User talk:Buffs/RfA4

My question 9 and strike out of support
Wow. I usually don't make such strong comments. I wanted to read what had changed in the way you respond. This answer read like your problems were external and had to do with other people's problems. I saw it as lack of ownership for your behavior. On the plus side, I did not move to oppose and wrote, "a pity, really." That tells me that you probably have the technical skill to do the job but may lack temperament or people skills. In reviewing the prior RFA, the recurrent themes were behavior in the past and openness to recall. Hopefully, that AOR bit of nonsense has fallen away as a good idea that failed. Tying in the other opposition with my question tells me that my question would likely recur. You may want those who led that particular charge for a review. I don't recall what I saw when I reviewed your conduct leading up to the RFA. That I did not oppose suggests that I saw no problem in the time just before the RFA and that I was looking for a deciding factor. Hopefully, you've made an effort to mend fences and a review of recent (last 6 months) behavior will show those problems are in the past. Hope that helps. Dloh  cierekim  14:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your request for help
I wouldn't give a nickel for my RfA advice just yet, as my RfA was pretty grueling, and I'm still in the recovery process.

I will comment, though, that I would foresee negative reactions to the first sentence in your A to Q1. It suggests that you would treat XfD as an opportunity to delete things, which isn't what you mean, but you need to expect to get negative reactions to that sentence (people might not read further).

Regarding your A to Q2, is MichaelQSchmidt in agreement with the story you tell? --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Q1: Thanks! I'll rephrase.
 * Q2: Absolutely! Already received private feedback from him via e-mail.
 * — BQZip01 — talk 05:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

wp:RTV
q12 Hi you might want to reread the policy especially the nutshell version.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 07:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Point taken. Fixing. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, and might I suggest that when using the tools in an unfamiliar situation, or answering a question at RFA always reread the policy first (one of the seven reasons I failed my first RFA was through fluffing a question where I thought I knew the policy well enough not to need to reread it).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Not sure what to tell you. You're been a good, solid editor and I've had no problems with you. Your answers are good. Try to be succinct and not "over-answer" questions. However only a couple qualify and the questions are open ended. Also, if you have secondary reasons for wanting to be an Admin, like "to fight vandalism" or other, that would be good to add. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why people will oppose
Some people will oppose your RfA no matter what you do. Some are friends of those you're had conflicts with, others get a bad feeling about people who have applied several times, and that one guy opposes everybody because of too many admins. Nothing you can do about any of them. You need to look at people who might support you, but might oppose you, and what their reasoning would be. You want to look at "preventable oppose votes", as it were.

I think the main reason for preventable oppose votes is the perception that you're a loose cannon; that you can't back down from a fight. No one thinks you don't have enough experience. No one thinks you don't understand policy well enough. Instead, people worry "Are you going to decide someone is your enemy, and then go against them guns blazing, regardless of policy or consensus?" And I think that's a valid concern.

Your best bet is to become humble, and show it. Admit your mistakes without reservations. Talk about the ways you've acted in the past that you don't want to do anymore, and say how you'd act differently. For instance, when you say your biggest mistake was to try to get an article featured, that's a bad idea. It's great to try to get articles featured. Instead, tell about when you were rude to someone who you thought deserved it, and how you've learned from it. Reassure us that you'll stay cool, that you won't block those you get in conflicts with, that you can let go and trust the community to deal with issues when you get too emotionally involved. Show us that you believe it's better to be a responsible admin than to always have to be right.

That's assuming all that's true. If, on the other hand, you want to be an admin so you can block your enemies and protect pages to your preferred version, then I guess you ought to let us know that. But you don't seem like that type.

As a final word of advice, I see Orlady commented above. She has recently been through a difficult but successful RfA, and she had to deal with all kinds of drama there... but she dealt with it with aplomb. Any advice she gives you on your RfA, I'd consider solid gold. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that I won't back down from a fight, but not because I have some desire to punish those who "do me wrong", but because I am not afraid of a fight. If I'm wrong, I'll back down. I certainly won't go against policy or consensus.


 * As for Orlady, that was a reason I asked for such feedback. Thanks for the help! — BQZip01 —  talk 02:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * fixed. Thoughts? — BQZip01 —  talk 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)