Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb

 :''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. ''

Blanchardb
(10/5/8); Originally scheduled to end 02:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC) - Candidate withdrawn Tiptoety  talk 19:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

– Excellent user that has greatly impacted the war against WikiVandals JRH95 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing. I do not know the proper way to withdraw my candidacy, but when I accepted this nomination, I didn't realize the fact it was done by a vandal would be a problem for some users, let alone nearly half of those who have expressed an opinion so far. Although I realize it is still very early in the discussion, I do not want current administrators to feel I've joined their ranks through a parody of process, which would undermine their confidence in me even if this RfA is eventually successful. So I will simply resume editing the way I've been doing so far and hope for the best. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 06:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Mostly, what I am already familiar with: handling speedy deletions and AIV reports, and deleting expired prods (subject, of course, to my agreeing with the prod rationale). Since I do not feel comfortable with closing an AfD discussion (except in cases where the snowball clause applies), I will get some more experience before I try to handle that.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: When I'm not handling vandals, I am looking for ways to improve the core articles on Christianity. Three of those are permanently on my watchlist, and I intend to bring the article Prayer at least to GA status. I also do regular clerk work at Pages Needing Translation (removing entries on articles on which translation has been done, on deleted articles, prodding articles whose PNT entry went stale, etc.), and I occasionally do the translation myself if the article is in either French or Spanish.


 * 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: The only conflict I can think of that is not with a vandal was with . He insisted on making an addition to the article Bible which, to me, sounded like a WP:ROC and WP:UNDUE violation. He has been reverted by 4 different users, but claimed it was only me. In the end, he filed a WP:WQA complaint against me, not knowing that at the same moment I was filling a WP:3RR report against him, which resulted in him getting a 24-hour block. Although he appealed the block, he has not edited ever since it expired. The WQA report against me was archived as stale. The addition he tried to insert found a home in another article (where I could support its insertion), but was ultimately deleted there as well.


 * 4. Optional question from  Flying  Toaster : Hello, Blanchardb. I think this will inevitably come up, so let's get it out of the way early.  I was wondering if you have any connection to or experience with your nominator, JRH95, who nominated you as his 5th edit on Wikipedia?
 * No, I am unaware of any link with this user. Possibly a sockpuppet of someone I reported at WP:AIV, but I have no evidence to support that theory. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 07:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you suppose someone you turned in to WP:AIV would nominate you for adminship? That seems rather weird. Not as weird as nominating himself just before nominating you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's weird, but since I cannot come up with a better theory about why he did that, I'll have to go with this one. Some vandals are indeed pretty weird, and it's like they actually want to get blocked. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 07:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A troll/vandal once nominated me for adminship, and it's probably happened at other times too. - BillCJ (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the nominator just wants to become an admin himself. By the way, his RFA was recently closed per WP:NOTNOW.
 * I have noticed that all neutral votes as of this writing have to do with who nominated me. Please rest assured that, while I feel this user is not the worthiest of nominators, I would not have accepted the nomination if I didn't feel that it was only a matter of time before someone else, someone better known to the community, nominated me. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Blanchardb:
 * NOTE: The nominator may have mishandled the nomination form: even though it is my name that appears on the page title of this RFA, I had to manually edit it to replace this editor's name with my own within the form. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 06:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser indicates there's no connection between JRH95 and Blanchardb apart from the fact that they edit from the same continent. I've got no idea who JRH95 is, but it certainly doesn't seem to be Blanchardb. --Deskana (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Discussion

 * I don't think we should focus on the nominator if indeed this should be a serious RfA. Yes, it initiated strangely but it should either discuss Blanchardb or be closed as a test or so (although since the nominee accepted and indicated that he wanted an RfA soon anyway I think we should start focussing on discussing him). -- Menti  sock  15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: I did not state I wanted an RfA soon. What I said was that I expected one. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Mentisock here, the nominator himself is irrelevant. We should be reviewing Blanchard's edits and commenting/!voting accordingly. Let's accept the fact he was nominated in an unusual manner and see where we can go from here with this candidate. That said, I wouldn't like to be the closing 'crat on this one, those neutrals are looking awfully oppose-like to me. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support



 * 1) Support. Long history of good edits, no concerns, vandal hunting++, looks good. Um, ignore the nom... not sure many people's 5th edit is to nominate someone for admin... I'll ask a question about it, but will support unless something is obviously awry here.  Flying  Toaster  07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I'm not seeing anything that would give me pause. Long history of positive contributions, never blocked, deleted contribs show he understands CSD; looks good. faithless   (speak)  07:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support — Does anyone remember that discussion we just had on WT:RfA about not depending upon the nominators? The candidate looks good, has an understanding of policy and a flawless block record. Let's go! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Well, what isn't right here? That the community didn't manage to propose and compile a decent nomination for Blanchardb or that xe accepted the first that came along? I know him from CSD and (I think) also from AIV without - as far as I remember any report or tag where I felt it necessary to raise an issue and would trust him further.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support 28,500 edits and no blocks would be enough for my support, but I've looked through your edits to Prayer and I like the way you are editing neutrally - bringing in and defending other religious viewpoints despite your user page making it clear that you have a particular and strong religious orientation. I think you could have perhaps made it clearer on this page the spirit in which you accepted this unusual nomination, and I'd suggest you check the box that prompts you to always leave an edit summary, but neither of those alter my opinion of your candidacy. Good Luck  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This is actually pretty interesting, as it raises the question of how important the nominator/nomination (or lack thereof) is. My vote indicates my feelings on this matter.  Keepscases (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, as the nature of the nominator no longer seems to be an issue, and aside from that User:Blanchardb's contributions appear to be very good.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support - meets my standards, but I am a bit concerned about accepting a nom from a vandal. Best of luck! Bearian (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support with qualms about nominator. The candidate seems good...but considering this may come under review, I want to make it clear that it is the candidates history/clean record and not the nominator that influenced my vote. --Smashvilletalk 18:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - The vote fixing seen here. Okay, so he's been here for 14 months.  In now way is that an excuse to try and vote-fix your RfA.  If this comment gets removed, I'm going to add it back in, but in that, it only shows that this user shouldn't be an admin if he tries to win through fraud.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? They guy was fixing his partly malformed RFA. The oppose vote was made on the assumption that nominator was the one running. Please review your oppose, this looks like either stunning bad faith or that you have not looked properly at this RFA's creation history. Pedro : Chat  10:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The vote in question was from . It is thanks to him that I am aware that I've been nominated. By the way, after I accepted this nomination, he changed his vote to neutral. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Sandahl's comment in the neutral section (#8). —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 16:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Tentative oppose - Sorry, but I agree with Daedalus on this one, removing that comment tips it slightly over the bar for me. &mdash; neuro(talk) 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I don't understand why you would accept this nomination.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Sorry, but even if the nominator has nothing to do with you (which I believe) it shows incredibly bad judgement to accept a nomination of this kind. I'm sure in a few months you'll be ready enough that someone will nominate you, you already have decent edits as it is. --Banime (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I'd like to know if Blanchardb has any connection to User:JRH95 (his nominator, who has a grand total of 13 edits) before I post an opinion on the matter. However, it's fair to point out that Blanchardb has been here almost 14 months and has never been blocked, which is always a selling point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral regarding the issue of User:JRH95. Something does not seem quite right here.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  07:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC) As Checkuser evidence has proved that JRH95 is not a sockpuppet (in fact, the argument that they just want to become an administrator themselves seems the most convincing to me at present) and given that Blanchardb has stated that he accepted the nomination as he was expecting another to come along anyway, I am moving to support.  It Is Me Here   t /  c  16:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral would be inclined to support except that I have to question the judgement of someone prepared to accept a nomination from someone with so few edits. I'm hoping for a plausible explanation. Nancy  talk  08:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people just want to be an admin to help out, but are too sheepish to nominate themselves, which is probably due to the people that say they don't like self nominations. It seems perfectly plausible to me that someone might take any chance they're given and accept a nomination from a total stranger with very few edits. If anything, the RFA community could be blamed for backing people into this corner by making them so afraid of self nomination. --Deskana (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't fundamentally disagree with anything you have said which is why I have not opposed. I just can't support at the moment. Nancy  talk  09:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral This is ridiculous. Blanchardb is a fine user, but being nominated by User:JRH95, who currently still has 13 edits, and already knows about RFA, adminship, vandals etc. If he is an old IP user, I would not be suprised. but if he created an account just to nominate a random great user, (Sorry, I don't mean to accuse you, but assuming User:JRH95 is not a sockpuppet) I think the reason this user is nominated is toget some support votes for his own RfA. (See Requests for adminship/JRH95) For the reasons above, I would immediatly oppose, but the questions answers and your previous contribs are very helpful, so I didn't do that. Also, this user is nominate only "for waging war with WikiVandals." Not good enough in my standards. Leujohn  ( talk ) 10:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, leaning towards oppose, although I'll have to think about this a bit more. As noted above, the nominator User:JRH95 has a total of 13 edits and their main contribution so far seems to have been to push the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Normally, the reputation of the nominator should not have much to do with considering the candidate, but this is rather an extreme case. Accepting the nomination from this kind of a user raises substantial questions about the candidate's judgement. Nsk92 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, with regrets I am familiar with the candidate, and last month I gave him a barnstar in appreciation of the fine work he has done. But I am greatly bothered that he would blithely accept the RfA nomination from someone whose presence and activities are raising too many questions -- he seems completely unperturbed that a supposedly new editor would abruptly show up and offer to put him in the RfA spotlight.  Really, what's wrong with that picture? In my opinion, the candidate's judgment raises a concern, and at this point in time I am unable to offer support. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Regretfully Neutral: I have noticed Blanchardb's editing, particularly in vandal fighting. In fact I was under the impression that he was already an admin. I'm sure he is not sockpuppeteering, I'm inclined to believe that User:JRH95is a new editor who is obviously interested in vandal fighting and decided to nominate a "pro" he just noticed. But the hasty acceptance of this nomination is making me think twice. Shouldn't you have considered a little about who is nominating you, what kind of an editor it is? Careless mistake? We can't have any hasty decisions (and mistakes) such as this from someone performing admin tasks.  C h a m a l  talk 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Just a quick look at the nominators talk page raises a red flag. Not to say that it's the candidates fault but, I have to question why accept the nomination from a user with so few edits and a questionable history, something isn't right here. —  Ѕandahl   ♥  15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I've seen this user around Wikipedia: vandal-fighting, CSD, excellent work. However, when I noticed that the nominator has very few edits, providing the link by Daedalus, the made me pause a little. SchfiftyThree  (talk!) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.