Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 3

Blueboy96

Voice your opinion (talk page) (12/1/0); Scheduled to end 03:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy96 (talk · contribs) - I offered myself before you in April and November 2007. Now I wish to offer myself once again before you to serve this enterprise. Quick overview ... I stumbled on Wikipedia by accident in 2004, and after four or five anon edits decided to get an account. That was over 20,000 edits ago. While I've found myself delving into project space quite a bit of late since discovering Twinkle, at bottom, I'm still an article writer at heart, with over 14,200 mainspace edits--mostly to broadcasting, politics, history and sports-related articles. I've acquired a fairly good grasp of project policy as well. I was recently granted the rollback feature as well, and I promise that if granted the other tools, I will use them in a way that will do this project proud and help us continue to make the Internet not suck.Blueboy96 03:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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:

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

A: I plan to start out slow, primarily doing a lot of vandal-whacking. I've long since lost count of the number of times I wished I could block a vandal myself rather than hitting the ARV button. I plan to do more about unraveling socks as well--before coming to Wikipedia, I was a moderator on several political sims, and I can sniff out a sock fairly quickly. I realize that in light of the recent unpleasantness surrounding Archtransit that there probably might be more scrutiny about how new admins perform their tasks, and am willing to accept mentorship from a more experienced admin. I would likely be open to recall as well.

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

A: I feel most proud of expanding a couple of articles that depict important events in a way that does them justice--for instance, Drexel Burnham Lambert (which didn't go into enough detail into its role in the 1980s takeover madness) and KCBS (AM) (which didn't include enough on its pioneering role in radio). It's my journalist's instinct kicking in. Also, I saved at least one article from certain deletion. Last fall, I noticed that Edward McSweegan was up for deletion due to BLP and notability concerns, among other things. I took it upon myself to see if it could be salvaged. Turned out there was enough coverage from highly reliable sources (CBS, the Washington Post) as well as commentary on his situation by a U.S. Senator. This was enough for me to do a heavy-duty rewrite, as well as get the offending original version oversighted. A few months before that, I was scouring new users' contributions when I noticed that Patsy Moore had created an account to complain about libelous edits being made to her article. It turned out that a new user and an anon had added libelous material to the article, and it had gone unnoticed for over two weeks. I was able to revert it back and get it semi-protected. Before then, I started most of the articles on my hometown (Charlotte)'s television stations soon after figuring out how this baby worked. I've started several other television station articles as well. On a few occasions, I've turned several political and television-related articles from utter crap to something serviceable. I also created the Becky Fischer article, and made significant additions to Jesus Camp.

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

A: Not recently ... but two summers ago I let my civility slip up a little regarding a content dispute on the Every Nation article. I was able to reach back to my high school debate days and was able to cool down enough to focus on the argument, not the person.

Questions from Avruch

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

Blocking prevents an editor from contributing to Wikipedia, while a ban formally cancels a user's editing privileges. An important distinction is that a block applies to the account, while a ban applies to the person behind the account. A blocked user is theoretically allowed to create a new account and edit under said new account as long as he or she does so constructively. In contrast, a banned user is not allowed to contribute to the project in any way. Two other distinctions:

• A user is effectively banned from the project when he or she is blocked and no admin will even consider unblocking.
• Blocked users can edit their userspace, but banned users are not welcome to even edit there. Blueboy96 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

6. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

No matter how strongly I feel the material might belong in the main body, I would discuss it with the other admin on the article's talk page, as well as on the admin's talk page. I believe that administrators are justified in taking radical action regarding BLP issues--if there is one issue where the project's liability must be guarded conservatively, this is it. Blueboy96 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

7. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

I probably would add myself to that category--as mentioned above, there is probably going to be scrutiny on admins after what happened to Archtransit. Blueboy96 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

8. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

In no particular order ... enforcing BLP, spotting copyvios, reverting vandalism, and helping settle disputes. Blueboy96 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had actually withdrawn this question (and numbered the others) in favor of a different question before you posted your answers, I imagine you were in the process of answering them and wrote over the new Q with your answering edit. Can you answer this anyway please? "How have you addressed the concerns raised in your prior two requests? Can you anticipate what concerns will be raised in this one, and how you might answer them?" Thanks, Avruch ^T 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My first request failed because I hadn't been active enough in project space ... I've since become fairly active at the AFD front--even submitted a few articles for deletion myself (thank you, Twinkle). I suspect that there will be questions about my understanding of copyright policy, since it seems that's the rock on which my last request foundered. I can assure those who were concerned the last time that I now understand WP:COPY and WP:FU, and will enforce those policies without reservation. Blueboy96 04:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Blueboy96's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Blueboy96
• Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 2
• Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 3

• Links for Blueboy96: Blueboy96 (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/Blueboy96 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support per my support in the last RfA. Avruch ^T 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - Meets my criteria by a landslide. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - extensive article-writing and Wikipedia experience, seems like an ideal candidate. Doesn't say so in his answers but I'd guess he also knows whether fair use images should be allowed in galleries or not, too. Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Per the resolution of last time's support. Rudget. 12:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support In every way a good candidate. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support William Ortiz (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Good answers. Lot's of experience. Got my vote. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support I'm impressed by the knowledge of policy shown by this candidate in the discussions kindly provided by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and in the answers. Gwernol 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support, --SyntaxError55 ^talk 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support don't see any real problems, unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. Guest9999 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - No reason to think he won't use the tools wisely and help the project. ---CWY2190^TC 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my reasoning in November, i.e. excessive and disproportionate desire to delete rather than build up articles, as evidenced by rapid "votes":
   • • • 14:48, 24 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul's Arranged Marriage (2nd nomination)‎ (speedy delete and salt) (top)
       • 14:47, 24 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Mathur (2nd nomination)‎ (speedy delete and salt) (top)
       • 21:50, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spires - Sheffield band‎ (→The Spires - Sheffield band: speedy delete)
       • 21:49, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxberry Limited‎ (delete)
       • 21:48, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tvuk‎ (→Tvuk: delete)
         • The user admittedly does not have a neutral point of view regarding AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose — per the guy above me (my apologies, the name is far too difficult for me to type). Deletionism is never good; remember Mzoli's? --Agüeybaná 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Oppose' - per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' comments and the fact that this is a self-nomination.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)