Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueboy96


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

Blueboy96
'''Closed on May 2, 2007 by. Final tally was (4/18/14)'''

- I happened on Wikipedia by accident while searching for more information on Conrad Black. That was back in 2004--and now, three years and roughly 7,500 edits later, I've decided to take the plunge and nominate myself for adminship. I estimate I've racked up 7,000 edits on the mainspace, 300 on the user talk space and 200 on the Wikipedia space. I've recently become more active on WP:CN (having discovered it by accident in an effort to swat a problem editor). I recently discovered WP:TWINKLE as well, and in the course of just a week, have become hooked on it.

As you'll see by my edit history, my interests are all over the place--broadcasting, politics, sports.Blueboy96 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I accept my own nomination. :) Blueboy96 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)''

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
 * A: As a vandal-fighter, I intend to be around quite a bit on most of the pages dedicated to keeping them on a short leash.  I also plan to be active on sniffing out copyvios--I'm a journalist by training, so I can spot articles that have been cut-and-pasted from press releases and promotional sites fairly quickly.  I also plan to be around fairly often on WP:CN, and will also encourage non-admins to be more active there as well--it's getting to where the "community" is limited to just the admins who hang out there.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I started most of the articles on my hometown (Charlotte)'s television stations soon after figuring out how this baby worked. I've started several other television station articles as well.  On a few occasions, I've turned several political and television-related articles from utter crap to something serviceable.  I also created the Becky Fischer article, and made significant additions to Jesus Camp.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Most recently over the Every Nation article--I'll admit to slipping up a bit in my civility, but eventually reached back to my high school debate days and was able to cool down enough to focus on the argument, not the person.  I believe in fighting tooth-and-nail over content, but not the sourcing.


 * 4. Optional question from After Midnight 0001: Please discuss who may remove a tag for speedy deletion and under what conditions they may do so.
 * A: Anyone who didn't create the page can remove the speedy deletion tag if they feel the article is worth saving.  The only exception, of course, is in case of apparent sockpuppetry.  I came up on a situation like this just today, when I tagged an article to be speedied, only to have a new user with a similar username show up only minutes after he created his account and delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Optional question from Naconkantari:
 * 5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly?  Are there times when it should not be invoked?  Nacon kantari  22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Mmm, this is a toughie. Answers will have to come in several parts ...
 * If you've inserted information that is well-sourced and someone keeps taking it out, putting it back in wouldn't be a 3RR violation. This is because taking out well-sourced information is vandalism--and it is well-established that getting rid of vandalism is an exception to 3RR.
 * If an article is under mediation and you've got something that you feel should be in there, you can bypass it and put it in the article as long as it's well-sourced (i.e. from a general-interest newspaper, magazine) But be sure to justify it.
 * Merging or breaking off articles is fine without discussion if you've got enough information to back it up.
 * IAR would definitely not apply in cases where WP:BLP is involved. You're talking about the potential for libel in this case, and to my mind, the legal ramifications are too much to risk it.
 * Spam accounts can be indefblocked on sight in case of a blatant intent to use it for that purpose.
 * More on this to follow ... be patient, I have to rack my brain. Blueboy96 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A. To the letter. I am a journalist by training, and have zero tolerance for libel.Blueboy96 02:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from 
 * 7. Why is edit warring a bad thing, and how would you avoid doing this?--U.S.A. cubed 03:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A. Edit warring vitiates Wikipedia's credibility, and inevitably causes a breakdown in civility. I would combat this by strictly enforcing 3RR and encouraging users to mediate their disputes. Blueboy96 03:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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



''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Blueboy96 before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support A good, experienced editor. Would you consider changing your preferences to force an edit summary?--Anthony.bradbury 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Looks good except for the edit summery thing. Will change to full support if you change your preferences to force an edit summary. - M s  c  h  e  l  21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He has change his preferences to force an edit summary. - M s  c  h  e  l  00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral. - M s  c  h  e  l  19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So why do you change from weak support to neutral?--Anthony.bradbury 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support He has helped me deal with a sock/vandal and is very knowledgeable on policy etc. I think he would make a very helpful admin -- TREYWiki  03:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Good answer.--U.S.A. cubed 03:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --dario vet  (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, for now. Parcipate more in the Wikipedia namespace for awhile, and I'll be glad to support. The Transhumanist 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per answer to Q5. "If you've inserted information that is well-sourced and someone keeps taking it out, putting it back in wouldn't be a 3RR violation" - since when? Ever heard of content disputes? The rest of the answer to Q5 isn't quite as bad, but many are still terrible examples of IAR, and I don't put faith in this candidate's ability to be an effective administrator. I don't hesitate to link this lack of knowledge with the lack of participation in the project-space, as well. That, and this user is one of those who has the screwed-up interpretation that CN represents the "community", in preference to ANI and the "admins". *loud buzzer* Wrong.  Daniel Bryant  00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the answer the same way, I don't think that he meant it in the sense of a content dispute but more of as a disruptive removal results in re-insertation kind of thing. Like if someone kept removing well sourced information but the edit was not "vandalism" as we commonly know it, but certainly by letter of the law.  The same applies to the second example: I would have no qualms, either with myself or another admin, supplying relevant and sourced material into a fully protected article.  Of course, provided that the edit isn't relevant to the protection reasoning.  So I don't feel those are bad examples of IARs the user has chosen, I've yet to see a "right" answer to that question.  Just chiming in to say that's open to interpretation, I have no other opinion of the RfA at this point.   Teke  05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - the candidate has participated in 3 AfDs. Deletion policy permeates the entire project, and I would feel more comfortable if the candidate could demonstrate more experience with it. - Richard Cavell 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That says a lot more about current deletion policy being deeply problematic for Wikipedia than it does anything about the candidate - David Gerard 11:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose due to answer to Q5 (edit-warring is not acceptable because you're sure your source proves you right!), and also to concerns on having filed a sock puppetry case against a very new user. While the technical merits of the case were correct (the sock was obvious), the sock had done nothing more egregious than to remove a speedy tag, and no attempt was made to speak to the new user first at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - answer to Q5 apears to suggest that ignoring all the rules can be used to justify edit warring. Regarding Teke's comment - if you add a reference and someone removes it, then you should discuss why it was removed. Addhoc 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, well, yeah of course. What I was saying is that I interpreted his response differently, that he wasn't meaning reverting in a dispute so it is that regard that I was commenting.  I certainly know about them tawk pages :)  Teke  20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, apologies for spelling your name wrong. Addhoc 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Divisive userboxes on the candidate's user page mandate opposition to this candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose per Q5. Edit warring is not justified by the existence of a source, and breaking off an article without discussion should not be done. -Amarkov moo! 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose There are times when a rule can be ignored, but the ignoring of rules should never be used to harm Wikipedia with an edit war. Captain panda  18:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Q5 answer. Ignoring rules that way as an administrator can cause absolute HEAPS of trouble, like the Pedophilia Userbox Wheelwar for instance.  Mango juice talk 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per A5. Clear misunderstanding of our basic rules. Per WP:VAN, vandalism is only when a user intends to reduce the quality of an article, or the encyclopedia as a whole. Edits made due to disagreement about the validity or appropriateness of sources, even when coupled with a very strong POV, are not vandalism (though they may certainly be disruptive and may be blockable for disruption). This is certainly not a case for IAR, nor an excuse to violate 3RR. Crum375 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Response to Q5 shows candidate does not understand IAR. Nacon kantari  21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose as per answer to Q5. Content disputes are not candalism, and not every well-sourced fact belongs in an article (it may be well sourced, but trivial, for example). Admins in particualr should be extra carful with 3RR. I don't trust soemone who answers this way with the ability to edit protected pages and with the protect and unprotect buttons. DES (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Oppose per Q4, actually. Speedy deletion tags should not be removed under any circumstances by anyone unless the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. The appropriate thing to do is use hangon. If the user does not understand the difference between speedy and prod, I have to wonder about qualifications for adminship. Sorry. -Wooty Woot? contribs 08:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Daniel Bryant. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Wikipedia policy knowledge very questionable.--Dacium 04:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per answers to Q4 and Q5, which show lack of understanding of basic policies and guidelines used frequently by admins and editors in general. I recommend working on that and coming back in a few months. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 05:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. I think ignoring all rules is an important rule. :-P However, the candidate's response regarding IAR is deeply disturbing and leads me to believe the user would use admin tools incorrectly. I do not believe the user would abuse the tools. On the contrary, I believe Blueboy96 is a very good editor. It is unfortunate that the answer to Q5 displays a deep misunderstanding of dispute resolution that is almost certain to throw fuel on fires. I am truly sorry, but I must oppose. Vassyana 07:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose I'm on shaky ground when I read the answers to the questions. Needs a little more understanding in policy and application of it. Sr13 (T|C) 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Good user and dedicated vandal fighter, also excellent work with WP:AIV but your edit summary usage is less than a quarter, maybe if it was 80-100% but your is too low. Good luck though!  Te ll y a ddi ct  21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral: User's edit summary usage is very low and edit count in the Wikipedia namespace is also low. I'm also not sure about the answer to Q5.  Orfen   User Talk | Contribs 00:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Keep doing a good job and come back in three months. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I wanted to give support, but just can't at this point. Per Jossi's comments, keep up the good work and come back in three months, and I will gladly support then. Jmlk17 06:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Consider the admin coaching program. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 07:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per various concerns raised by opposers, including signs of unfamiliarity with the 3RR policy indicated by answer to Q5. — An as  talk? 11:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral - I would support fully, but I'm uncomfortable with the candidate's broad interpretation of IAR as evidenced by q5. Although the candidate is clearly aware of policy, we don't need admins who are willing to disregard process, especially when it comes to controversial content disputes. Wal  ton  Need some help?  12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral Excellent user and I want to give my moral support, but as others said your edit summary usage is less than a quarter. Try to fix those and come back later we're waiting to give our full support on you. Good luck -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Promising editor - next time, I think.--Docg 15:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral, leaning to support there are several concerns raised above but your contributions in general are good and plentiful. Learn from this and come back in a few months.  And I mean it, come back!  The Rambling Man 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral leaning support The people who have opposed you have made some good points but you are a expirienced user who has somewhat of a need for the tools. Shalom aleichem.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Mauk-to'Vor Matthew 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Neutral per answer to Q5, and weak edit summary usage.-- danntm T C 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Neutral (Changed from support). Per answer to question 5. - M s  c  h  e  l  19:18, 30 April 2007 (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.