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
Final (75/38/10); Ended 01:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC) – closed as no consensus by &mdash; 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

 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination — BQZip01 —  talk

Optional Statement by nominee
Personal beliefs:
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) 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.

Support
Commented out for brevity; still included, just hidden. 
 * 1) Of course, great work.  -  down  load  ׀  sign!  01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support-- Giants27 T/  C  01:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Unless someone can find something irresponsible, disruptive, or uncivil that this user did since his last RfA, I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. He has also done good article work. Tim  meh  !  01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Although I started as a neutral the last time around, the candidate has some really impressive things since like a spot on argument in Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online (2nd nomination).  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I got to know BQZip a bit during one of the Michael Q Schmidt AfD discussions--where things got hot and tempers flared, and Zip kept a much cooler head than I did, I'm embarrassed to admit. And by the way, MQS, nice to see you co-nominating this editor--plus, I'm happy to see I'm proven wrong and your notability is firmly established ;) In my experience with this editor, which has been somewhat limited, I admit, I found them to be level-headed and agreeable, and a firm believer in WP guidelines--and we firmly disagreed in that discussion. Good luck, Zip. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support – very knowledgeable user and an excellent content editor. He knows the rules well and is more than able to apply them while using the admin tools. MuZemike 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - He's been around, he knows what he's doing, he's not going to break the Wiki. Why not? — neuro  (talk)  03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I am happy to support this editor's candidacy. Good luck! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support – Great user, trustworthy.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 03:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I've reviewed your past contributions and feel like you know what you're doing. I would feel comfortable having you as an admin. Cheers, -- ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds  chat  04:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) co-Nom support. We know what we're getting with this one. I'm more inclined to trust a user which has shown some bad sides and learned from mistakes than a candidate that has never built articles or been in serious disputes. I have complete faith in this user. henrik  • talk  05:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, worked with this editor before, has a good grasp of the policies and a good head on his shoulders. Will make a fine admin.  Dreadstar  †  05:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Icewedge (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, I have been a major contributor of military topic articles including compiling the List of C-130 Hercules crashes and writing the initial version of the 56th Fighter Group, and over the past few years I have known BQZip to be a dedicated and reasonable voice in several tempestuous issues on the Wiki. I deeply respect his dedicated efforts to the improvement of multiple Wikipedia articles, and recognize his dispassionate voice in helping resolve several edit wars over the duration of his Wiki involvement. I would also add, apropos to nothing, that he is a member of our armed forces, and as such, has a professional approach to articles of military history that only a person who has served in the service of his country's defense can properly appreciate. It is one thing to be an armchair quarterback when discussing military topics, but quite another when you are committed to laying down your life for the good of the nation. I hold him in the highest esteem, and can only lend my highest recommendation that he be confirmed by the Wiki community for this position. Mark Sublette (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, appears to know what he is doing. Agathoclea (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, I can't see any good reason to oppose. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * 18) Support, although the opposes are absolutely right about the importance of understanding fair use policy if you're going to be involved in image deletion. I am supporting in spite of those concerns because the general quality of the user's work still leads me to trust him with the tools. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Tempered Support per IFD work and Henrik's nom statement assurance that the issues that caused me to strike my support in the last RFA are resolved. I like that the user sought input from former opposers. This shows a willingness to grow and learn. I urge him to tread softly, and to remember, "When in doubt, don't. Better to seek the wisdom of colleagues than to learn from one's own mistakes." Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim'''  13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The taunting thing. It's OK to think that, to even mention it on IRC. One should not put it on a talk page where it might inflame a situation. Tread more softly, please.  Dloh  cierekim'''  13:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support After rereading his questions and personal belifs (which I congrat him on, i wish other canidates would do that), i decided to move my position to a state of weak support. Although his past RFA's and their opposition reasons still raise a concern, I belive that the maturity and the potential of this user has increased dramatically scince the last RFA, to the point that I belive he would be a usefull asset if he wants to. ⊕ Assasin Joe talk 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support clearly dedicated and should be net positive. Any issues can be raised in appropriate venues (AN/I or arbcom) which act as safety valves. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support More info later. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to go to a dinner, but part of my support stems from this thought: "Holy shit, the primary person listed in the response to Q3 is nominating him for RfA." More later.  Also, I urge NVO to rethink his support. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A review of contributions reveals nothing to concern me and some very intelligent contributions; and BQZip01 clearly has Wikipedia's best interests at heart even if I don't always agree with his opinions. I'm sufficiently confident that he'd use admin tools sensibly - some of the opposes do have valid points, but none which worry me to the extent that I'm unwilling to support. Good luck. ~ mazca t 18:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support on the basis of his willingness to take a stand on disputed positions. I agree with him 100% about taking into account of the wishes of subjects of articles, and I point out that there is no policy saying otherwise: whether to do so is optional, there being no consensus. I agree with him that fair-use content should be used as extensively as the Foundation will let us. I nonetheless respect the consensus of the present NFCC rules, and enforce them, and I'm sure he would also.  I don't think of him as particularly radical about article inclusion. He's learned to do things right. Mostofthe opposes are about earlier times when he didn;t, not current matters. DGG (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as I can see no valid reason for opposing. BQZip01 has shown considerable improvement since the previous noms, and I don't see any indication that the tools would be misused. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - he's had problems in the past, but I'm convinced BQZip01 has learned from previous mistakes and now has the good sense and temperament to be an administrator. I remember regretting my oppose on his last RFA after seeing his editing elsewhere; I'm happy to have the chance to support this time. Robofish (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One piece of advice for him, however - one of the most valuable attributes of a good admin is a thick skin. That means not getting offended when other users accuse you of things, like canvassing - as an admin, you'll face a lot worse criticism than that. Having said that, I'm glad to see that in the case I just linked, you withdrew your complaint when WQA dismissed it rather than trying to escalate things further. Robofish (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - "I am an inclusionist", read no further. Give him the light saber. NVO (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I trust him with the tools. I believe he will make a fine administrator. Landon1980 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support dedicated editor, I think he will do a fine job. Ikip (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support seems to care about wikipedia and honest about, well, everything. I think he'll make a fine no-nonsense admin. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Believe this user has evolved and matured, without losing the fire. Contributions are excellent and numerous. -- Stani  Stani  00:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support fully as co-nominator. Sheesh. How could I forget to chime in here. Just as BQ has "watched" over me in my formative times on Wiki, I have myself been watching him in order to learn. To those opposing because of concerns from the distant past, I might suggest looking to the present and the future. BQ shows a decent understanding of the ins and outs of wikidom, a willingness to listen and learn, an even-handedness in discussions, and is a terrirfic conselor to new users. He has had his baptism of fire and his steel is well tempered. Too many adminitrators?? Nope. Not nearly enough to handle the many mops. We need BQ.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Very well stated...statement. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Okay, I think I can make the call now.  The two things that concern me most at this point are the "taunting" from Oppose #2 and the "slander" incident in Oppose #8, and those two things aren't enough to withhold the mop for me.  (This seems to be one of those rare cases where long-term semi-protection of the talk page, without a separate talk page for IPs, has been justified.)  Also, I've eased up just a little recently in what I'm looking for at RFA (as long as someone looks like they're here to get some work done, and BQZip is a solid worker), in part because we really need the admins to match our growth. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm agreed with the opposition that there really should have been a clear discussion of when and how IPs were going to be able to communicate when he's an admin. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Copied from my talk page:
 * Thanks for helping usher the process. I noticed that you stated "I'm agreed with the opposition that there really should have been a clear discussion of when and how IPs were going to be able to communicate when he's an admin.". If you'll be so kind as to pose a related question, I'll be happy to answer it and hopefully clear up any confusion. Alternatively, I can always add an addendum to my personal beliefs.
 * Short version is that I have no problem with criticism whatsoever. However, my talk page and user pages were protected due to death threats and accusations of murder. These edits were not meant as simple harassment, but as an attempt to publicly malign/discredit/defame me. Proof? Despite my e-mail having been available since I became aware of this feature of Wikipedia, I have not received a single hate-mail.
 * So on a related matter, I have put a disclaimer at the top of my page stating that new users should contact me via e-mail. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, I think that all the information that people want to know should be on the RFA page, and this is something some people want to know, so I'll copy this over there and continue the conversation there if you like. Best of luck, and I think you'll make a good admin. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words Dank. Since it seems there are some who are opposing based significantly (if not solely) upon this issue, it's obviously of some considerable concern. I'll be happy to take feedback on this one and, accordingly, I've created an IP/new user-only page. I have no problem in creating one and trying it out. I'll never know until I try. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support We need admins who appreciate the trials content creators go through sometimes. Nick mallory (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not persuaded by the opposes, my impression is that he will make a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Those who are passionate about some of the topics they edit but nevertheless give proper weighting to policy and consensus can make fine mediators, as this editor has already demonstrated. Looks like BQzip01 would contribute solidly as an administrator in a number of areas.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Gggh (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This guy has been nit-picked to death, and I'm unconvinced. Get in there mate. Nja 247 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. BQZip01 has been one of the people who has been there with me thick and thin throughout my Wikipedia editing experience. It would be a huge conflict of interest for me vote any opinion on his adminship. But he has been there for me when have needed him, and has been a huge asset to all the stuff we have worked on together. Thus, I want to voice my support for him. Oldag07 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I have decided to change my position from comment to support. So long as you all know that I have biases, than I should have the right to voice vote in this process.Oldag07 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, nicely done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Assume the presence of a belly-button. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support We need more balls-out admins. Ameriquedialectics 23:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good answers to the questions. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Kaaveh (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, particularly after reading his reply to Q B (2). So he's got attitude. So have a lot of admins. I don't think he will self destruct, but if he does, fire him. It happens every day in the real world. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I'm impressed with the work this user has done. Something irks me about this user however, but I'm willing to write that down to a lack of familiarity and discourse with the user rather than a bad temperament. Good Luck :) &lowast; \ / (⁂) 06:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. He would do a fine job.  Ahodges7  talk 15:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. The candidate demonstrates in his answers a willingness to be supportive of WikiPedia policies (4A is a good "learning from my mistakes").  The former RfAs also indicate a persistance that cannot come from frustration, so I have no reason to think adminship would be mishandled. Zab (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Nothing to add that hasn't been said above. A solid contributor who knows his stuff. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - My principal interaction with this user has been the sports logo discussion, which was generally a trainwreck. However, among all of the administrators and users that were involved and all the bickering, Zip was the voice in the middle and constantly proposing compromises.  The demeanor shown in that discussion by this user tells me all I need to know about this user's fitness to be an admin. Oren0 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support as Co-nom sorry for the long delay in getting here, I've been digging myself out from under a rather large pile of paperwork for a variety of different classes. At any rate, like I said above in my co-nom, I whole heartedly believe BQZip will make an excelent admin. I therefore offer my support and my best wishes to him during this rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - BQZip01's article work is A++. I analyzed his edits, and the project will benefit if he becomes an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The previous ongoing history with CC left a bad taste in my mouth when I learned of it, but many people here have had downright nasty spats with people and turned out to be fine admins. I like his answers to my questions. rootology ( C )( T ) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Going oppose, see below. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good understanding of policy, no problems with civility jumped out at me, and good judgement. I appreciate your efforts to be thourough and methodical (which some people seem to think this is a disadvantage??). I think some people are pushing a grudge regarding some of your past, but you've effectively moved on and provided a reasonable response to any concerns I have had.  bahamut0013  words  deeds   12:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Excellent contributor, knowledgeable of policies, balanced in view, and showed a slavish dedication to build consensus in fair-use RFC (which failed only because there really is no middle-ground acceptable to both sides). Oppose arguments don't hold much weight in my opinion. Strikehold (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Has a very balanced view and is always open to discussion. He has contributed quite a bit, and while he has a number of failed RFAs, that doesn't mean that he hasn't improved as an editor. I also support his inclusion POV regarding articles as I have found an increasing number of well sourced articles up for AFD. Smallman12q (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Pakatuan wo Pakalawiran. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Excellent candidate who possesses the unique ability to learn from mistakes. Great work!  Flying Toaster  07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support After all the thoughtful consideration that BQZip01 has put into this RfA, he will be better prepared for the responsibility of the mop than most new admins. --Orlady (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Reading through the discourse above, and reviewing this user's history, I am definitely impressed, especially with a view of the users he has taken under his wing and supported. He would be an asset to Wikipedia.Ks64q2 (talk)
 * 8) Support I believe he would do well and should be trusted. maclean 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support on balance, I say "yes". BQZip has been through many hoops and has apparently learned from his mistakes; admin areas in which he is inexperienced can be developed or left to those more interested. I see nothing to convince me that, if given the mop, he would misuse it. Rodhull  andemu  00:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support What i like in the response to 16 is the immediate inclination and encouragement to help improve the article. And a good thought process through the situation Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support — Travis talk  02:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support someone who has the heart of a true wikipedian. Ilovetimanderic (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Clearly learned from past mistakes. Justin talk 14:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Understands there are huge differences between trademark law and copyright law and doesn't confuse the two. A very important issue and it would nice to have more admins who understood this.  jbolden1517Talk 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support He has helped me be a better Wikipedia contributor by giving me useful advice and criticism. He has a balanced insight and is open to constructive discussion. Shatner1 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You've never written anything on his talk page, nor he on yours. You've never edited a talk page of an article where he has commented, or vice versa. What little contact between you appears on two AfDs (1 and 2), where neither of you addressed each other. Could you please explain to us where he gave you useful advice and criticism? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant he has helped me by his actions. I did not mean for it to sound like he has personally counselled me. I appreciate his example. Shatner1 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet, you haven't worked together. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Rodhullandemu.  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  21:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) (Added/moved by BQZip01 IAW wishes stated below in the oppose section) Move to Support.  CADEN  is cool  16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support per neutral below. Moving from there on a gut feeling. Wizardman  23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Non-free images can be a real problem, and we need more admins focused in on this. Users answers to questions indicates he gets it and has the requisite maturity. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - He is an asset to Wikipedia, no reason for me to oppose. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 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.


 * 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 . 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, 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.


 * 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 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?


 * 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? &mdash; Will scrlt ( “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


 * 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 --Stephen 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. Yinta ɳ   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

 * Oppose For reasons:
 * 1) 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 . 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:
 * Illegal to use, therefore, WP:NFCC does not apply
 * Fair use doesn't apply to this image since there is no application for it in Wikipedia, therefore WP:NFCC does not apply
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 1) 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 POLLS.
 * 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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

 * 1) 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
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) 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 . 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)
 * 1) Neutral per above. One (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? Needs followup
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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
 * 1) 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
 * 1) 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
Ok, so I've gone through and analyzed why each person opposed me. Here's the results


 * Note that people may have more than one reason for opposition