BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for BQZip01 can be found here.

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

Discussion[edit]

Come back & check later

From your answer to Q4 Q2: "…Notability of the person is what determined placement on Wikipedia…, and certainly not the wishes of the subject." Really? What about someone barely notable enough but they don't want the hassle of policing the article on themselves – do they get no say?
Dispute resolution: Can you come up with another example besides user:Axmann8?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you are referring to Q3 Q2? If so, notability is one criteria of what determines inclusion/exclusion on Wikipedia. It is not the responsibility of the subject to maintain such a page or police it; that is the responsibility of Wikipedians. Should anything violate WP:BLP, it should be removed on sight! My point with respect to this was that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion/removal, even if you are the subject. Their voice counts as much as any other Wikipedian/anonymous user.

Another example would be here as alluded to in the Neutral section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

BQZip, please stop editing your answers and replying on user's talk pages, it makes conversations like the one in Oppose #3 difficult. This is, in part, a test, and the answer that you give before you get feedback about how good an answer it was is the answer that most of us want to see. It's also kind of a PITA to have to look through the history to see who said what when. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
...and FWIW, immediately thanking people from their support on their talk pages may be interpreted as canvassing; I'd advise against it. –xeno ^talk 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Btw, I just meant that warning in this RFA, not in general; sometimes candidates say harmless things on talk pages while the RFA is going on, but it's too much in this case, and parts of your answers are getting scattered around the wiki. Let's see it all in one place so that we're all having the same conversation, please. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The edited answers were for clarification. I will make sure that future "additions" are more clearly annotated. As for thanking people for their support, I also thanked everyone who participated, not just those who support me; accordingly, I'm not entirely sure how WP:CANVASS applies here, but I'll certainly cease it if it is causing a negative opinion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

...and in the interests of still thanking everyone for their inputs, I'd just like to say "thank you" to everyone for your feedback. It is appreciated and I will do what I can to alleviate your concerns and I thank you for your inputs and time/effort. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll make this statement here rather than the talk page, in regards to question 10 (and 12/13) above. As far as I'm aware, BQ has been consistently harassed over time by a third party, possible known to himself. I have myself seen this a few times and objected or reverted. At least one edit was well worthy of at least deletion. I'm glad I haven't seen any edits that needed to be subsequently oversighted, I think that kind of thing is the most low and scurrilous form of attack on any editor here. When I started reading question 10, I was thinking "geez BQ, I hope you're not going to respond to this crap" - and I was pleased to see BQ's mature response just below. People, harassment is real. Franamax (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And to confirm BQ's response to 10b, yes indeed, BQ did contact me (transparently) on my talk page and I chose to respond privately with my comments. BQ read those comments, reconsidered his statements and chose to revise them. You can read that in either of two ways: either he's a snivelling revisionist who will do anything to pass an RFA (and I'd note instead that BQ leans a little more to being a "stand-up guy", which is actually pretty obvious); or you can decide that BQ actually listens to and reflects on feedback and tries to change the way he acts in response. Your choice.

Support[edit]

Commented out for brevity; still included, just hidden.

Oppose[edit]

No need for another tenured admin with potential ~~civility~~ temperament and judgement issues. Viridae ^Talk 02:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Civility issues? Mind showing me a diff? Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 03:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It should have been temperament not civility. Viridae ^Talk 22:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Need to address something in temperament issues up top
Oppose. Review of recent edits finds past RfAs concerns are still unresolved. Hard working and very strong willed editor that makes significant improvements to the encyclopedia when focused on content. --Preceding unsigned comment 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Per your request to alleviate my concerns: (Item 1) Q 3a and 3b appeared on the initial version of the page, which I haven't seen before. I deducted that this must have come form here, which seems fair. What surprised me though with respect to the concerns of your RfA 1 was all of the communications linked to it. (Item 2) Sampling diffs, I found that taunting a user after a block summed up the concerns of your RfA 3. --Preceding unsigned comment 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
BQZip has solicited feedback from those who opposed his earlier RFAs, and asked them how he could improve and what he could do to alleviate their concerns in earlier rounds. To me, this shows humility, and a willingness to learn from those who disagree with you. henrik•talk 05:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Communication was to get feedback to help fix problems/apparent problems: not a canvassing issue. I didn't go to user pages requesting support like in RfA1, but put an appropriate banner on my user pages. As for the comment, it was more a sign of awe than taunting (seriously! it is quite impressive to manage to get blocked in an hour). However, I certainly can see how that could have been taken as taunting. As such, I have deleted it and I repudiate such actions in the future.

Changed to neutral

*Don't know about other issues, but as soon as he equated image policy on Wikipedia with fair use, that knocked him out of my book. WP:NFCC is deliberately stricter than fair use. The mistake suggests a lack of understanding about our policies. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to "Copyrighted materials need to be appropriately used in accordance with Fair Use and WP policies/guidelines or removed", and if so, what's wrong with that sentence? - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 12:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I'm lost here too. Indeed, simply saying they need to be used in accordance with fair use alone would be technically wrong (though I would personally say auto-opposing over that was harsh); but clearly saying that fair use, the NFCC and any other relevant guidelines must all come into play seems perfectly accurate to me. Would you mind clarifying if that sentence is what you're opposing over, or if there's some other incident I'm unaware of? ~ mazca ^t|c 16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The candidate added the wikilinks after my oppose, and you can see a comment he made on my talk page. I'm willing to let it slide that it was just a mistake, but I'm keeping my oppose for now until I review the user further. Fair use doesn't really matter much in terms of images, at least, because NFCC applies a much more stringent standard to begin with. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for elaborating. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith that the previous answer was simply an oversight by the user and moving to neutral (see my comments there, leaving all this up here for clarity due to comments in the oppose section). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User indef blocked

Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I can understand your rationale better now. You might want to make it less polemic though. A v N 07:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech, as you know, I support people's "right" to oppose, but as someone who has adamantly defended your "right" to these opposes in many discussions, could you please reconsider on this one? Last time I didn't start out supporting BQZip01, but here is a case where the candidate has shown clear and real improvement from the previous RfA and I truly believe should be given a shot. I respect and believe you are entitled to oppose and I understand your feelings as to why you oppose as you do, but I do nevertheless entreat you to reconsider at least these one time as it's an instance where the candidate has grown as an editor and it's just the kind of things where we should encourage. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As a solid neutral on this, can I just ask that please everyone let DougsTech make their own judgement without comment by others, and let this RFA wend its own way? The closing 'crat is well able to balance the arguments. Franamax (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. My only comment is that it's not worth commenting on- the bureaucrats know what they're doing, and they know how to treat such a vote. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Very nonspecific. Not much I can address here except press on User now Indef blocked

Oppose, it's a few months since I last actively encountered this user, but what I saw at the time still doesn't allow me any confidence in the soundness of his judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FutPerf, do you have specifics? Or are you offering a general impression (which is fine too). Franamax (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest interaction I had was in an RfA on his conduct where it was brought up that he told a new user that, because he didn't speak English well, he wasn't welcome on Wikipedia. Other profanity-laced responses to users were also problematic...and I wasn't the only one who called him out <provide link>. If he opposes me for calling him on the carpet for that behavior, well, I guess I can take that kind of opposition.

Oppose, weakly per David Fuchs on image use policy but more strongly on the rapid user talk page response which I find a bit intimidating. It may well be "damned if you clarify, damned if you don't", but for me I'd rather such clarifications remain confined to the RfA page. Lastly, per [3], he does not seem to understand (at least back in early January) that Arbcom does not arbitrate policy disputes which also makes me reluctant to support. Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify why you believe ArbCom doesn't arbitrate policy disputes? I can't find anything that states that. It certainly states that they don't deal with "content" disputes... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This depends on what you mean by "policy dispute" as they routinely handle disputes over whether or not a policy has been violated (read "conduct dispute"), and what should be done about it, but avoid disputes over what the policy should say (as that would in fact be a dispute over the content of a policy page). — CharlotteWebb 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, Charlotte, but I'd like to make sure I understand Kimchi's POV on the subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sorry I said "thank you", but it obviously was taken as "improper" in some manner. I ceased doing so. The other issues were addressed.

Changed to neutral

~~Oppose~~ per David Fuchs. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, it's impossible for new or unregistered users to contact him as his talk page is indefinitely semiprotected without a subpage for non-autoconfirmed users to post on. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
your own talk p. is pretty intimidating also, even I hesitate to get through the fences you've set up there. DGG (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
While we're on the point, yours is inaccessible to users on slow connections, cellphones, and old/text browsers due to your refusal to archive it. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on guys, is it really necessary to start criticizing each others talk pages? Indef semi-protection is indeed a valid concern, so it's not something to bring up, DGG. X clamation point 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to neutral due to making some efforts to address the issues. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User indef blocked

Oppose per answer to Q*3: AIV is not for reporting content disputes/disagreements. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 12:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As I tried to clarify, I was pointing out only one location for content disputes (if someone adds something vandalous and continues to vandalize, it would be an appropriate venue). I've changed this to WP:ANI and I certainly know the difference between. Some people bothered to read what I wrote, others opposed and refused/chose not to return to clarify/correct/change their opinion. Not much I can do there.

Oppose I opposed BQZip01’s second request for adminship for many reasons, but chiefly over his overly argumentative and inflexible attitude. I will not rehash here the arguments made by myself and others: they are easy enough to find by following the above link. In any case, his behavior at that time made a strong enough negative impression that when I saw him running again, I thought I ought to weigh in. After reviewing BQZip01’s contributions over the past several months, I admit that he seems to have reigned in his aggression considerably. That said, I still have concerns: his initial draft of an answer to question 3 [4] regarding the events with User:Cumulus Clouds, written just over a month ago, to me shows the same inability to walk away from arguments. The much-edited final answer still shows him rehashing the same arguments and still laying the bulk of the blame on an editor who is dead and cannot reply. As I recall, neither party in that dispute acted impeccably, but BQZip01’s steadfast refusal to admit a share of the blame – “probably should have reacted better” doesn’t quite cut it – is disturbing. In sum: I am not confident that this user has genuinely resolved the issues of temperament and problems working with others that concerned me in the first place. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Kafka, what you are saying here would seem to justify a neutral, not an oppose. DGG (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I feel strongly that this user is not ready to be an admin. There has been some improvement, but not enough to allay my concerns. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be argumentative on this one Kafka Liz, but the "initial draft" answer you and others continue to point out which showed nothing had changed...was exactly that: my verbatim answer from the last RfA!!! Of course nothing changed; it was the exact same. I copied the last one and used it as a template to work from pulling out things that weren't phrased well or didn't convey exactly what I meant or changed in my feelings/actions/mind's eye, etc. This is why it was a draft and not the final product. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, BQZip01. I'm afraid I can't find the text from the dif I cited above anywhere in your previous RfAs. It appears to have been written on 6 April 2009. I understand that it was a draft, but I have similar concerns regarding the answer in its final edit. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this one concerns me since I have changed over 18 months. I see nothing wrong with spending adequate time preparing a document instead of slapping a response on a page without thinking about it. With something this serious, it is appropriate to prepare deliberately and carefully. Sure, I stated things and then retracted/rephrased them. That is the entire purpose of a sandbox. It isn't meant to be a final draft. I don't think it's appropriate to pass judgment upon someone because of something they wrote in a draft (this goes professionally, politically, or otherwise). Drafts are drafts, not final copies.

Wow...interesting

Oppose: Temperament problems as well as five previous failed RFA. South Bay (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Three shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. Five is right out. –xeno ^talk 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

EEEwwww! I count 4 total with this one. But let us not go to Camelot, it's too silly there. Dloh cierekim 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing specified (temperament?) and previous RfAs...that really isn't a good rationale, IMHO: how can I address this best?

Problems addressed, will support next time

Weak oppose Primarily on the issue of protection of articles. I support flagged revisions, and that is quite antithetical to his position. I am an 85% "inclusionist" (even saving some articles) so this is not a major issue in itself. Collect (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I can talk with him

Now a supporter: [5]

Oppose changed to support at the last minute; User indef blocked

Very Very Strong Oppose. Per reply to question 3a and per User:Kafka above. Candidate has not learned a single thing. The fact that he clearly refuses to take blame for his part in that dispute and the fact that he continues to blame a deceased editor who can no longer defend himself, is not only disturbing but it also reveals why he can't be trusted with the mop. BQZip01 is not what an admin should be. That's my honest opinion. Take it or leave it boys and girls. Caden ^{is cool} 10:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Move to Support. CADEN ^{is cool} 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He is in a catch-22 in what he is doing politically the only thing he can do. How much should someone take the blame and apologize? If he tells you he feels terrible 10-15 times in a row, he looks like he is thin skinned, and indecisive, and a poor leader: something not needed in an admin either. Oldag07 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
BQZIP01 has resolved this issue for the future. A good amount of flap was started over what some called an attack pages with CC and 3E in the past. BQ has developed THIS for use when preparing his next RFC/ArbCom/etc case. Hopefully the drama, can be kept to a minimum.73 86 Hike (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Note This is the second comment from someone who has a single edit within their entire history. The reason I created such a template was not for my personal use, but for anyone to use should they feel such a page is necessary to make their intentions clear (One specific example where such a template could be used). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't buy it not even for one second. Dig through his history and you will see that he put User:Cumulus Clouds through unnecessary grief to the point that it looked like stalking. Just my humble opinion. I can't trust BQZIP01 and do not feel he is fit to be an admin. Caden ^{is cool} 16:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User now blocked...won't expect opposition from him...change in heart was an attempt to avoid blocking? Other reasons? I'm really confused on this reversal and his explanation doesn't make much sense. REALLY confused here; better look harder at this one to understand it.

Problems addressed, probable support next time

Actions and attitudes held by this user make me unable to trust him with any position of power. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
~~Well said Ottava. I agree. Caden ^{is cool} 16:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)~~
Which actions? Which attitudes? Specifics may be better to fix the perception of an action/attitude problem.

[6]

Oppose changed to neutral

Switched from neutral, per their response to my neutral. Now opposing as not becoming an administrator will assist the user avoid the harassment that often falls upon administrators, and also because having one's talk page indefinitely semi-protected is entirely inappropriate for administrators. –xeno ^talk 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Switching back to neutral, but I'm still concerned this user may tend to let himself be victimized; I'd suggest dialing back the language regarding the semi-protection per DENY.
See Support *37. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Still not enough, I'm afraid. Admins need to have thick skin. Do you know this person who is threatening you? Do they know you? Your real name? Where you live? What you look like? If the answer to all these questions in "no", then I would urge you to grow thicker skin, unprotect your talk page, and embrace RBI. –xeno ^talk 03:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The answer to some of these questions is yes. I do not know the name of the individual who is doing this. That said, it is your prerogative to choose as you so feel. Have a pleasant day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) This was in response to Xeno's oppose, now moved.
I shouldn't have been so terse; I think it's highly desirable for IPs to be able to post directly on the admin's talk page, but in cases of persistent harassment that blocking has failed to stop, a separate talk page for IPs might be suitable until the harrassment cools down. I'm not happy that this candidate has no proposal to deal with IPs other than by email, but in this case, that doesn't outweigh for me what we'd lose by not promoting this diligent worker. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems addressed, will support next time

Oppose not suitable temperment for admin. We have many strong-willed and mouthy admins - some of the best of them in fact fit that category IMHO - there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but one has to have a sense of the limit and not stray (too far) beyond it. But one has to be open to criticism and one of the most important places for that to occur is one's talk page - to protect it, forecloses conversation, criticism, opportunity to be contacted by editors (as is highly recommended in situations such as WP:DRV) for redress, etc. The more you are willing to work close to the line, the more you need to be able to receive the criticism (rightly or wrongly your due) that comes with that. Since you are unwilling, I think we should not enable you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
See Support *37. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This issue was addressed and an IP response page has been created. I never said I was unwilling and I added a page; I think this addresses the concerns .

Oppose Per several of the opposes above, escpically per Xeno. America69 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See Support *37. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue was addressed and an IP response page has been created. I never said I was unwilling and I added a page; I think this addresses the concerns .

Oppose per each of the answers to my questions, and I have concerns from other opposers as well. لenna vecia 20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Objection solely based (apparently) on opposition to Flagged revisions. As stated at the top, an objection based upon such disagreement is not appropriate IMHO.

Oppose I don't think this user has the temperament to be an admin. Some of the behavior in this request alone make me doubt his suitability. AniMate^talk 03:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Further queries could elicit more clear answers.

Oppose for now. I could ignore the past blemishes and support BQZip01, except there is something that comes through as… slightly immature in actions perhaps? Maybe it is just a bit of defensiveness due to the past attacks he's received. Whatever it is, it's not something I expect or want to feel coming from an admin. This is something that I think can only be overcome with some more time, another 6 months perhaps? —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I can address here except waiting six months.

~~Oppose~~ Last thing we need is another self-labelled inclusionist/deletionist admin. (On the deletionist/inclusionist axis, I'd accept this or this but not an outright deletionist or inclusionist stance.)

In an admin, I'm looking for a more balanced and subtle viewpoint than "deletionist" or "inclusionist".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I said "that means I generally lean towards keeping things within Wikipedia rather than delete," not that I believe everything should be included. The rest of my statement describes my feelings more. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still a stance other than the "Servant of the consensus" that I'm looking for.

Advance to strong oppose for excessive badgering of opposers.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How can someone clarify something without stating anything? I find nothing "badgering" in any responses, only clarification or requests for it. Obviously there is a perception problem I need to address/fix here.

Oppose. Looking back at the user's interactions with other editors, and based on the comments above and the prior RFAs, I don't think this user has the temperament needed to be an effective administrator. Deli nk (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Temperament...again. Ok, so let's see what I can do to fix that perception.

Oppose on concerns about temperament, augmented by personal beliefs 2 and 3 in the Optional Statement, which seems designed to justify actions that I wouldn't approve of. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely contact this person for more information

User is now retired

Oppose. I have been aware of BQZip01 for some time and followed his last two RfAs as a casual observer. I had had no first-hand experience of his much-discussed judgement issues until a few months after his third RfA, when he commented at an RfC ostensibly devoted to one editor's handling of image policy. BQZip01 signed off on an unfocused laundry list of complaints motivated not by policy but a personal grudge stemming from a nationalist POV push.[7] The fact that he had not taken the time to get to acquaint himself with the underlying issue but seeming followed a policy of my enemy's enemy troubled me. Nationalism is a serious problem on Wikipedia, and such issues need to be handled with more thought and better judgement. This issue, taken together with BQZip01's heavy-handedness and enthusiasm for argument, convinces me that he ought to spend his time creating and improving articles rather than mediating others. Aramgar (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be a personal grudge of some kind? I have no past of a "nationalist grudge" My issue is that of civility with regards to Fut Perf. I believe Wikipedia's failure to address this user's incivility in any meaningful way is a serious problem. I've never said nationalism isn't a problem. I'm not saying Fut Perf isn't accurate in many of his assessments. My issue is with his attitude and unwarranted beratement of new users.

While I commend BQZip01 for attempts to create a policy on sports team logos {see here}, I have to say Oppose per Jennavecia. Willking1979 (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

see Jennavecia

Oppose. Not much I can add to the other opposes, I feel the temperament isn't quite there. What concerns me is self labelling as an inclusionist early in his personal beliefs and stating intends to work on XfD's. Yes, the XfD part is qualified, but still leaves me feeling uneasy. Minkythecat (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Again vague "temperament"? need specifics.

Oppose Concerns about candidates seeming inability to observe his actions from the perspective of another, and why there might be objections to his chosen courses. Achromatic (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

need more specifics

Oppose. A few issues with demeanor, not really professional acting and perhaps too argumentative to be an administrator. These things are important because (and I find myself saying this a lot to the candidates I rarely oppose) as an administrator, you will be representing all of Wikipedia and how you act will reflect upon the site as a whole. Malinaccier (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What demeanor? Where was I unprofessional? I think this is "one that could be turned"

Oppose --Michael (Talk) 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I can do with zero information

Oppose as a >3rd RfA. If by thrice you don't succeed.... Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, nothing I can directly fix, but perhaps something to address up top?

Oppose per Optional Statement *4 (more admins who would have problems with semiprotection of BLPs is, in my opinion, a bad thing) and per the problem commented on by Dank at 18:40, 7 May 2009 (tweaking the answers to a test because they're "polling" badly is not a good idea). Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I never said I had a problem with semi-protection, only that it should be applied as little as possible and not every time there is a problem. This is a far cry from having any problem with protecting BLPs. If there is a problem, it should be dealt with appropriately. As for the other answer that I modified, the only thing I did was add links so my answer was more clear. The visible text and context of the answer never changed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I support permanent semiprotection of all BLPs, so unless you will give your support for that without hesitation I will regretfully have to oppose your candidacy. A statement that you want semiprotection used as little as possible looks to me like a statement that you don't support permanent semiprotection of BLPs. My stand on this is that semiprotection is a powerful anti-vandal tool, which should be used frequently, both for BLPs and for other hot-spot articles. If you don't agree, that's certainly your right, but I disagree with that stance enough to oppose your candidacy. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

...and that is your right. If every BLP were semi-protected, it certainly would cut down on vandalism and potentially problematic edits. That option comes with a cost, though, as it prevents new users from editing such articles even if there aren't any problems. Current policy doesn't explicitly support that point of view and, while I don't think it is the best option, should consensus change, I would support it as it would be a policy. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the feedback! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, you are free to support or oppose candidates on whatever grounds you feel appropriate. However, I don't think it is reasonable to have a litmus test for admins that they support a proposed policy that has not gained consensus. Using RfA as a venue for implementing non-agreed policies seems inappropriate to me. Bongo matic 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What Bongo said...now addressed in *1...perhaps it needs to be stronger or better phrased?

Oppose per temperament and other issues outlined above. Plus, too many previous RfAs for my liking, and I hate oppose badgering. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, too many RfAs: needs addressing. Address the "oppose badgering" issue.

Oppose Changed from support. I wanted to support, but I'm not comfortable with that now, at this time. I feel that BQZip...

1) Is too hung up on defense of their actions. Not every question demands a detailed, policy-driven response to justify what was done.

2) Per this and the answer to question *12 above. So this IP asks questions that in the dirty tradition of RFA are relatively mild, and BQZip has deemed that this is a previously harassing IP, going so far as to -- why? -- repeatedly point out where the IP "lives" physically. That strikes me as harassing in and of itself. I'm not happy with that. If there is a socking issue, take it to RFCU or drag over a Checkuser. Provide evidence. The burden of evidence is not lessened here. If it was a sock (or IP sock) of banned user, we could remove the questions. The mysterious user in question is not named.

3) BQZip seems like a nice enough guy, but far too combatative. Wikipedia is never, ever, about winning.

4) The more I learn of the massive battles and RFCs with Cumulous Clouds, and the pointless and relentless warfare there, the less happy I am to support. This isn't specific to BQZip; I have low tolerance for any professional gamers on here.

Sorry. rootology (C)(T) 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk to the guy. I think this could be turned back to support.

Oppose per the pathetic BQ edit warring --Step hen 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your call, but that was almost a year and a half ago. My attempts were to revert someone trying to push an agenda, namely to marginalize anything related to me/articles to which I contributed/and strictly to agitate me. By definition, it was vandalism and the page was semi-protected upon my request because of a sockpuppeteer using multiple accounts and an IP randomizer to avoid a violation of WP:3RR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to phrase this one. I don't do this edit warring thing anymore and haven't in some time. Perhaps a statement at the top to address this.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC) with regret.

Need specifics before I can address anything. Potential to flip to the the support side of the house.

Oppose Rootology sums it up for me. This is ironic, since I opposed Rootology's RfA for essentially the same reasons. I would add that I have no issues as such with the user's editing style; I think the more the merrier with smart people who err on the side of not backing off where the truth is concerned. But that's not the temperament we want where admins are concerned. Ray^Talk 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

need clarification on this one

Oppose. Per Ottava Rima. I'm unable to trust the candidate at this time. — Σ xplicit 04:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What have I done to be untrustworthy?

Oppose, sorry. I find BQZip01 too argumentative, too defensive, and I see his sig way too often in this Oppose section. Yintaɳ 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable guy. Talking to the guy might help.

Sorry, but this, this, and this are canvassing. --B (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing, which I define as anything remotely pushing a 'vote in favor of me' agenda, is very much absent from this example; it appears the goal here is to make a good faith effort to inform those who commented that they are running out of time to officially weigh in the matter. To be fair, this is a frquent occurance in article writing as well, users have to be reminded to return to thier comments in consensus based activity and update them as time goes by so that addressed issues can be struck and older or newer issues can be rasied. To me, this seems more like an effort to encourage those who already commented but were on the fence to offer any last thoughts on the rfa before its closure. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't canvassing and TomStar explained it perfectly. Perhaps find something to back it up in policy

Opposes based on Sports logos[edit]

Oppose For reasons:

BQZ's position on fair use on Wikipedia is that if it's legal, it's ok. BQZ does not understand the free content mission of the encyclopedia. See 06:04 20 December 2008 comment from him here. The crux of that debate was weather it was permissible to allow hundreds of uses of a single fair use image or not. He staunchly supported such use. I do not wish to start this debate again in this venue. I do wish to state I found his opinion to be completely unacceptable given our mission. This position of his is further highlighted by his response to a voter on this RfA. See [8]. In particular, he fails to understand that our polices are more restrictive than fair use. We don't need to consider fair use law. It's irrelevant if we follow policy, since if the policy is followed it would be legal under fair use anyway.
That is not my position: my position is that in order for it to fall under WP:NFCC, it must be legal to use in the first place and also fall under fair use:
1. Illegal to use, therefore, WP:NFCC does not apply
2. Fair use doesn't apply to this image since there is no application for it in Wikipedia, therefore WP:NFCC does not apply
3. This image is both legal and use on Wikipedia would need a fair use rationale and WP:NFCC would apply, but fails. Therefore the image shouldn't be used.
4. This image meets all the criteria for use on Wikipedia
I've stated this above and it appears to be ignored. I feel like my words are being parsed and statements to the contrary are being ignored.
BQZ believes polls = consensus. See "a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus" and various comments by him here regarding polling. Unacceptable. A 63-1 decision in favor of keeping something can still violate consensus to delete, and a poll will NEVER get past that. This is very disturbing with regards to potential work in deletion closures. BQZ fails to understand Wikipedia:POLLS#Polling_discourages_consensus.
I've stated to this individual on his user page, the discussion in question, and on this page (and I'm sure others), that polls≠consensus. However, in a discussion ranging well above 300KB, it isn't easy to see where everyone stands on various aspects of a multifaceted discussion. Accordingly, pausing to see where everyone stands on various aspects is a good thing to do. As I stated multiple times, the straw poll was not binding in any way. Polls can be used to formulate a consensus and are frequently used to see if a consensus exists. WP:RfA and WP:RfB are two prime examples.
BQZ unduly pressured me to participate in his polls, insisting that silence = consensus when I refused to participate in his polls.
I copied, verbatim, a quote from WP:CONSENSUS: "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community.". We cannot have someone declare every action on Wikipedia "that's not consensus" when people choose not to participate in a discussion (i.e. "I know that 100 people agreed to that with no opposition, but I disagree and you didn't ask the other 80,000 people who contributed today!"); we'd never get anything done. It was his choice to participate or not. There was no undue pressure (what kind of "undue" pressure could I possibly bring to bear?) on this user to participate. If he participated, his opinion would be reflected. If he didn't it wouldn't. The same holds true for any user.
Tossing "slander" out in accusations and going to WP:WQA See here. Bwilkins' 12:22, 9 January 2009 comment regarding BQZ's behavior was spot on. This candidate lacks the maturity and comportment required of an administrator. I further agree with other's comments above that he equates fair use law with Wikipedia policy (if it's legal, it's ok). Lastly, his lack of understanding of consensus building is quite troubling, given his Q1 answer that he intends to work in XfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep saying it enough and people will believe it to be true? Going to WP:WQA is recommended. If it were going to be used against me as an example of something users shouldn't do, I never would have gone there in the first place. I've stated that "slander" was probably not the best word to choose given its implications, but by the same token, it has less severe connotations and those probably should have thought of instead. I built a 2:1 majority consensus on image usage with regards to logo usage. If Bwilkin's comment was spot on, I guess the discussion is over: "I will agree, that let's say only 3 people are editing an article, and 2 of those 3 say "no", it's not quite "officially" consensus because of !vote, but it's enough consensus in most cases (4 !votes vs 2 !votes is a different story)". — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to attack an oppose, but I don't believe that this is a faithful representation of what happened in that RFCC discussion. When you say that Zip "does not understand the free content mission of the encyclopedia," what you're really saying is that he doesn't agree with your overly strict (compared to the rest of the community, as has been demonstrated time and again) interpretation of Wikipedia's fair use policies. You paint Zip's position as being extreme, leaving out the fact that several administrators (including myself) in that discussion advocated for far more use of those logos than he did. Zip was a centrist voice proposing compromises in that discusion. Oren0 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with that. While he did propose and eventually accept compromises, it was rather obvious that he was strongly in favor of using, or even requiring, team logos in articles about individual games. In the 2nd poll he started, all 3 options that he provided involved using the team logos. I would hardly call opposing that an overly strict interpretation. I found that many of his arguments basically came down to wikilawyering; particularly arguments that since the MoS strongly recommends all articles start with an image, that that justifies using a non-free logo, and repeated arguments over the fact that WP:NFCC didn't explicitly define terms like "minimal" despite people telling him repeatedly that minimal usage was mainly a side issue. At times it felt like I was arguing at a wall. Mr.Z-man 05:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Where to start with this? Just because I am in favor of doing something doesn't mean, I have to have it my way or that I am immune from accepting/working with compromises. "...all 3 options that he provided involved using the team logos. I would hardly call opposing that an overly strict interpretation." I proposed LOTS of ideas with lots of people saying, "no, not that!" with no solutions offered in counter. "There is no problem." "There is no ambiguity." "It's clear that I'm right." were the kinds of attitudes portrayed.

"Many of his arguments came down to wikilawyering", first of all, this derisive term is used by people when policy, guidelines, and other Wikipedia rules/ideas run counter to their opinion(s) and they have nothing to counter it. I've addressed this above. If I (or anyone else) makes a statement and someone else says, "You can't do that!" and then I say, "policy XYZ says I can", that is not wikilawyering, that is doing what you are allowed/supposed/able to do.

The rest is an amazing parsing of what I actually said and what actually happened. WP:MOS indeed "strongly recommends all articles start with an image", but I never said "that that justifies using a non-free logo". WP:NFCC indeed doesn't "explicitly define terms like 'minimal'" and people stated "repeatedly that minimal usage was mainly a side issue", but that doesn't make it true. Minimal usage (as noted above by this oppose !vote) is a key problem. "At times it felt like I was arguing at a wall." Well, that's what happens when you argue with policy and consensus. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is significant debate on the usage of logos on articles and what "minimal use" means (Is it a minimum number of images hosted on Wikipedia? A minimum number of images per article? A minimum number of such images on a group of articles? etc). My opinion regarding fair use images are that if it's legal, it's ok to legally use them, but that doesn't mean they should be on here because we, as a community, have decided to use a stricter standard of WP:NFCC, which is intentionally more restrictive than Fair Use laws here in the U.S.; the distinction being that we do not permit the full gambit of Fair Use content.

Polls≠Consensus, but they can help us to see where we are. They do not replace discussion, but augment it...a perfect example is WP:RfA. I fail to see how "a 63-1 decision in favor of keeping something can still violate consensus to delete" unless some serious shenanigans are involved.

People participate in discussions of their own free will. We cannot force them to opine on every single subject. By the same token, if the vast majority of users participating in a discussion (properly exposed to the community), "...silence can imply consent...". We can only base conclusions of discussions based on the inputs of people who decide to contribute to a discussion, not those who choose not to participate. If 10,000 people say "We should do XYZ," a lone dissenter should not be able to claim, "Well, the other 80,000 people who came on Wikipedia today didn't say anything, so there is no consensus." There is no pressure to participate in any discussion in which I am or am not involved in. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No, there is not significant debate about minimal use of logos, unless you count that RFC. That was just another faulty argument you used, but never did provide any evidence of these other widespread problems. RFA is hardly the best example for a poll augmenting a discussion. RFA is the closest thing we have to a vote that we don't actually call a vote; I believe its the only !vote that we admit the results are usually based on percentages. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I would call 100+ people weighing in on an RfC that ran well past 1MB in text pretty significant. The straw poll was not binding, but served to clarify there was not a consensus to act in any particular way. Arbcom elections and RfB are other examples of voting. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
So because you and a few other people kept the debate alive for several months is justification for debating it for several months? I meant evidence of other people having the same issue in other areas of Wikipedia. The fact is that the vast majority of people have no issue with using an interpretation of NFCC that's consistent with the vast majority of articles. Repeated arguments that because you had a problem with it that tons of other people had a problem with it, with no evidence to back it up, were unconvincing then, and they were unconvincing now. I'm not sure which straw poll you were talking about (I think you started 4 or 5), but some of them clearly showed that your positions (at least your initial positions) were not supported by the community. Arbcom elections are blatantly a vote and RFB is RFA with different percentages; I'm not sure what the purpose of mentioning them is... Mr.Z-man 06:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've said everything I can both here and on the RfC. OrenO states it perfectly. As stated above, I believe this opposition is based on the fact that I disagree with this person, not that I would apply policy incorrectly with regards to a deletion. Accordingly, there is little I can do about it.

Oppose. Per his positions during the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1. I believe that Wikipedia must tread carefully with respect to trademarked images, even though current policy is poorly written (as it focuses strongly around copyright issues only). I do not think any administrator should look for opportunities to exploit holes or weaknesses in policy, but should be conservative, in the interests of protecting this encyclopedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of clarification, I truly believe I've done nothing "to exploit holes or weaknesses in policy" but correctly interpreted policy and guidelines that already exist. To summarize, their is a dispute as to how to handle logos. Of these, there are three basic types: Copyrighted logos, trademark logos eligible for copyright, and trademarks not eligible for copyright. Fair use cleanly applies to the copyrighted logos and WP:NFCC also applies (example). Wikipedia treats logos eligible for copyright, but are trademarked, as copyrighted images under WP:NFCC and I support such an interpretation as it can be extremely difficult to differentiate whether a copyright applies; it's better to err on the side of caution in such a case (example). Lastly, there are those logos which are not eligible for copyright and consist entirely of letters and simple geometric shapes, and thus, are public domain images (example. Wikipedia however makes an appropriate disclaimer and cautions people to use such images appropriately (for example, just because something is public domain, it doesn't mean it should/can be used to imply endorsement or to profit from or can be used in every context imaginable). — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I said it best already above. Again, opposing someone just because they disagree with you isn't appropriate. There are such things as being too cautious. Nothing I've done will endanger the encyclopedia and I welcome any evidence to the contrary. Lastly, I proposed things as straw men arguments to point out that many people we have much in common and our views align in some ways (an attempt to BUILD consensus).
Oppose, per the concerns outlined above by Hammersoft. Nakon 06:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
See issues with Hammersoft; is this someone who participated in the discussion?
Oppose - Several reasons: 1) Those outlined by Hammersoft with regard to fair use policies and the sports logos RFC. 2) One thing I cannot stand is the "inclusionist vs. deletionist" battle. Any editor who is truly a complete inclusionist or a complete deletionist would likely be banned as a troll for pushing views so totally out of line with community norms. The fact that the user feels the need to self-identify as an inclusionist in his opening statement is rather disconcerting. Combined with what I recall from the logos RFC, I would not trust him at all to fairly close FFDs or other XFDs. 3) The answer to question 8a, specifically "the [BLP] problem is no more significant than other issues." Mr.Z-man 04:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
See Hammersoft's comments.

Neutral[edit]

I greatly appreciated his attitude, willingness and eagerness to compromise here. That said, the past RfAs give me enough pause that I'm not really to support yet. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Need to query to get more specifics on what I can address
The candidate's answer to question four does not show a great deal of self-awareness or insight. I'm not sure they understand the significant opposition to their previous RfAs, or how to ameliorate concerns of inappropriate conduct or poor-decision making. I view these sorts of skills as of crucial importance in an administrator. I have not researched the candidate, so I will not pass judgement for now. Skomorokh 01:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
??? Needs followup

I am leaning more to the support side, but his past RFA opposition reasons concern me. His maturity level and usefullness to wikipedia has improved however, so I my change this vote to support later. I have not completley decided yet. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Weak support ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
For several reasons, not least of which that I've begun commenting on various !votes, I'll declare myself avowedly neutral! I may expand at length, or maybe not. Neutral. Franamax (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little dismayed to see Kafka Liz and Caden basing an oppose largely on the CC conflict, an editor who is no longer present on this site. Following a related conflict, CC went out of his way to compliment another editor (MQS - the nominator) on his subsequent good contributions. There is simply no way to tell if CC wouldn't offer the same endorsement to BQ here and now. There is no way to know that now. And equally, it's not fair to assess the motives and actions of an editor no longer at the site, nor offer exculpatory factors for a current editor when the other one can no longer comment. I for one won't do it. All I can say is that there's more to the story... Franamax (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Franamax. I'm sorry if I've been unclear - my oppose may have its roots in the CC conflict, but it is based more on current - or perhaps I should say ongoing - behaviour, in my opinion. What CC might or might not do now is both unknowable and, to my mind, irrelevant: he is not the one under consideration for adminship. Part of my point is that it seems at best unfair for BQZip01 to list this user's perceived wrongs when he cannot reply, while making no concessions about his own role in the dispute. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Kafka Liz is right. User:Cumulus Clouds is not the one running for adminship, it's BQZip01. Regardless, I find it appalling that BQZip01 continues to put all of the blame on CC. I also find it rather pathetic that he will not take responsibilty for his very active role. Franamax you are free to feel dismayed all you wish over my oppose but I did my homework digging through BQ's long history and I stand by that. You are however correct when you say that "there's more to the story" because there is so much more to it. But the short version of the story in my opinion goes like this...Cumulus Clouds was stalked, harassed, bullied and put through hell on wiki by an aggressive editor who was out to win at any costs. This is what I believe happened. I'm not comfortable with a candidate like that who I feel would only abuse the tools to get even, if given the chance. I'm sorry if you or anybody else don't like it but this is how I feel about the matter. Caden ^{is cool} 12:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not interested in getting a "win at any costs" and I have no idea where you get the idea that I would abuse any tools provided to me. I've stated the exact opposite. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be support later. Use this information from my comment up top?
I'm concerned that this user seems to be unable to adequately handle harassment and disruption from trolls, his talk page having been indefinitely semi-protected for three months now [9]. He has no visible alternate talk page for IPs to contact him in good faith. Obviously, administrators need to be easily reachable by all users regardless of their auto-confirmed status. –xeno ^talk 14:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC) ~~switched to oppose~~ now back to neutral per user making an IP-talk subpage, but I still have concerns as noted after my indented oppose above.
Respectfully, the edits to my user page went beyond simple harassment to death threats and accusations of murder (addressed above). If someone wishes to contact me, they can do on the related talk page or via e-mail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
To address such concerns, I have placed a more visible notice at the top of my talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I investigated this myself, finding it curious that BQZ feels protection should be used very lightly (see "Personal Beliefs" section near the top of this RfA) and that his talk page was semi-protected. It seemed hypocritical. But, the more I investigated this point the more it became apparent that the waters on this are at least muddy, if not poisonous. Obviously I can't see the deleted edits to verify. I chose not to comment on this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral per above. One (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
??? Needs followup
Neutral, good attitude by showing that he is willing to change. But not ready yet. Needs more time to develop as a person. Marlith (Talk) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
How much time?
Neutral. While his AfD comments aren't exactly what I'd like from an admin, he does have solid audited content work, which goes a long way in convincing me a user is here to improve the 'pedia and can learn. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Which ones?

Comment - I noted Opposer # 2's comment that BQZip01's taunting of a user after a block, summed up his RfA 3. I clicked on the taunting link and coincidentally saw who had placed the block. It was a non-admin, a user who has previously masqueraded as an admin to intimidate a different editor. Funny what these RfA's unearth. (No reflection on BQZip01 who wouldn't have known). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for not researching as fully as I should. I try to ensure that everyone receives a fair comment from me after I carefully review the candidates history. The fact of who the sanctioned editor was, or that the 'block' was by an impostor is irrelevant. What is relevant is that: 1) CTMBAP vandalized a page BQZip01 contributes to. 2) BQZip01 saw that the editor had been apparently blocked. 3) BQZip01 then left an edit which I thought was less than productive. BQZip01 was kind enough to explain it to me. Unfortunately, he commented partially on my talk page and then on this page, but then removed it for some reason. I am fine with it, it is not an issue, I believe BQZip01 is an outstanding contributor. I will monitor the discussion with an open mind. My Oppose comment, at this point in the RfA, stands. --Preceding unsigned comment 20:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh! My comment wasn't criticism of you or BQZip01, simply an observation that RfAs can reveal anomalies, such as a user masquerading as an admin. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I really want to support due to the logo thing and my AGF principles, but some of the opposes really concern me. I just don't know if I can trust him. Leaning support, but we'll see. Wizardman 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral User has good intentions but diffs and reasons brought up in the oppose section are causes for question. Perhaps in a few months and some more experience. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
??? Needs followup
Neutral I would probably support but his hounding of the oppose !voters here leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. This supports the notion that this user doesn't have the temperment needed for the tools. It's not enough to oppose over but its enough to not support. Them From Space 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral I am concerened over the user behaviour with IPs, and being very quick to throw a sock acquisation out on the floor and then proceed to answer the questions anyway. Just doesnt sit right to me.Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC) moved to support per response to 16Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
??? Needs followup
Moved from oppose; still some causes for concern but user has made a good-faith attempt to resolve the issues during this RFA. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
What issues remain? Can't address them if they aren't specified

Analysis[edit]

Ok, so I've gone through and analyzed why each person opposed me. Here's the results

Reason	Number of people who had such an opinion*
Temperament	9
Doesn't support flagged revisions/semi protect BLPs	5
Polls=consensus	3
legal? Yes=ok to use	3
Pressure to participate in polls	3
Accusations	3
Lots of failed RfA	3
Inclusionist Comment	3
Badgering	3
Judgement	2
Argumentative	2
Unable to trust	2
No IP talk page	2
No reason given	2
Defensive	2
Past RFA concerns not resolved	1
Too many admins	1
Rapid resp on user talk pages	1
Policy is not decided by arbcom	1
Image use policy	1
AIV instead of ANI	1
Inflexible	1
refusal to admit share of the blame w/ CC	1
Exploitation of WP policy weaknesses	1
Wait 6 months	1
statements #2 & #3	1
Inability to be introspective	1
Issues related to Fut Perf's RfC	1
Demeanor	1
Professionalism	1
Resp to IP questions	1
Too combative	1
Too many battles	1
Edit warring on BQ page 18 months ago	1
Canvassing	1

Note that people may have more than one reason for opposition