Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2

BQZip01

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/16/6); Scheduled to end 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC) BQZip01 (talk · contribs) - self nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be an admin to further the goals of Wikipedia and prevent abuse/vandalism by editors. I intend to peruse the various WP:AN pages and assist where needed, with a focus on the WP:3RR and WP:SSP pages. I would also use admin privileges to prevent edit wars as much as possible through semi-protecting/protecting pages before they get too badly into such a conflict.

My recent edit history (check the September-November timeframe) has given me more insight into the RfC and dispute process. While attempting to prevent vandalism, I was caught up in an edit war over a subject on which I was an expert. While I was blocked for WP:3RR, I know more about the policy now and have not violated it since (nor have I ever been blocked for violating any other policy). Additionally, in hindsight, some of my actions (which I hereby renounce) may be seen as inappropriate, though my general feelings about anyone actively editing my user page remain, and I vow never to repeat those specific actions as they do not reflect well upon myself or Wikipedia.

Several things in my previous failed nomination are important to note:

1. I believe certain accusations of canvassing were out of line and misleading in the previous nomination. I asked for a review, and not support. In no way did I ever intend to bias the process, only to let users I knew that I was applying to be an admin and that their feedback was appreciated. While some debate remains on this issue (see the talk page), I am resubmitting this time with no notifications whatsoever. Hopefully, together, we can come up with some way to allow users to notify those with whom they have collaborated that they are trying to become an administrator without undue influence. In the interests of clarity and avoiding undue influence, I request that any user I contacted in my previous nomination annotate as such and only respond in the neutral section. If you choose to support or oppose me, I request that you mark that I contacted you on my previous RfA.
2. Several people opposed because of "a vague answer to" Question 1, without bothering to ask any additional questions. I would have been happy to expand my answer upon request; I have expanded my initial response accordingly.
3. Several people asked questions on my last RfA. I have included them and my improved answers here as well.

Questions for the candidate

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: 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 primarily in the WP:AN sections with a focus on WP:3RR and WP:SSP. I will also continue to monitor pages in which I have an interest for edit warring and disruptive editing. I will NOT block a user with whom I have a disagreement, but will report it to the appropriate WP:AN page.

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are the following articles: Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and Aggie Bonfire. Both have been featured as Today's Featured Article on the main page. As a user with less than 7000 edits, less than a year of experience, and a full-time job, having 2 articles of which I was a substantial contributor featured on the main page within 100 days of each other is one of my proudest Wikipedia contributions. I have also done my best to review other articles for FA status; though I am not always as tediously thorough as I once was, I certainly have added to the FAC process as much as I could. Additionally, I have been trying recently to have more patience with other editors and serve more as a facilitator of discussion to limit conflict and prevent/limit stress for others.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, primarily with Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and its day as the Featured Article. Initially, I handled it well, but as time wore on, it quickly devolved into rehashing the same argument over and over (on both sides). Quite frankly, that experience wore me out. However, I quickly realized that a speedy response wasn't necessary, no matter how sharp the criticism was. In any situation, by delaying a response for a day (or more), both sides of a discussion are forced to cool down. In my case, the conflict subsided rather quickly. Furthermore, by initiating a slowdown, those who want a quick fiery death for a perceived archnemesis (colorful language used strictly for effect), are disappointed and move along.

Optional Question from jj137 (from previous RfA)

4. Could you explain the difference between a block and a ban?

A. I certainly can go into more detail if you desire, but the short version is that a block is technical restraint on editing privileges (usually in response to a specific action, though other cumulative actions can be cause for a block too), while a ban "is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia." A block is the primary mechanism by which a ban can be enforced if a user does not abide by a partial ban or has been banned from Wikipedia altogether. If this does not answer your question, I would be happy to expand to include further details (who can block, who can ban, etc.) —  BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (from previous RfA)

5. Can you name a specific time in which you have greatly helped another user?

A:: I am of the mentality that users should be not be "given a fish", but taught "how to fish". I have recently been reviewing WP:SSP nominations. While there, I gave User:Arbiteroftruth some feedback and this was his response. I have received other such compliments in the FAC process.

Additionally, and in a more general sense, I think I have helped an entire class of users, specifically those trying to get an article to FA status. By helping them beef up their articles and writing a guide describing how to get my support in an FAC, many users now have concrete answers how to fix an article to meet technical WP:MOS criteria.

Optional Question from Fnlayson (from previous RfA)

6. What will your approach on handling/blocking vandals and disruptive users? Fair but tough or what? Thanks.

A: In general, I intend to give vandals fair warning (several warnings on the user page with a ramped up intensity). If they are a user who shows no intent of slowing down despite numerous warnings, then they should be blocked. If someone is a registered user with a long edit history, I intend to give them a warning of my own (as an admin) before blocking, unless actions are egregious. I am also not above conversing with vandals if there is a dispute. In such a case, I would request another admin come in for a second look and review my actions. In short, fair, but tough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Trusilver (from previous RfA)

7. You have suggested that you have an interest in working with vandals and disruptive users. The procedures for warning and blocking vandals are well known. My question to you is: In what situations do you feel that its necessary to deviate from the outlined procedures? Under what circumstances to do you feel that it is necessary to block users without having exhausted the steps of warning? I'm not asking for you to go through and research rules on this either - I'm asking for you own words and thoughts on this matter.

A: I feel this is a bit of a trick question because there are no specifics. You are asking me to speculate on what I would do in an vague situation. A concrete answer is not possible in this case. In general, I simply would do what I thought was right. If shown to be wrong, I would simply revert my changes/rescind a block with a notation that I was in the wrong; almost all actions on Wikipedia can be undone.

Optional Question from The Transhumanist (from previous RfA)

8. What tools have you made extensive use of, and what did you do with them?

A: I use WP:TWINKLE and the semi-automated peer review. I use Twinkle to help do reverts quickly and the semi-automated peer review to help review FACs (including my own). As an admin, I would be more interested in closing requests/acting upon the results and preventing edit wars/vandalism through blocks, semi-protecting, etc. As a Computer Science major, I feel my technical competence is sufficient to learn how to use many admin tools. I will use them as necessary, but I can always resort to using manual methods. I am open to any advice as to how to use certain tools.

Optional questions by DarkFalls

9. When is the use of a fair use image justified?

A: A fair use image may be used provided "...they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content." The ten big reasons an image may be used are: no free equivalent, respect for commercial opportunities, minimal usage/minimal extent of use, previous publication, meets general Wikipedia content requirements/is encyclopedic, Wikipedia:Image use policy, one-article minimum, its presence must significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic/omission would be detrimental to that understanding, are ONLY allowed in the mainspace of articles, and attribution/copyright info/fair use rationale for each instance. If this answer is not sufficient, I will be happy to expand/clarify; just please ask me to do so.

10. In what situation are you allowed to use a fair use image when a free image is available?

A: You cannot use a fair use image when a free image is available. I contend that, with flight rules in the U.S. after 9/11 and modifications to the stadium since that time, the image in question cannot be duplicated and a free use image is not available. That said, the image in question does not meet the requirements to be in Wikipedia (doesn't have an article in which it can be used) and should remain removed at this time unless consensus changes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional question by Lawrence Cohen

11. Your last RFA was just this month, weeks ago. Why so soon? What has changed in the past few weeks? In regards to your comment on my talk page, I am looking again. Lawrence § t/e 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A: The majority of the opposition seemed to stem from canvassing allegations and a lack of detail in question 1. Since this appeared to be the primary problem, I decided to wait a few weeks and reapply, this time with a much expanded answer to question 1 and no requests (in fact bending over backwards to prevent any accusations along those lines). Additionally, certain answers were not as complete as they could have been, so I expanded the answers. I appreciate your consideration. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

12. Do you think the opposition based on canvassing in the prior RfA came because opposers thought it poisoned the process, or because they thought it demonstrated a lack of understanding of important policies and observed customs?

A: I think it was any of the above one or a combination them. For those that thought it poisoned the process, I would have been happy to mitigate any such responses by annotating as to whom I requested review the nomination; weight on their opinions could have given accordingly in the review. As for "observed customs", those are not policies or guidelines. That someone comes into a discussion and doesn't know them, it should not be held against them. Furthermore, I would question the validity of anyone opposing based on a "custom" that isn't codified anywhere and exists only in a limited community (While "we've never done it that way before" is certainly something that may raise eyebrows, it doesn't mean it is "wrong", but that it goes against the norm. That isn't necessarily bad and perhaps the "custom" needs to be changed or written down in a guideline/policy). The discussion on the talk page following my last RfA leads me to believe the issue of "canvassing" or "friendly notices" is not clear cut and that a middle ground likely exists. I do not believe such actions demonstrated a lack of understanding of any policies because no Wikipedia "policies" applied (If you were trying to get me on a trick question, that was a good one. Nicely phrased! :-) ). While WP:CANVASS is not a policy, it is a good guideline which I felt I followed to the letter and with its intent in spirit. If you disagree, I have still taken steps to ensure that any residual feedback from those friendly notices (that's how I intended them) was mitigated and made assurances that I will not repeat such notices in the future in the interests of making the process as transparent as possible (see the answer to question #1). No malice/votestacking/etc. was intended.

13. Has anything changed since your last RfA that would mitigate the second view above?

A: Answer incorporated above.

Question from Adam1213

14.: You say that one of the things you will focus on is WP:3RR. What exactly do you intend on doing regarding WP:3RR --Adam1213 Talk 05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A: For a while, there was quite a backlog in that WP:AN section, though it ebbs and flows from week to week. I would intend to go through and act upon violations placing blocks where appropriate and explaining why others weren't blocked (i.e. no violation of WP:3RR).

14b.: Why do you think that the 3RR rule exists, what do you thinks its purpose is? Do you think that blocking people for 3RR violations that they did in the past, in a backlog is useful? --Adam1213 Talk 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A: The 3RR rule exists to prevent edit warring. It doesn't always work, but it is a speedbump that, we hope, stops things from getting out of hand. However, [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute#3RR_is_not_an_entitlement|The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others]]. I think that blocking people for past acts...is what we do; kinda hard to block them for future acts... but I assume you mean acts far in the past. In that case, I would refrain from blocking them, though I might warn them on their talk page as a friendly reminder or suggest the complaining party do the same. If someone is repeatedly violating it, punishments should rise accordingly. In a backlog, it all depends how long the backlog is. If it is a few hours? days? weeks? months? It's all a matter of perspective. Basically hours: yes; days: probably, but I'll temper it on severity and time since last edit. Weeks: probably not, except in extreme cases. Months: I can't imagine dong anything other than a note on their talk page.

General comments

• See BQZip01's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/BQZip01
• Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2
• Requests for adminship/BQZip01 3
• Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4

• Links for BQZip01: BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• Comment In the IfD two people have mentioned I stated that the image could be used as a fair use image, not that it was a free image. I already stated I had no opposition to its removal and clearly admitted it was not labeled properly. Discussion in the IfD regarded its use as original research, not whether it was a free image. Please read the entire discussion for more information. Furthermore, using the article cited...Derivative work#Vs._Fair_Use— BQZip01 — ^talk 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh... you cannot use a free image as fair use. Technically, that's impossible... As for the article link, sure you can do it, but it'll lead to ugly lawsuits. One case does not justify its use in US law. And if it is used as a fair use image, you would hardly use it on your userpage would you? "it certainly can be left on my user page and need not be deleted altogether.". As said by B, a free image can be used in its stead; so it would hardly qualify for fair use in the first place. — DarkFalls ^talk 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • To put the comment in context, it was made in reference to the image's legal status. As a fair use image, it could be used on Wikipedia in any capacity (this is a legal opinion, not Wikipedia policy, which is what I was trying to point out at the time). Wikipedia policy further limits fair use images and I addressed that later on. I still disagree that this particular image could have been duplicated for a number of reasons (see the IfD and the answers to your questions above for details). Furthermore, I personally removed the image from my user page as soon as I saw it could be considered a fair use image and stated as such on the IfD: "While I still think it is an appropriate image (not in violation with WP:OR), since it is no longer being used on the Kyle Field article, there is no longer a need for this fair use image on Wikipedia and it should be deleted. Furthermore, I will remove the image from my sub-user page. If a fair use reason for it comes up for it in the future, it can always be re-uploaded. I would like to reiterate that I still believe this was a tagging error, not a violation of WP:NOR.". The tag was wrong on the image and its use should have been limited to the article. This was a mistake on my part not realizing the fair use implications at the time I uploaded it. Since those weighing in on the article felt it didn't belong, and there was no use for the image elsewhere, it was rightly removed and I support that action 100%.
    • In short, I re-renounce any support of said image for use outside of the article page (since it would fall under Wikipedia's fair use rules). Since editors in the article page don't want it there, it has no viable fair use and should not be on Wikipedia unless consensus changes otherwise. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I was wondering if you have checked the copyright status of the lyrics present in User:BQZip01/AggieTrip? — DarkFalls ^talk 11:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, valid question, I have not specifically called A&M or the government of the State of Texas for verification, BUT as a member of the Corps I was required to memorize who wrote them and when they did so. So, for the sake of verification:

• Aggie War Hymn - Written by J.V. "Pinky" Wilson while standing guard on the Rhine River during World War I. Given the date of its official adoption as the War Hymn of Texas A&M in the fall of 1920 (please realized it was also first played in a public performance long before that), a copyright does not apply. verification information 1 verification information 2
• Texas, Our Texas - was written in 1924 by William J. Marsh, born in England but later emigrated to Texas, and Gladys Yoakum Wright, from Fort Worth. As such, a copyright does not apply.

This page has been the source of so much discussion it simply isn't worth the time to argue over it, so I've removed it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Administrators have to be able to inspire trust, and BQZip01 does that for me, even though I may not agree with everything he's done or said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support I see no compelling reason not to give the candidate the tools. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I don't see a reason why he shouldn't be an administrator. Warrior4321^talkContribs 04:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak Support / Moral Support — I think you made the same mistake I did, but I will not hold it against you. I think you need a little more paitents in your pursuit of greater responsibility, but I have seen your capacity to remain cool in the face of heated debate and your willingness to meet others half way, therefore I offer my support for your rfa and moral support should this one fail. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Just do it. Solid candidate. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Weak support - User:Dreamafter says it's been less than a month since the last RfA. However, he seems solid in other aspects, including his ability to maintain his cool when he is in a heated dispute. миражinred (speak, my child...) 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - No reason to assume any problems with this editor. ◄Zahakiel► 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - He and I are both involved in the Waterboarding arbitration case, and his comments there demonstrate level-headedness and a sound understanding of NPOV. I have no issue with the short lapse of time between the two RfAs; IMO the previous RfA should have passed anyway, and even if he wasn't ready then, he certainly is now. Walton^One 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I don't think this RfA will pass, but I think generally that BQ has good admin potential and I agree that falling afoul of guidelines and customs is not generally an appropriate RfA-killer. I opposed on the last one because I personally thought that canvassing had occurred, intentionally or not, and it would be hard to determine the effect on the result. Best, in my mind, to err on the side of caution. ^Avruchtalk 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Although the opposers raise some valid points, I believe nom has learned from prior mistakes and will do OK. That said, I will mindlessly add, "when in doubt, ask". Dlohcierekim 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    Doc and keeper put it quite well below. Dlohcierekim 15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

11. Support My persona interactions with this editor have been positive and I have no reason to oppose or remain neutral.--VS ^talk 06:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. The wait three months "rule" is for admin candidates that don't have enough experience in my opinion; Also in my opinion, it's not for those that get caught up in RfA rule creep (and over a rule that isn't a rule no less, and does not have a written consensus anyway, as you point out). You have the experience and ran into opposition based on the RfA process, and not on your contribution history, which is excellent. There is no evidence that you will abuse the tools, therefore I am happy to support your self-nom. The horrible irony here is that you were first opposed on a technicality, and now you're opposed on the technicality of not waiting long enough since that technicality? Ick. Keeper | 76 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
13. support. Splendid article contributions and ability to collaborate outweigh any other lack of experience concerns. Opposing simply because it is "too soon" is just instruction creep. My only plea would be that the candidate remember that this is a free content encyclopedia and take much better care ofver copyright issues on images. But I will AGF that that lesson has been learned.--Doc^g 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support per WP:AGF Triona (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support as per Triona. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support for the same reasons that I did last time. I advise waiting at least a couple of months before your next try, though. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 10:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC).
17. Strong Support I have found this editor to be a calming and concerned voice of reason. In a disagreement between myself and another, far more experienced editor, BQZip01 stepped into the fray and was the voice of wisdom and moderation. His Adminship would be very positive for Wikipedia. He is an excellent example of all that is and can be good about Wiki. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Moral Support Thank you for helping at WP:SSP. You may also want to spend time at WP:COIN. That's a fine place to learn admin skills. Come back in four months, and you should pass. Jehochman ^Talk 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Per previous interactions with the user. Hook 'em Corpx (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, sorry to be the first to comment, and an oppose at that, but it has been less than a month since your last RFA, I don't see that as long enough to wait. Again, sorry, and you do not have a lot of admin related tasks, and FAC doesn't require you to be an admin. Dreamy ^§ 03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

   <joke>I also oppose you because you're from the "Texas Aggies" and because I outrank you... MUHAHAHAHA...</joke>. Dreamy ^§ 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose 20 days is not enough time for me to judge improvement from the problems that had arisen from the previous RfA. Sure you may have improved within the time, but I wish to see consistency in the improvement for a few months, not a few weeks. — DarkFalls ^talk 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

   Also per B below. Derivative images of copyright works are never free. "If modification of a fair use image is not appropriate, then please remove the image altogether, but I'm pretty sure I am in the right here under U.S. law (...and yes, I know that U.S. law does not necessarily apply to Wikipedia, but it certainly applies to the creation of said image)." — DarkFalls ^talk 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose poor policy understanding demonstrated at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_7#Image:Kyle_Field_Expansion.jpg. --B (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above concerns. Epbr123 (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose not been long enough since the last RFA and the comment up the top "Several people opposed because of "a vague answer to" Question 1, without bothering to ask any additional questions" to me suggests a lack of civility Whitstable 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I don't believe this user would abuse the tools. However handling of image copyright issues as noted above and a second self-nom so soon after the last one prevents me from adding support at this time. Image:5lq2jj15.gif uploaded last May exemplifies the image problem. It was uploaded as PD-US with very little details as to author, date or other important details. Then 2 minutes later this edit reveals it is an Associated Press photo and "needs to be deleted", but the PD tag was not removed and the image was never deleted, though I recently tagged it as missing source and license. That image should have been tagged immediately by the uploader and deleted months ago. A half dozen or so other images were uploaded with very little captioning information, though they were PD-USGov images, they did not provide sources or author information. Image:MC-130W2.jpeg and Image:MC-130W.jpeg appear to be the same image, uploaded twice, and originally captioned with only "MC-130W image from www.af.mil" and "from www.af.mil" not giving proper credit to the photographer US Air Force Captain Andy Biro. Image:V-22 main engine closeup.jpg was uploaded as a government image sourcing himself. The image is a cropping of Image:Osprey at Pensacola.jpg which was PD by User:Jacobst, but the cropped image did not link the original and the author not mentioned as a courtesy. Even after the fuss over images at the last RFA, these problems were not corrected prior to this RFA. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose Too soon after the last time. Admins needs to be good judges of community consensus. Like it or hate it, there is long standing consensus that failed RFA candidates need to put a significant gap between requests - generally 3 months. Disregarding this or not doing your research to understand this doesn't show the candidate in a good light. Shame because their contribution to the project is valuable and with a little more patience I would have been looking to support. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Striking oppose per discussion on my talk page. The candidate clearly didn't appreciate the need to put a decent gap between RFAs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose I still have the same concerns as I did 3 weeks ago. Jmlk17 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01. Daniel (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Only three weeks since last RfA is not enough. Please wait at least three months and try again when you're ready, and I will support. NHRHS2010 11:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose - -you seem like a good editor on the whole but the image issues mentioned above bother me, as do some issues from the 1st RFA - I need a longer period of time to be sure of your familiarity with policies. --BelovedFreak 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I'm impressed by the FA work, but I think a self-nomination only 3 weeks after a failed RfA and while subject of an ArbCom case shows overeagerness and bad judgement. I also find this statement a reason for concern. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose for continuing to use WP as a free web host; you haven't read and taken in everything from your last RfA just weeks ago. --Stephen 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose Please don't give the mop to an idiot (no offense to candidate). At best it is a waste of a mop.VandleBlaster (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) What I meant to say was: The candidate appears to spend more time in arbitration trying to win points than he does trying to resolve the problems. My apologies to those offended by my 1st edit. Corrective action was administered on my talk page.VandleBlaster (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    This is "Vandleblaster's" first edit. Amazing. Keeper | 76 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    Offense taken. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    Struck vote as a likely sock/vandal. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    Unstruck as the above, at best is a gratuitous assertion, not to mention a personal attack.VandleBlaster (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    Restruct as per VandleBlaster's wish to do so stated on my talkpage here Keeper | 76 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

15. Doesn't understand the issues with his Kyle Field image beyond fair use (the image was clearly original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia). Administrators need to know image policy. Ral315 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    Without being able to see the image, it's somewhat difficult for me to assess these claims, but from reading the discussion it's clear to me what the fair use problems are, but not the original research problems. Wikipedia:NOR#Original images makes it clear that images enjoy a broad exemption from OR, and I don't see why that wouldn't have been the case here had the source image been freely available. --JayHenry (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    This image is similar if I remember correctly. Only the image in question was photoshopped to add additional seating levels at left and right. It was not listed as fair use / non-free, but was noted that it was edited to show a theoretical expansion concept which is the OR part of it. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing how that runs afoul of Wikipedia:NOR#Original images. "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such." If university officials have discussed "expansion plans for Kyle Field which could boost capacity to 115,000 with the addition of a south endzone and wraparound seating," and BQZip made an image that illustrated that, then I have to conclude it's not original research, because he's not advancing new ideas, he's merely illustrating someone else's ideas and clearly noting as much. --JayHenry (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    The OR aspect is that it was a wikipedia user's impression. If it had been an artist concept provided by the architect planning the expansion, then there would have been no problem. I don't think the photo depicted wraparound seating, it was the same as the linked image except the grand stands were copy and pasted to make them double or triple stacked. I don't believe that type of modification was supported by a citation. The original caption in the article simply said "Artist's rendition of an expanded Kyle Field", and didn't mention that the artist is a wikipedia editor, not an architect or engineer paid to make such a drawing. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose on a wide range of important issues. This user took personal issue with edits I made to Kyle Field and, to this day, continues to undo any changes I make to that article so that his edits remain permanent. In response, this user (both as an IP and as user) made several edits in opposition to my own, which touched off a lengthy dispute between several of the editors involved. User is fiercely protective over articles he has edited and generally opposes the inclusion of any information he deems insulting or derogatory towards his alma mater. Before he made this RfA, user deleted image Image:TCEH.jpg, which he used to demean Texas Tech on his user page. User still maintains a list of demeaning terms for neighboring colleges on his user page, among them "tech tards, sand fleas." User selectively employs various protocols (like WP:AGF) when it suits his argument, but does not appear to have an appreciation of what these things mean. User (as IP) has also stated his support for the unblock of a prolific sockpuppeteer as long as he "renounced his behavior." This does not reflect the behavior of an administrator and he would not have my confidence in that capacity. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    You're opposing him for being loyal to his university and for participating in college rivalries? Good God... should I be desysopped for laughing at Tabs? :-) Walton^One 11:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    • I don't think anybody who refers to a group of people as "sand fleas" in their userspace should be an administrator. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    • While I can understand why some might be offended by the jokes on BQZip's userspace, and I particularly don't care for the "sand fleas" comment, I think they're intended to be good natured and in the spirit of college rivalry. He was one of a few who contributed to the peer review for Texas Tech University for which I am grateful. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    And let me be clear that BQZip's list of insults on his userpage isn't the only reason I'm opposing his nomination, it's just another example of why this user isn't ready. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    OMG, Walton. If an editor is placing "loyalty to his university" (or anything else) above the integrity of the encyclopedia, then they should certainly not be an admin. Dlohcierekim 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    First, I'm not sure I appreciate being mocked. Secondly, my issue is not that he supports his university, but that he takes strong, reactionist measures when somebody does something he doesn't like to one of the articles associated with Texas A&M. If he would simply revert the edit, that's one thing (though still incompatible with policy), but this user will go many steps further and actively seek to undermine people who have made those edits. This has a chilling effect on those editors and may discourage their contributions in this future. It is for these actions that I firmly oppose this nomination. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    You'll notice I've only responded to a few issues down here, but I believe these comments deserve some moderation since so many things are being said about me that are incorrect or misleading.

    On top of what Wordbuilder said, where does a simple editorial comment in the spirit of a good-natured rivalry constitute a breach in integrity? This is a user page, not an article. If you'll note, I mock my own school's mascot on my page too. User:Johntex and I also made a friendly bet on the outcome of the annual game between our schools where we would "vandalize" out own user pages to let other people knwo how badly our team lost (I won and we had a laugh over it).

    Your accusation that of "he is generally opposed to the inclusion of any information he deems insulting or derogatory towards his alma mater" and "he takes strong, reactionist measures when somebody does something he doesn't like to one of the articles associated with Texas A&M." are completely without merit. Baring my spat with a certain user over this page (addressed/renounced above), I defy you to find a single instance.

    As for "If he would simply revert the edit, that's one thing (though still incompatible with policy)..." Which policy might that be? I am personally of the philosophy of WP:BRD Near as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with a discussion; it's one of the reasons for a talk page.

    "...this user will go many steps further and actively seek to undermine people who have made those edits." How so? You have made several edits with which I disagree and you call it stalking (never mind the article you were trying to delete was kept). I and any other editor are open to edit any page we wish. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and our edit histories are an open book. You can see everything I do and vice versa. If you do something that piques my interest, I might go and see what else you have done. I'm entitled/enabled to do so as is any other editor. Under that logic, I could just as easily accuse you of stalking me here and discouraging my nomination, but I don't because everyone is allowed to give their two cents.

    "This has a chilling effect on those editors and may discourage their contributions in this future." If you can't handle a discussion over an edit you made, then I am sorry. See WP:BRD and WP:BITE. Furthermore, if contributions are disruptive, then opposition should be present to discourage such edits. WP:AN

    I have logged in and responded as an IP, but that was because I was unable to log in at my location (and just so there is no mistake, I have made this explicitly clear to all involved in any discussion, but even when I made perfectly appropriate edits as an IP (even if I wasn't logged in), you reverted them assuming malice and labeling it vandalism even when you realized it was a mistake). That I disagree with you on some of your edits and some discussion followed...well, isn't that the point of having a discussion on a talk page or the articles for deletion page? I wasn't the only one who felt your edits were not appropriate.

    Please tell us what you mean that I "selectively employs various protocols (like WP:AGF) when it suits [my] argument, but does not appear to have an appreciation of what these things mean." I have a very clear idea what they mean. That I disagree with you (or you disagree with me) as to what they mean is one reason we have talk pages in the first place: to calmly hash these disagreements out.

    As for "User (as IP) has also stated his support for the unblock of a prolific sockpuppeteer as long as he "renounced his behavior." This does not reflect the behavior of an administrator and he would not have my confidence in that capacity," (see above for IP info), are we supposed to assume that no one can change? Or that no one can start over and begin anew? I also didn't say I supported his edits, but that I supported him coming back if and only if he changed his attitude and editing. I do not support his return otherwise. Mr. Schmidt (support above) is one such editor who was extremely hostile. Once someone (me) took the time to explain the process, things were fixed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    Let me start by saying the references to your posts under an IP were not meant to be accusatory or infer that you were trying to hide your identity. They were only meant to establish which post I was talking about. You have previously posted as that IP with your name following it, so again I'm not disputing that.

    Even though it is your userpage, that does not give you the right to call others "tards" (which itself is highly demeaning to the mentally disabled) based on their college affiliation. Some might say I'm taking a joke too literally, but as an administrator you would have to withstand the same sort of criticism from the entire userbase of this encyclopedia. Currently, I don't think you would be able to do that.

    Your edits to Kyle Field, and specifically your reverts to my edits, are what raise the biggest alarms for me. You continually try to include meaningless statistics in that article to promote the stadium and you have thus far ignored the input from both myself and the (few) editors who responded in the RfC. Your use of WP:BRD is particularly ridiculous in this instance, since I was trying to avoid the edit war that would cause with the RfC, which you continue to ignore. This is another case of you misusing an essay (not even a guideline or a policy) to further your own ends in that article.

    As for your opposition to my edits, you keep trying to argue that we share a common interest in those articles, but I have to take issue with that, since you opposed everything I did in those articles and undid most or all of the changes I tried to make. As for the comment about the IP, I have already apologized for those reverts -which you have previously acknowledged- so it seems strange to me that you would bring that up here.

    Your edits seemed to be directed in a way that would prevent me from making any changes to this encyclopedia and would thus drive me away from editing in frustration or fear. I don't know if you've done this in the past but again, this certainly is not the type of behavior anybody would expect from an administrator. You have a very long way to go in this regard and I would wait a lot longer than 3 weeks before your next self-nomination. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    Let me start by saying the references to your posts under an IP were not meant to be accusatory or infer that you were trying to hide your identity. They were only meant to establish which post I was talking about. You have previously posted as that IP with your name following it, so again I'm not disputing that.

    Even though it is your userpage, that does not give you the right to call others "tards" (which itself is highly demeaning to the mentally disabled) based on their college affiliation. Some might say I'm taking a joke too literally, but as an administrator you would have to withstand the same sort of criticism from the entire userbase of this encyclopedia. Currently, I don't think you would be able to do that.

    Well, let's talk about talk:Kyle Field. I have posted numerous compromises and you have seen fit to acknowledge or offer an additional compromise on none of them. That you find statistics "meaningless" and there only "to promote the stadium" I hav explained numerous times with no response other than another deletion of the material. I have not "thus far ignored the input from both myself and the (few) editors who responded in the RfC." On the contrary, I responded to their inputs with little/no response from them.

    If you will read what I actually said (and this is a major problem in our discussions) regarding WP:BRD is that I am of that philosophy, not that it is policy or a guideline. You have made no effort to compromise and I have made several changes and offers. To call my actions ridiculous... If you were trying to "avoid the edit war", why did you insist on making changes without discussing them? I offered a few alternatives to which you (or anyone else) didn't respond. It seems as if you are making continual changes with no intent on listening to what others have to say or offering any form of compromise.

    I oppose your changes because I believe they add context to the paragraph/article.

    Just because I opposed your changes doesn't make me wrong. To which other articles are you refering?

    The IP thing, no problem. Just a misunderstanding.

    My edits are directed in stopping unnecessary deletions, not to drive you away. I am sorry if you find this frustrating, but please realize the policies on Wikipedia. If you have no intent on compromising or discussing, then the talk pages are useless (as is WP:BRD). As for fear, you seem to use policies to bully people into getting your way by threatening actions (AfD, RfC, etc.)

    So, for all this said, let's bury the hatchet right here and now. Let's come up with a way to make the Kyle Field article work. I would be happy to discuss a change to Kyle Field. Let's use this as a starting point from which to make a compromise, agreed? Make me an offer! :-)

    As for "tard," I always took it as a bastardized form of "turd" (think "turd" with a Texas drawl) as do most of my extended family. I will be happy to let them know about this interpretation. Seeing as how that offensive meaning is attached to the word, I have removed it accordingly (seriously, all you had to do was point this out on my talk page). I humbly and sincerely apologize to all mentally handicapped persons for comparing them to Texas Tech students...I was way out of line there...

    This is a light-hearted response intended to diffuse the situation with humor. I honestly mean that I am sorry that word was used on my page and I will NEVER use it again...ever! For the record, my sister-in-law, brother-in-law, and my dad's cousin went to Texas Tech and I pull for them almost every time aren't playing Texas A&M — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    Look, I was joking, as demonstrated by the smiley. I apologise if I caused any offence. Evidently I should stop trying to inject a note of humour into these discussions, as it seems to piss people off every time. Walton^One 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose: Possibly the most important quality an admin must have is good judgment, followed closely by intimate knowledge of Wikipedia custom and practices. Anyone putting in/agreeing to an RfA three weeks after the last one is guilty of lacking either or both. Three months would be well to the left of too soon.  RGTraynor  22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    "Good judgement" is subjective and I am of the belief that a knowledge and understanding of policy and guidelines is far more important than the customs of a single administrative page out of 2 million plus.

    Which bolsters my belief. Admins deal with the public and are expected to exercise judgment, not just knee-jerk application of (widely interpretable) policy. One could easily infer from your statement that you hold the process in some measure of contempt. It's somewhat startling given your profession; you cannot, as a member of the military, be unaware that appearances matter, that organizations have values and customs with little direct connection to the job at hand, and that you dismiss them at your peril. In effect, you've shown up for inspection wearing sneakers and a crumbled, stained uniform, and we're - demonstrably - no more amused than your top would be. Protesting that you had no idea you were supposed to wear shined shoes wouldn't have done you good then ... it was your job to know. In the wake of your last RfA, more than one editor suggested you hook up with an admin coach who could show you the ropes. That advice was sound then, and you should take it now.  RGTraynor  06:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    I am certainly aware that appearances matter. Application of policy can be widely interpreted, no doubt there. This is why I intend to stick to relatively obvious problems (like WP:3RR and WP:SSP. The values and customs of my profession are interwoven within the job, have a historical and practical base. They are also explicitly codified (how to salute, what the uniform should look like, etc). It isn't ambiguous in general (pun intended). Furthermore, should I dismiss them, it would be at my own peril, but not because it is advice, but because it is the law. I must follow lawful orders or it is illegal and I could face criminal charges. Your analogy is lacking substance. "It was your job to know" isn't policy or a guideline, it is an opinion of a user(s). While repeated self-noms over and over ad nauseum is somethign to avoid, I saw little reason to wait 3 months because someone said, "try back again in 3 months"...(a few weeks later) "You can't take directions from me! Oppose." Respectfully, you aren't the boss of me and you don't make the rules. Tacking on extra time for no apparent reason is WP:CREEP, IMHO. If a consensus is there to make this a guideline (or heck, even policy), I see little reason to oppose. Until then it is just an opinion. I do not hold this process in contempt; the exact opposite is true, but holding people to some vague, imaginary standard that isn't defined is like a cop pulling someone over and telling them "Your car looks too fast. Bring it around again in 3 months and I'll probably let you drive it through here then." That's not the law and a cop just can't make it up on a whim. If there is a compelling reason and consensus to have such a "rule" then let's get it in the directions. I'd support 2 weeks - 1 month, or maybe 1000 mainspace edits, or any reasonable additional criteria provided it has consensus. Honestly, WP:IAR applies here on this one, especially when the "rule" isn't really a rule. Opposition because someone else said "wait three months" doesn't mean I disrespect them, but their opinion isn't defined or well-explained. "I want to see more edits before I support" makes sense if there is another reason for opposition (bad edits, copyvio, etc.), but "wait three months" for no apparent reason than they want to test patience, makes no sense. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose Having read this thread to date, I'm sure RFA is stressful but BQZip01 is "certainly aware that appearances matter" and yet is becoming quite argumentative before even being challenged over an admin decision. "I saw little reason to wait 3 months", "you aren't the boss of me and you don't make the rules" - I've only been watching RFA for a few months and I've gotten the drift that consensus is to wait three months to try again, more importantly, make sure that you've solidly addressed all the objections before the next go-round. Surely addressing the concerns of the community with logic and brevity is better than arguing about what "isn't really a rule". Using the police analogy doesn't really help either, remember cops only lay charges, it is the judge who pronounces sentence; admins are often cops but always judges. Furthermore, what is wrong with testing your patience? Is that not an important quality in a prospective admin? Franamax (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    I think what he was saying, with regard to the police analogy, is that rules need to be clear and precise, otherwise people can't be expected to follow them; neither judges, nor juries, nor police, nor any other officer of the law should be making up rules on a whim. As a law student, I strongly agree with him. Admins can be expected to be aware of, and to follow, those rules explicitly laid down by the community in policies and guidelines - just as a member of the armed forces must follow all orders and regulations, no matter what they personally think about it. But it is not reasonable to expect people to be aware of an uncodified, informal convention, such as waiting 3 months between RfAs, and to follow it as if it were a binding rule. Walton^One 09:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    Well I suppose that is my concern, what rule really is clear and precise? A cop should give you 24 hours to get your headlight fixed if you say you didn't know it was broken, unless you're driving an obvious wreck - where's that in the "rules"? And this is Wikipedia - what about the explicit rule to ignore all rules? It's not the armed forces and it's not the police force and it's not the legal system, it's a wiki, saying "you're not the boss of me" is a bad sign, the community is the boss and the community can't always agree. Flexibility and judgement are paramount here. The "three-month rule" seems to be a fairly well-defined consensus, as the objections above seem to reflect, and the candidate should have been more well-prepared to address that. Addendum, as a law student (you), well check out Newyorkbrad, another law-talkin-guy, I may be wrong but I haven't yet seen him mention "clear and precise rules". Cheers! Franamax (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    I absolutely agree that the community is the boss; and that is why those rules which are laid down by the community, in the form of policies and guidelines, are binding and should be followed. However, a convention, such as waiting 3 months between RfAs, is not binding because it does not enjoy community consensus. If anyone proposed making it a formal rule, it is likely that there would not be a consensus to do so. It should be noted that there are several supporters in this RfA who explicitly reject the three-month "rule" as a formal rule (I and many others regard it as unnecessary instruction creep). As to your other point; yes, we should apply some flexibility and discretion in the interests of avoiding unfairness, just as enforcers of the law do in real life. On the question of WP:IAR, I personally think it's counterproductive and often overused; insofar as it has any value, it should be used in non-controversial exceptional circumstances where applying the rules strictly would lead to an irrational result. It should never be used to justify a controversial action or to circumvent consensus. To address another of your points: yes, this is a wiki, but any large and organised community inevitably has to have rules, otherwise we would have anarchy (which would not be conducive to writing a good encyclopedia). I would prefer that those rules were clear and precise, so that every user has a fair chance to conform their conduct to community norms. So I don't think that BQZip01 has shown any kind of contempt for community consensus. If you want to oppose on the grounds that three weeks isn't long enough to have improved from the last RfA, then that's fine; I personally disagree, but it's a perfectly fair and well-reasoned rationale, and I respect the opinion of those who have made that comment. But I don't think people should oppose on the basis that he's failed to follow an uncodified and arbitrary "rule" which, in fact, has no binding force whatsoever. Walton^One 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose per many reasons above. Not does only a new self-nomination so soon after the previous RfA show questionable judgment, it shows insufficient patience, and we need both from our administrators. Also, I should think that someone who says he wants to focus on 3RR would have been more involved with 3RR reports along the way. Doczilla (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Doczilla, However if he were to withdrawl now, he could renominate himself for a 3rd time THIS month. I would prpbably consider a favorable vote... just to stop the nagging.

Neutral

1. Neutral. You definitely care about Wikipedia, but it's probably too soon after the last RFA. My only concern is that I'm a stickler for deep sourcing on articles, to make sure they're ultra-compliant with WP:V and WP:OR in particular--to make sure people can always see exactly where a passage or fact is drawn from. This article, this one, and this article (still under construction) are examples of what I mean; I did all the sourcing on each of them. It's a little thing, but being two of our most important policies (to me) I'd say work on that, and wait a few months, and do some recent changes patrol--dealing with and correctly blocking random vandals is a major part of what you'll have to do. You only have 11 posts so far to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Lawrence § t/e 05:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral Far too soon after the earlier RfA, and therefore demonstrating a lack of appreciation of the general advice from the community previously. I shall not oppose since I see no evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools when they eventually get them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral - To avoid pile on. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral I really liked what I saw, up until attention was drawn to the fact that this his his second self nom this month, which has me questioning why he wants the tools so badly. Still, he really looks like a great editor, and definitely looks like admin material. Just wait a few months instead of a few weeks, work on the concerns mentioned by the opposes above, and I see no reason why you won't succeed next time. faithless (^speak) 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral per Faithless and avoid pile on. Spencer^T♦C 12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral to avoid pile-on. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)