User:Buffs/sandbox3

This is a place I've decided to dissect and analyze those !votes and their reasons for opposition

Viridae Talk 02:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
potential civility temperament and judgement issues.
 * Vague. Specifics would be more useful to change such issues

--Preceding unsigned comment 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Review of recent edits finds past RfAs concerns are still unresolved.
 * Too vague to respond/correct as is.

see here --DougsTech (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Too many administrators currently.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't allow me any confidence in the soundness of his judgment.
 * No rationale as to specifics, despite queries. (FutPerf, do you have specifics? Or are you offering a general impression (which is fine too). Franamax (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
per David Fuchs on image use policy.
 * David Fuchs felt this comment was addressed and changed to neutral

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. #per David Fuchs. Also, it's impossible for new or unregistered users to contact him as his talk page is indefinitely semiprotected without a subpage for non-autoconfirmed users to post on. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbcom doesn't deal in content disputes. They do deal in issues regarding policy violations.

PirateSmackK Arrrr! 12:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
per answer to Q#3: AIV is not for reporting content disputes/disagreements.
 * As stated on the page "it is one site of many for article issues, not, of course, the only one." WP:ANI, WP:AN3, WP:AN, etc. are others. In this case I was thinking of a vandal and I disagreeing.

Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC) (clarifications made within RfA)
LEFT OFF HERE (ACCIDENTALLY DELETED ANSWER)

===Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)=== as a >3rd RfA. If by thrice you don't succeed....
 * 1) overly argumentative and inflexible attitude...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 “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)
 * 2) 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)
 * see comments on RfA page
 * 1) Temperament problems as well as five previous failed RFA.  South Bay    (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Primarily on the issue of protection of articles. I support flagged revisions, and that is quite antithetical to his position. I am an 85% "inclusionist" (even saving some articles) so this is not a major issue in itself.  Collect (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per the concerns outlined above by Hammersoft. Nakon  06:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Very Very Strong Oppose. Per reply to question 3a and per User:Kafka above. Candidate has not learned a single thing. The fact that he clearly refuses to take blame for his part in that dispute and the fact that he continues to blame a deceased editor who can no longer defend himself, is not only disturbing but it also reveals why he can't be trusted with the mop. BQZip01 is not what an admin should be. That's my honest opinion. Take it or leave it boys and girls.  Caden  is cool  10:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Actions and attitudes held by this user make me unable to trust him with any position of power. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose not suitable temperment for admin. We have many strong-willed and mouthy admins - some of the best of them in fact fit that category IMHO - there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but one has to have a sense of the limit and not stray (too far) beyond it. But one has to be open to criticism and one of the most important places for that to occur is one's talk page - to protect it, forecloses conversation, criticism, opportunity to be contacted by editors (as is highly recommended in situations such as WP:DRV) for redress, etc. The more you are willing to work close to the line, the more you need to be able to receive the criticism (rightly or wrongly your due) that comes with that. Since you are unwilling, I think we should not enable you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Support #37. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Oppose. I have been aware of BQZip01 for some time and followed his last two RfAs as a casual observer. I had had no first-hand experience of his much-discussed judgement issues until a few months after his third RfA, when he commented at an RfC ostensibly devoted to one editor's handling of image policy. BQZip01 signed off on an unfocused laundry list of complaints motivated not by policy but a personal grudge stemming from a nationalist POV push. The fact that he had not taken the time to get to acquaint himself with the underlying issue but seeming followed a policy of my enemy's enemy troubled me. Nationalism is a serious problem on Wikipedia, and such issues need to be handled with more thought and better judgement. This issue, taken together with BQZip01's heavy-handedness and enthusiasm for argument, convinces me that he ought to spend his time creating and improving articles rather than mediating others. Aramgar (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) Oppose -- Michael  (Talk) 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * opposition not based on the present, but on the past.

Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
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).
 * 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.
 * 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!

In short, opposition based on the fact that I don't support something they want, but doesn't have the support of other Wikipedians either.

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)

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

I hereby reject the actions I took with regard to CC. Wikipedia isn't about winning...I never said it was about winning. (need to look into why people think that I think that.)


 * 1) 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)
 * 1) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC) with regret.
 * 2) 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)