Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickBush24


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

NickBush24
Final count (43/22/3) ended 03:54 October 19, 2005 (UTC)

– NickBush24 came to Wikipedia as one of the most prolific people from GameFAQ's. Since then, he has left GameFAQ's for Wikipedia. He has enough edits where I don't think Editcountitus will be a problem, and he got his welcome on July 1st. The first time I saw him was when he reverted vandalism to my user page circa July 10th. The troll then made the name NickBush24isgay and a few other names. He practices RC Patrol and I've seen him helping people out. His user page has suffered about 50 times due to his RC Patrolling and trollslaying. He deserves the tools I believe. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: OMG I ACCEPT LOLE >_> NickBush24 04:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Cabal,erm...GO FOR IT!!Amen...[[User:tdxiang|Tan Ding Xiang | &#x260E; ]] 04:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely. R  e  dwolf24  (talk)
 * 3) I support him fully. - GregNorc  ( talk ) 19:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I definitely would support this decision. foxdude333 (talk)
 * 5) I believe NickBush24 has the potential to become an excellent administrator! Thatdog 08:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Hula Hoop Support! Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  10:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral. Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  10:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Heh. If your userpage gets vandalised 50 times, you're doing something right. David Gerard 11:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support-- Exir  Kamalabadi Esperanza  11:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: the response to the antics of User:NickBush24isgay seals it for me. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Seems good to me. Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   13:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) My support too. --MissingLinks 14:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I beleieve NickBush24 would make a good admin. Alf melmac 15:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.  →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, a bold fighter of vandals. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Merovingian (t) (c) 15:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Fir  e  Fo  x  16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Vote change to Weakest Possible Support in Wikipedia History A good RC patroler but Im very worried about incivilty. In December maybe  --JAranda'' | yeah 17:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - most certainly....en passant! 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support CambridgeBayWeather 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Yes, definitely. A great RC patroller.  Ban e  s  17:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support He isn't already? Privat  e   Butcher  19:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Good vandal hunter. Rje 20:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme RickK support! Nothing more appropriate than giving a hard-working floorscrubber a mop. -DDerby- (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC) changed vote to neutral, see below.
 * 1) Definitely, seen him, liked him, protected his pages. - RoyBoy 800 00:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Continue to support. Nick has been here for quite a while, and his first task was to begin RC patrol on a full time basis. If civility is a concern, I volunteer to be an informal mentor to Nick to help diminish this problem. -- Essjay ·  Talk 00:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I've seen his edits and he also reverted vandalism on my own user page.  - x42bn6   Talk  01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support was helpful at GF, still helpful now. freestylefrappe 02:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support this guy needs the tools! --Bjarki 02:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. No wonder your name sounds familiar.. I've seen you all over the GameFAQs boards. :p Coffee 03:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. El_C 03:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Extreme Mop and Flamethrower Support! Vandals are dreading the day Nick gets those two tools. Tito xd (?!?) 03:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Go get the vandals! --Rogerd 05:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) We are power incarnate! &mdash; J I P  | Talk 09:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. the wub  "?!"  11:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. utcursch | talk 13:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. --NormanEinstein 13:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support .  Excellent contributor.  Hall Monitor 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Good edits :).Rhetoricalwater 14:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Unfair to accuse him of incivility. The vandal personally attacked him and said that he "hated" him. The response was perhaps a bit immature, but not really so bad. Tfine80 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Being rude to a newbie who'd made a test would be unacceptable.  Being rude to a persistent vandal when you're getting the hassle this guy has is considerably less serious, and imo is outweighed by all the excellent work he's done.  I trust him not to abuse his admin powers and find it hard to imagine someone more deserving of the rollback button. CTOAGN 01:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Everyone has their limits, and I've definitely seen worse reactions to persistent vandals. --Calton | Talk 07:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support because of the odd opposition votes below. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Some conflict is inevitable. Excellent editor. --orizon 12:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support.  Grue  21:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. The diffs presented in the oppose column are regrettable, and it would be better if those edits had been made differently. But they are certainly not the worst reactions to vandalism which I have seen here, it does not seem to show a long pattern of incivility, and they are not severe enough to push me into the oppose column. Indeed the history of vandal-fighting and other good work puts me here, among the supporters. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose I know this RfA will pass even with this oppose vote. I'm making it because of a diff that I find clearly unacceptable for an admin to make. I don't really care what the provocation is, how immature a user is or what the situation is, mocking a user is never an appropriate reaction for an admin to take. This is completely unacceptable. Nick, you'll pass this RfA as it is 36-1 currently. But, please promise you'll never engage in activity like that again. --Durin 21:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, Durin is right, it wasnt acceptable and this was only what..about a week ago. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I would really, really like to support, but I have to agree with Durin's comments. I cannot support a user who taunts vandals and seems to have a short temper.  Rob e  rt  23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Durin. Temperament is a consideration of utmost importance for admins.  Friday (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Jaxl. Too many incidents of incivility. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose this time round. Thanks to Durin for above note - I'd checked for incivility but missed any (which probably means it was just an off-day; we all have them).   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk
 * 7) Oppose as per Durins (and others) comments above. Vandalism and such can be frustrating but I would expect a much higher standard of any admin. If this were a year ago I'd give the benefit of the doubt but it was this month! --Nycmstar 13:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak Oppose. I am so torn. He's a good vandal fighter, but overall attitude seems harsh and unwelcoming. I believe this RfA will pass, but please be aware of your tone in the future. You note in question 3 that you have never been in conflicts over editing, but that seems to be what a lot of this RfA is about. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  17:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak oppose (changed from "support", after reading above) - your abrasive attitude is probably at least half the reason you are vandalized :-/ Seeing your excellent cleanup work, I want to give you a mop, but please using for scrubbing, not hitting. -DDerby- (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - a noticible fraction of edit summaries in your history are a bit over the top for me, and I feel needs to be toned down before the mop is given. --HappyCamper 22:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose This guy is a bully and I don't want to see him stepping all over the new comers to Wikipedia. --Greenmonkey 01:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC) likely sockpuppet vote of User:129.15.120.186 --Durin 16:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --Ryan Delaney talk 01:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 'Oppose. I just can't feel comfortable adminning someone with this history of incivility, especially given his stated lack of experience in and techniques for dealing with conflict with other users. With all due respect to Essjay's offer of mentorship, I'd rather see a change in his conduct before making him an admin. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose too many people have pointed out stuff that makes me uncomfortable with this nominee... perhaps later. ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 10:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose &mdash; While I feel NickBush24 has done some good work, I expect all admins to be civil and not insult other Wikipedians. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk |  WS 18:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Very reluctant oppose mmm... tricky one. Definitely be a vandal's worst nightmare if he got the tools, but not too sure about his temperement. That's what's difficult about tempremental vandal-fighters- Giving admin tools may bring both great good and great harm to Wikipedia. I'd like to see more WP-space edits in an admin, though and I guess this pushes my vote toward oppose. Borisblue 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per reasons given above gkhan 23:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Weakest conceivable oppose. I fully adhere to Borisblue's and DDerby's comments above. Incivility is not a matter to be taken lightly, and stirring the fire when dealing with vandals is the best way to ensure that they'll keep on hitting you and us all. I'm sure you'll make a great admin, but not just yet - a little more time and more control over your reactions and I'll gladly support you.  Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  04:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose for now - incivility towards another user in recent edit history. Also I've been an admin since March 2004 and my user page hasn't been vandalised anywhere near as much as this user's, which may also be a telling sign. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope that wasn't a suggestion of bad faith... though now re-reading it I think you're saying his reactions cause the returning vandalism. The first time I read it I thought you were suggesting he was the sockmaster of the vandals. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?)
 * No it wasn't a suggestion of bad faith. Yes there are vandals out there however it is my belief that a lot of vandalism towards you can be caused by your own actions towards those users to start with and the evidence of this user's brashness and incivility of recent weeks appears to make this quite clear. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, familiarise yourself with WP:BITE and retry. Great apart from that. Proto t c 10:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I wanted to support this, but the evidence of incivility was too much. Keep your record clean, then try again later. Xoloz 15:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, reluctantly, as per the incidents recently brought to light surrounding issues of incivility. Please do not let the vandals get the best of you.  Will gladly support in the future if these actions are not repeated.  Hall Monitor 20:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Blueballs 03:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)  Created User Account Today. Karmafist 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)  probable sockpuppet of User:129.15.120.186, who has vandalized this page and is currently blocked for a month --Durin 16:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for now. I'd very much like to support him, but the civility problem and the lack of communication (as per Lord Voldy) is making me leery. On the other hand, the outburst certainly wasn't unprovoked: please refer to this diff to understand NickBush24's reaction. All of us have their bad days. All the same, I'd feel better about this if this wasn't such a recent event. I am hoping that NickBush24 will consider the impact of his uncivil reaction on this discussion, and reform. I would like to see him re-apply in a month; if he can continue his good work with no similar occurences, he'd definitely get my support then. --Ashenai (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, for now, despite excellent work on the whole. My problem is much the same as those above, although I can definitely understand the reactions.  I would advise NickBush24 to read aboutSoft Security, which is the preferable way to deal with vandalism.--Scimitar parley 16:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Changed to Neutral per the incidents mentioned in the Oppose section. I don't think Nick will abuse his admin powers, but I don't feel comfortable supporting someone with a history of uncivility. Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  10:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I would have supported if not for the incidents of incivility. Assuming he keeps his temper, I'm sure he'll make a great admin. Carbonite | Talk 12:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral The RC good portions were cancelled out by the incivility, but not enough for an oppose vote. Wait a bit, chill out, and keep up the good work against the vandals and you'll have a landslide. Karmafist 04:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Wow he's such a good vandal fighter that Im reverting vandalism in this page from annons that don't want this to happen. --JAranda'' | yeah 19:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem very interested in talking to the community. Has 2457 article edits (I'm assuming mostly vandal fighting), but only 33 article talk edits and 2 project talk edits.(edits No I don't suffer from editcountitis, I would just like to see more involvement. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  17:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Other editors are concerned over Nick's ability to remain civil. I have no doubts in my mind that Nick is administrator material, but, if Nick is agreeable, I am willing to serve as an informal mentor to monitor and help Nick avoid incivility in the future. -- Essjay ·    Talk 22:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Basically blocking vandals, keeping an eye on the speedy deletion candidates, and other stuff. Those are the two things I intend to do at the start of my adminship, with more chores coming in the future.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'd have to say starting the articles for each of the six divisions in Major League Baseball. There's others I'm happy about but can't think of at the moment.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Nope, not really. Right now... I'm not quite sure how to deal with it, but I should find a way sometime in the very near future. Currently I just listen to music to help take my mind off it >_>


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.