Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Blueboy96

Final: (50/11/1); Ended 04:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy96 (talk · contribs) - I offered myself before you in April and November 2007. Now I wish to offer myself once again before you to serve this enterprise. Quick overview ... I stumbled on Wikipedia by accident in 2004, and after four or five anon edits decided to get an account. That was over 20,000 edits ago. While I've found myself delving into project space quite a bit of late since discovering Twinkle, at bottom, I'm still an article writer at heart, with over 14,200 mainspace edits--mostly to broadcasting, politics, history and sports-related articles. I've acquired a fairly good grasp of project policy as well. I was recently granted the rollback feature as well, and I promise that if granted the other tools, I will use them in a way that will do this project proud and help us continue to make the Internet not suck.Blueboy96 03:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Of course, I accept my own nomination. :)


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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to start out slow, primarily doing a lot of vandal-whacking. I've long since lost count of the number of times I wished I could block a vandal myself rather than hitting the ARV button. I plan to do more about unraveling socks as well--before coming to Wikipedia, I was a moderator on several political sims, and I can sniff out a sock fairly quickly. I realize that in light of the recent unpleasantness surrounding Archtransit that there probably might be more scrutiny about how new admins perform their tasks, and am willing to accept mentorship from a more experienced admin. I would likely be open to recall as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel most proud of expanding a couple of articles that depict important events in a way that does them justice--for instance, Drexel Burnham Lambert (which didn't go into enough detail into its role in the 1980s takeover madness) and KCBS (AM) (which didn't include enough on its pioneering role in radio). It's my journalist's instinct kicking in. Also, I saved at least one article from certain deletion. Last fall, I noticed that Edward McSweegan was up for deletion due to BLP and notability concerns, among other things. I took it upon myself to see if it could be salvaged. Turned out there was enough coverage from highly reliable sources (CBS, the Washington Post) as well as commentary on his situation by a U.S. Senator. This was enough for me to do a heavy-duty rewrite, as well as get the offending original version oversighted. A few months before that, I was scouring new users' contributions when I noticed that Patsy Moore had created an account to complain about libelous edits being made to her article. It turned out that a new user and an anon had added libelous material to the article, and it had gone unnoticed for over two weeks. I was able to revert it back and get it semi-protected. Before then, 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: Not recently ... but two summers ago I let my civility slip up a little regarding a content dispute on the Every Nation article. I was able to reach back to my high school debate days and was able to cool down enough to focus on the argument, not the person.

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
Blocking prevents an editor from contributing to Wikipedia, while a ban formally cancels a user's editing privileges. An important distinction is that a block applies to the account, while a ban applies to the person behind the account. A blocked user is theoretically allowed to create a new account and edit under said new account as long as he or she does so constructively. In contrast, a banned user is not allowed to contribute to the project in any way. Two other distinctions:
  • A user is effectively banned from the project when he or she is blocked and no admin will even consider unblocking.
  • Blocked users can edit their userspace, but banned users are not welcome to even edit there. Blueboy96 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
No matter how strongly I feel the material might belong in the main body, I would discuss it with the other admin on the article's talk page, as well as on the admin's talk page. I believe that administrators are justified in taking radical action regarding BLP issues--if there is one issue where the project's liability must be guarded conservatively, this is it. Blueboy96 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?
I probably would add myself to that category--as mentioned above, there is probably going to be scrutiny on admins after what happened to Archtransit. Blueboy96 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?
In no particular order ... enforcing BLP, spotting copyvios, reverting vandalism, and helping settle disputes. Blueboy96 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had actually withdrawn this question (and numbered the others) in favor of a different question before you posted your answers, I imagine you were in the process of answering them and wrote over the new Q with your answering edit. Can you answer this anyway please? "How have you addressed the concerns raised in your prior two requests? Can you anticipate what concerns will be raised in this one, and how you might answer them?" Thanks, Avruch T 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first request failed because I hadn't been active enough in project space ... I've since become fairly active at the AFD front--even submitted a few articles for deletion myself (thank you, Twinkle). I suspect that there will be questions about my understanding of copyright policy, since it seems that's the rock on which my last request foundered. I can assure those who were concerned the last time that I now understand WP:COPY and WP:FU, and will enforce those policies without reservation. Blueboy96 04:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Agüeybaná

8. How do you think being a deletionist would affect your work as an administrator?
I realize there have been some concerns expressed that my deletionist philosophy would adversely affect my ability to use the tools. But I feel it would help the project by making articles more encyclopedic. I'm not as extreme a deletionist as it may appear. My inclination is actually to look to see if an article can be salvaged before either =!voting delete or hitting the "Xfd" button. Take for instance, David Southwick. On paper, entrepreneurs have a claim to notability--but when I couldn't find anything regarding a significant business accomplishment, as I saw it we were left with an article about an unsuccessful candidate in an election. Another example--Edward McSweegan, as mentioned above. Blueboy96 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WODUP

9. How should a user amend their own comments if others have already responded to them? Can you give some diffs that show how you have amended your own comments when others have already responded to them?
A user should use the strikethrough function in order to amend his or her own comments ... I admit, I hadn't used it much before, and in my haste to clarify my responses failed to do so in my last bid for adminship, but I've become better about using it. Examples ... [1], [2] Blueboy96 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:DGG

10a If you were closing an AfD, and 3 people gave policy based reasons for deletion that you agreed with, and 3 gave policy based reasons for keeping, how would you close? DGG (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely as "no consensus, defaulting to keep." In a situation like that, you'd have to have an egregious BLP violation in order to close as delete. Blueboy96 13:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10b Please pick one disputed currently open AfD or Deletion review where the close is not altogether clear and say how you would close it and why. DGG (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the DRV for Abongo (Roy) Obama, I would keep it deleted ... notwithstanding the concerns about the previous version being an attack page, it doesn't seem to me that this guy would be notable if he wasn't Barack Obama's elder brotehr--and notability is not inherited. Blueboy96 13:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10c Here's a deletion rationale of yours, from two weeks ago : "Appears to fail WP:BIO--no significant coverage aside from Amazon and other book reviews." Not with respect to this particular article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zencey, in general what if any is the relevance between book reviews and notability? DGG (talk)
To have a book review isn't enough--it has to be an "independent" review, per WP:BIO#Creative professionals--and to my mind, Amazon reviews don't pass that muster since anyone can submit a review (much like IMDB). In the case of the Eric Zencey AfD, I have to give kudos to Neozoon for finding reviews that did prove he was notable. Blueboy96 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:


--A. B. (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support per my support in the last RfA. Avruch T 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Meets my criteria by a landslide. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - extensive article-writing and Wikipedia experience, seems like an ideal candidate. Doesn't say so in his answers but I'd guess he also knows whether fair use images should be allowed in galleries or not, too. Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the resolution of last time's support. Rudget. 12:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support In every way a good candidate. Harland1 (t/c) 14:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support William Ortiz (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good answers. Lot's of experience. Got my vote. RC-0722 communicator/kills 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I'm impressed by the knowledge of policy shown by this candidate in the discussions kindly provided by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and in the answers. Gwernol 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, --SyntaxError55 talk 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support don't see any real problems, unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. Guest9999 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - No reason to think he won't use the tools wisely and help the project. ---CWY2190TC 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support plenty of experience. Nice answers to questions. SpencerT♦C 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - trustworthy editor. Opposers aren't remotely convincing. Addhoc (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - good editor, should get the mop.   jj137 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support As last time. GlassCobra 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - nothing to make me believe that he wouldn't be a competent administrator. - Philippe | Talk 23:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Dlohcierekim 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Gwernol and Addhoc said it first, so I don't need to say it again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: Great answers to the questions provided. After reviewing the contribution history, I see no reason why he can't be handed the mop and bucket. Best of luck! seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Yep, give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Good user, good soon-to-be admin. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 04:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. No problem. -- Iterator12n Talk 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak support Attitude towards AfD concerns me, but all in all, I doubt that Blueboy will abuse the mop. --TBC!?! 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak support per TBC NHRHS2010 11:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, I think objecting just because the user is a deletionist is a bit harsh. I see no evidence this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  28. Support: Frankly, the opposition votes highlight some of the deep flaws of the RfA process. No grounds are actually proffered for why this able, thoughtful and dedicated editor would make a poor administrator or how he would abuse the tools. So ... because someone hangs the word "deletionist" on him and that he lacks a claque? At this rate, I expect Oppose votes to start coming because nominees' political stances, takes on abortion rights, preferences in music or real world professions by definition would make them "poor admins."  RGTraynor  12:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Make sure to be careful when deleting articles at AFD. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. But don't forget that fresh eyes are sometimes better for blocking vandals, the blood can boil and make you over-react. AIV can be used by admins too for confirmation. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Dorftrottel (complain) 19:08, February 25, 2008
  32. Weak support Although I'm not a fan of deletionists (as every article should be decided case by case), I would never oppose based on this. Therefore, I see no reason this user should not be an admin, so... support. нмŵוτнτ 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since I've never seem his name mentioned as a problem user MBisanz talk 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support with best wishes--NAHID 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support should do ok by the look of things. Sting au Buzz Me... 13:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support per the extensive list of Blueboy96's 107 deletion nominations over the last 6 months that I've listed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 3#Deletion track record. He has a near-perfect speedy deletion track record and a respectable (but not stellar) AfD nomination record; some of the AfDs that went against him were either close calls or had just 2 or 3 participants. Several articles were kept that were not obvious keepers to me either; perhaps the subjects were notable but no refs were shown to prove it. As for the concerns about "mocking" expressed by opposing commenters below, I looked at the diffs cited and I personally just don't see a problem. --A. B. (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support Has been around since March 2004 with over 14000 mainspace edits and track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. Long term editor, lots of edits, good AfD contribs, opposing based on "deletionism" is absurd. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak Support - a change from neutral last time. I am a bit concerned about deletionism, but he has waited, learned things, and been honest. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    " ...but he has waited, learned things, and been honest". Well, if you call lying about a situation ('red typeface causes reactions to readers') honest, in order to deal with another editor, then maybe. He did this, but only has said that he would use different techniques at this point in time; never has said that he was wrong to lie or that he attempted to lie. Intellectually dishonest; should never be an admin. Duke53 | Talk 03:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - the only problems that the user seems to have is some dispute issues, but those issues were handled with and the user has not had significant disputes since. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I think that Blueboy96 will make a good administrator. Acalamari 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - about time there was an admin that understood that we are editing an encyclopedia, not some oddball Triviapedia. Shot info (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, nothing intrinsically wrong with being deletionist. I don't see any evidence Blueboy would be incapable of judging policy or the consensus of others, no matter what his own view on an article may be. Neıl ☎ 10:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - answer to question1 spot-on for a potential admin! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Lawrence § t/e 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per the good track record this user has in AfD discussions and nominations, as so graciously laid out in full detail by A. B. Not perfect, but who is? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support as I did in the last RfA. We've worked together on several projects, and his contributions are always well-informed and constructive. JTRH (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Jmlk17 07:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I like people who don't like crap articles. Charles Stewart (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Great Xfd expirience and article contributions Alexfusco5 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my reasoning in November, i.e. excessive and disproportionate desire to delete rather than build up articles, as evidenced by rapid "votes":
        • 14:48, 24 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul's Arranged Marriage (2nd nomination)‎ (speedy delete and salt) (top)
        • 14:47, 24 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Mathur (2nd nomination)‎ (speedy delete and salt) (top)
        • 21:50, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spires - Sheffield band‎ (→The Spires - Sheffield band: speedy delete)
        • 21:49, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxberry Limited‎ (delete)
        • 21:48, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tvuk‎ (→Tvuk: delete)
          • The user admittedly does not have a neutral point of view regarding AfDs. The nominee has apparently also attracted some off-wiki controversy for voting to delete an article and calls on editors to "Be bold--delete an article today." I do not get why someone would not rather encourage editors to help find references for an article, welcome a new user, or something pleasant. But it is not merely that the nominee is "deletionist." Others who are in the deletionist category have made edits that make them hard to oppose at times, but rapid votes, getting involved in controversy that attracts attention even off our project, and calling on editors to just "delete an article today" is a bit too non-neutral for an admin. Keep working on vandal fighting and article improvement and perhaps argue to keep more often, and I may reconsider down the road. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Le Grand, I apologize, but your oppose is hardly convincing. All three AfDs that you listed from the 17th were closed as obvious Deletes with only a few votes; very little time is needed to judge in those cases. The AfDs that you listed from the 24th actually hurt your case; those were both deleted articles that had been recreated; Blueboy voted Speedy Delete per G4, which is exactly the right call. I understand that you don't want a deletionist admin, but perhaps you could find some other evidence? GlassCobra 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear GlassCobra, I do agree with a number of his positions in that a number of his deletes are indeed with regards to hoaxes, but it is the focus spent on not just wanting to delete hoaxes, but other articles as well. Looking through the edits between the last RfA and the current one, there were at least a few times in which he became compelled to withdraw his nomination after editors pointed out sources that indicated notability. I would hope that one would spend more effort doing a source check before nominating an article for deletion. I do give him credit for conceding, but it just becomes frustrating for myself and others at AfDs that could and should have been avoided. Plus, it is one thing to feel annoyed at hoaxes and to want them deleted as I certainly do, but is it necessary to be outright offended? Finally, when dealing with banned editors, is it necessary to mock them on top of it (see here, here, and here) in the edit summaries or could one simply post the template without the mockery? Perhaps it is hard to feel sympathy for certain editors, but I do not see a need to write "quack, quack" at them. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest, Le Grand, I don't find myself swayed. Those diffs may be toeing the civility line, but I've certainly seen worse from people around here. Also, those all pale in comparison to the large amount of positive work that this user has done for the project. GlassCobra 06:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being an admin will not prevent anyone from being able to contribute in a positive way to our project. As the ability to delete articles is one of the few tools an admin has (i.e. other than blocking, unblocking, and restoring deleted articles), I would prefer not granting someone who so disproportionately votes to delete articles in AfDs, who is admittedly on one of the extreme ends of the deletion spectrum, whose participation in an AfD earned the project some off-wiki notoriety, mocks banned users, etc. I am not persuaded that it is necessary for him to be an admin to do good work here and I am not convinced that he would be neutral enough for AfD closures. Again, that is not to suggest that he has not done any good work or that I do not believe that he will continue to fight vandalism or work on article improvement instead as a regular contributor and I hope that he will focus on such efforts. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Thank you for humoring me. :) GlassCobra 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. I'm always happy to clarify. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the extensive list of Blueboy96's 107 deletion nominations over the last 6 months that I've listed at
    Blueboy96 has a near-perfect speedy deletion track record and a respectable (but not stellar) AfD nomination record; some of the AfDs that went against him were either close calls or had just 2 or 3 participants. Several articles were kept that were not obvious keepers to me either; perhaps the subjects were notable but no refs were shown to prove it.--A. B. (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There should still be more balance, i.e. more efforts to keep articles as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose — per the guy above me (my apologies, the name is far too difficult for me to type). Deletionism is never good; remember Mzoli's? --Agüeybaná 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' comments and the fact that this is a self-nomination.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - What's wrong with self-nominations, Netkinetic? Could you please elaborate? ScarianCall me Pat 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Déjà vu. --Agüeybaná 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the editor is indeed administrator-worthy, why wouldn't another editor have noninated him after his first or second attempt? It seems quite evident what his aspirations are. That tells you something that they hadn't made a nomination.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming good faith here, wouldn't one interpret numerous self-nominations as evidence that the candidate's "aspirations" simply lie with becoming an administrator? He/she wants to help the project with the tools. I'm not going to contest this much, but I never thought self-noms would be frowned upon, nor would it ever be used as part of a reason to object at RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wisdom89, you may wish to *read* my post again, for which I clarified "why wouldn't another editor have nominated him after his first or second attempt". I understand the portion you are focusing in, however my point is that after a couple self-nominations surely there were some observant admins that saw his goal to "use the tools". Why didn't any of these "in the know" come forward and nominate him. That is the point. Perhaps they know (or perceive) something we don't?Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - per above. --Niyant (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Le Grant; specifically deletionism and mocking of banned users. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 04:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strongest possible oppose - Per my reasoning from November: this guy lied and fabricated a reason to harass, intimidate and ban another editor. He should NEVER be an admin at Wikipedia. Duke53 | Talk 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly your right to say this but I strongly disagree with you. I've read your exchange in the November RfA and he told you repeatedly that he realized he should have handled the situation differently:
    --A. B. (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what may have started this dispute last summer:
    This was 7+ months ago and Blueboy96 has long since acknowledged his good faith mistake.
    --A. B. (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He never apologized for anything ... he simply stated that he would have gone about it differently. He lied, and got caught lying ... the only thing he is 'sorry' about is that he got caught. Anybody who would go to the trouble of fabricating some 'theory' and stating it as fact probably would go to any length to advance his cause. 7+ months ago? How many people have you ever met that have completely changed their philosophy of life in that time? He did it then, and if given the chance, will do it again in the future. Please show me 'good faith' in a bold-faced lie. He lied for his own self interest. Period.Duke53 | Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. Delve a bit deeper and you will discover the real reason why he did what he did. :0) Duke53 | Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us are kinda busy to go in search of; could you please do the delving for us and provide the necessary links to strengthen your oppose? —MJCdetroit (yak) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I say again what I said in November ... that Mfd was a mistake on my part. I overreached in hitting the Xfd button on this, and had I had it to do all over again, I would have handled it differently than I did, and had I known what I know now about the importance of collaboration, I wouldn't have even pursued it at all. Blueboy96 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per the Great Pumpkin King. Far, far, far too deletionist for my tastes, and too willing to allow others' zealous application of WP:BLP constrain their independednt analysis. I've seen quite a bit of good work deleted, both at AfD and by claiming BLP violation. Destroying contributions is easy and discourages further contribution. The easy stuff needs no encouragement. Granting deletion tools to this editor seems a greater-than-acceptable risk. --SSBohio 19:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give some diffs for your comments about BLP over-zealotry. I looked at the articles he actually nominated over the last 6 months and Blueboy96's own record doesn't look bad. I did not, however, look at his comments at AfDs initiated by others. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose for deletionism. Callmederek (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SELFNOM Alexfusco5 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This ground of opposition is worthless, and should be completely disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (indented after conversation with Blueboy96) Doesn't understand what vandalism is; also reached in filing an SSP case against three editors who were enforcing BLP. east.718 at 07:52, March 1, 2008
    Here's the story ... the three accounts in question were blanking material that used a newspaper-operated blog as a source. Such blogs are permitted as sources under WP:RS#News organizations. Therefore, as I saw it, there was no BLP violation there, and I considered it a case of blanking of cited material. The reasoning behind filing a sock case was that you had two users go right to that page as their only edit and blank the material. Blueboy96 10:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note that had I had the tools at the time, I would not have blocked, but merely opened a sock case to have others take a look--there would have been enough doubt in my mind to require some other eyes to look at the situation rather than summarily block in this case. Blueboy96 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Either that, or I would have raised the question at AN or ANI ... Blueboy96 11:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weakly per East718 and a gut feeling, the latter of which I admit isn't terriby persuasive, but should be noted anyways. Daniel (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Even though he answered my questions well, I'd like us to have some additional experience with him at deletion processes to et a clear idea of objectivity.DGG (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. The candidate knows how to properly amend his comments after others have responded to them and acknowledges that he was wrong on his last RfA. The examples that Blueboy96 gave were not too recent, but I didn't ask for recent examples (:O), and as it's something that doesn't happen quite often, I imagine it's not too easy to come up with examples where one amends one's own comments. I believe that he will amend his comments properly in the future. WODUP 05:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blueboy96_3&oldid=1145853994"