Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 3

Oppose

1. Oppose. Per the pointless debacle at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments. Disgracefully disruptive. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   So your saying that it would be better for both parties to engage in an even more pointless edit war than to seek input on a matter of mutal disagreement through established channels and in accordance with all aplicable policies and guidelines? Or have I misunderstood something in you above comments? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Read the whole thing. It was escalated completely out of hand with no basis at all. The "evidence" at the RFC was completely absurd and the whole thing was one of the worst wastes of time I've seen in quite some time. No way for an admin to behave. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I invite everyone to please read the entire page. If you can't see any basis for a problem, I welcome your opposition. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In fairness, it was in February. Somewhere more recently in the AN/I or AN logs is a discussion about banning the two editors from interacting with eachother, if someone can hunt it up...

   ^T 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Check these links - there are sections in four different AN-related archive pages. And if someone has to be forcefully restrained from dealing with another person, they are not well suited to be an admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry to butt in here, but all 4 ANI links are comments on the same MfD (which was closed with a result of keep) and all were started by people who didn't like the exception in

   WP:USER. It was something well within the rules of Wikipedia and was appropriately kept. These same individuals are more than welcome to attempt to change Wikipedia policy and guidelines through consensus on respective talk pages, but until the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia change, the type of page created is permitted to stay. Furthermore an unfounded accusation that I have been forced to be restrained from interaction with another Wikipedian is absurd and misleading. Nowhere have I been directed to do so. In fact, I have chosen to avoid this user as much as possible. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Well, if that's true, why do you keep leaving messages on people's talk pages about this dispute and why did you file that Wikiquette alert and why is it exactly that you keep trying to lodge your complaint against me across so many different forums? I feel like here you're trying to misrepresent me and make it appear like I've pursued you across hell and highwater to keep this fight up when the opposite would appear to be true. In the interest of my reputation, I'd like to ask you to take it easy with the accusations. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I have no intent to continue to bicker with you over this. People can read both our histories and judge for themselves, but to answer your question, The only messages I have left were in response to messages on my talk page. I filed a wikiquette alert on the advice of a Bureaucrat. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Who Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Here's a recent instance. There may be more. Schmidt (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That doesn't look like Rlevse is recommending he file a Wikiquette alert. I think BQZip01 should clarify, since it seems a little inappropriate to have someone speak for him when he's speaking for someone else. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   So you think its inappropriate for anyone to speak in support of him at an RA? To most who would read that section it looks exactly like Rlevse is recommending

   WP:DR. He did not give only one choice, but several. Schmidt (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Further, I do not wish to banter with you. I just provided an answer so others may read those sections more fully and draw their own conclusions. Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Out of curiosity, would you say the same thing is this was an rfa for Cumulus Clouds, or is this a one-sided oppose? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   When I was watching that unfold, I saw no disruptive behavior from Cumulus Clouds. The whole thing was BQZip01 being a stubborn

   mastodon, insisting on keeping his user page of allegations, only to have the allegations turn out to be completely unfounded. I saw nothing inappropriate from Cumulus Clouds during that time (or if I did, they were clearly under extreme provocation stretching out over days). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   ...Which is all well and good, but my question can be anwered with a simple "yes" or "no", and to be brutally honest that is what I am looking for. For the rest of the contributers (you and me included) these links will speak for themselves, but only you can answer my yes or no question. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow, my response wasn't evident? The answer is "No" and the reasons are in the previous response. BTW, Avruch, I think you're referring to

   User talk:Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive11#MQS. Cumulus Clouds summarized more disruption with this edit where he listed a few diffs from late June. I would expect at least a mention of the whole episode from BQZip01. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Actually, it was very evident, I just wanted be 100% sure that my take on the situtation was right. Its one of those situtation where I want to establish that there simply isn't any wiggle room in your !vote, hence the yes or no comment. My guess is that this is going to be important as the rfa goes on. Thanks for replying, and I promise I won't bug you here anymore. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No worries. Was just a bit puzzled. It's hard to take an RFA seriously when the candidate

   admits just three weeks earlier that he's hopelessly deadlocked with a particular user, to the point where he may be headed to arbitration, and yet he doesn't even mention it in the RFA. That goes beyond accidental oversight into disingenuousness. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   To be fair, I think that BQ hasn't brought up these points and adressed them yet becuase no one has asked him about the whole thing yet. It would be wise of the contributer (pro, con, and neutral) to reserve judgment until BQ gets a chance to explain things in his own words. I think thats only fair, but thats my opinion, and as you and I have demeonstrated opinions will vary from user to user. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Tom, could you please review question 3? I think this would more than qualify and prudence would state be forthright with weaknesses/fallacies. By hiding issues, even as obvious as this one, it looks disingenous. BQ lost the ability to frame that debacle by failing to raise it here himself. If he brought it up, he could have tried to sell his position on the subject, as it is, we have to dig into it ourselves. But he was explicitly asked about it, he just failed to answer it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With his not needing a crystal ball to expect that detractors would bring it up in the first oppose votes, don't you think he showed wisdom and prudence in not himself bringing dissention to the RA? While he maintains absolute decorum, courtesy and civility, I continue to read him being incivily referred to as "pointy', "absurd", "stubborn", "contentious", "argumentative", "defensive", et al., from certain opposers who make provably false statements to support their opinions. And yet, BQ has not allowed himself to be baited. I do not see it as hiding something, so much as not wishing it to continue here as it did at he last RA. This is a place for discussion and reason, not for emotion and opinion. That kind of forbearance is worth respecting. Schmidt (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, I've encountered problematic tendencies at FAC: false statements that are personal attacks and a failure to AGF (sample, "after this discussion, Sandy went to pages where I edited/commented and opposed them because I did a thorough review. IMHO, this is out of line and is vindictive in nature"), and difficulty in letting go of differences, even to the extent of making a pointy disruption that would negatively impact upon someone else's FAC as recently as May 2008 (sample, [1] [2]). Combining pointy and stubborn inability to back off of a difference, failure to AGF, and a tendency towards self-promotion(June 2008) with admin tools = not a good recipe. I'm concerned that because BQ so stubbornly hangs on to differences, and refers to them in subsequent discussions even months later, that he has not demonstrated an understanding of the characteristics and temperment needed in an admin. If I see a change in this tendency, I'd be likely to support a future RfA, as he has done good article work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   BQ and I have a long and friendly history of collaborative editing and I took this [3], as him teasing me rather than self-promotion. Karanacs (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I struck that portion then, and my apologies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sandy, I understand your frustration, but categorizing my actions as "negatively" affecting an FAC is a bit of hyperbole there. You yourself reverted it a few minutes later. My "disruption" was no less than yours when you deleted my comments. I apologize here and now for any heartache it may have caused. As per your suggestion, we moved the discussion to the talk page where I found some support and you found some too. In short, though I disagree with the method chosen, there isn't consensus to change how things are being done (whether codified under consensus or not) and I dropped it about 4 months ago. I haven't brought it up since. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - thanks to the above users for digging through the user's history to find those diffs. Since becoming an admin myself, I've learned that sometimes, you need the patience of a saint to deal with the 'angry mastodons' problem. The candidate's conflicts with other users shows him to have a streak of paranoia. He should not be given the block button. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, if you read the nom, my grounds for the rfa had nothing to do with the block button and everything to do with the delete button. patience is needed when working on our xfd boards, but (IMHO) its not as stressfull as handling rc patroling and attacks from anon vandals. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   A "streak of paranoia"? What a vile thing to say about someone. If you have concerns about editorial contributions or the tone of language that is used in conversation, that can be addressed without issue. But to suggest someone is mentally ill strikes me as being wildly inappropriate for an adult conversation. It is possible to show doubt about someone without denigrating their character.

   talk) 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Completely agreed with Ecoleetage. Judgments and labels are extremely unnecessary and inappropriate. GlassCobra 20:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   When I use the word 'paranoia', I mean it as 'excessive self-reference' rather than 'a delusion of self-persecution'. Not everyone who has paranoid tendencies is mentally ill. I do not claim that the candidate is mentally ill. If he were mentally ill in some way, that would not be a factor in my decision whether to support or oppose. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - Was going to support until I read the first two opposes and the diffs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - User has a history of contentiousness. There's no compelling reason to promote such a user to admin and plenty of reason not to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you provide examples? It would help reinforce you position. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   See Wknight94's discussion. A contentious user is not likely to improve once they have more power. On the contrary, it's uncorking the genie and practically guaranteeing more contention. Just what we need here, eh? I ask again, what's the urgency of promoting this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Right. Thanks for the example, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Tom, just a word of advice. When a nominator uses sarcasm or disputes many of the opposes, it tends not to bode well for the candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I usually don't ever comment on RfAs, but what in the world makes you think that Tom was being sarcastic, Wisdom? Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The brevity compounded by the fact that BB didn't actually provide any example for his oppose, which Tom asked for. I guess I could be wrong, but Tom did see my point when he made a note on my talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Another questionable point is that he says he wants to be an admin to work on removing images that violate wikipedia's image rules. If that's truly his primary interest, he doesn't need to be an admin to do that work. Anyone can nominate images for deletion. So I have to conclude that he wants to have the right to just zap them without discussion - which means he has no business being an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Respectfully, there is a significant distinction between a nomination and a deletion: only admins can actually delete an image while everyone is open to nominate and image for deletion. Furthermore, I don't know what prompted you to say that I want "the right to just zap them without discussion." To the contrary: all IfDs are subject to a 5-day debate as to the merits of inclusion on Wikipedia. I would start with deletion of images that are obviously not encyclopedic and are orphaned (as many of them are) with no opposition whatsoever. If you will notice, there is nearly a 3 week backlog right now. My goal is to clear up the backlog and not let it get so bad ever again, but not at the cost of silencing anyone without discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose - user is involved in too much drama. Having read the links above (particularly the MFD discussion), BQZ appears to be somewhat argumentative and defensive, as a result of his ongoing dispute with CC, which leads me to believe he does not show the 'cool head' required for an admin. I'm also concerned by his extensive documentation of other editors' behaviour - while this is acceptable in certain situations, and BQZ seems to have always acted in good faith, it makes me think that as an admin, his dispute would distract him from improving the encyclopaedia. Terraxos (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Regretful oppose, BQZ's description of this 3RR block seems at variance with what I can find about it. To me it appears that the edit war was over a fact tag in the lead, eg diff. It there fore seems to me that he learnt nothing from this mistake and is unwilling to admit honestly to errors. If my interpretation of this edit war is wrong I will reconsider. (See also AN/I thread. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   My apologies. I could have been a little more clear: the reversions to the images of Hitler were only some of the reverts I performed that day. I have expanded upon my answer above. Does that satisfy your concerns? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Not really I'm afraid, looking at the timing I see you were unblocked at 15:55 and then went straight back up to 3RR with diff, diff and diff over the following three hours. I'm just not comfortable with the gap between how you first described this and the much more ambiguous set of edits in the history. I know this seems unfair, in that the first block was questionable to say the least, but the later edit-warring following the first block, and your initial description of this as simple vandalism reverts, leave a pretty bad impression. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. I've been reviewing BQ for 2 hours now, and here is my opinion:#When Sandy votes, I listen. Her example of his decidedly pointy edit has me greatly concerned. Then there was his history with CC which resulted in an RFC, ANI, and series of edits. While none of these are blantant signs of a problematic user, I just keep getting an uncomfortable feeling about him. There are a number of edits, such as While I agree the spirit of the rules are to be followed, I disagree with your interpretation. Because I do, I feel you are accusing me of not following the spirit of the rules but following the letter. But how am I possibly doing that when it is explicitly permitted. I feel as if you are following your feelings and ignoring what is written. He was also warned for edit warring with CC in the exchange leading to this This eventually lead to Avruch "proposing that you and Cumulus Clouds be barred from further interaction" In reviewing his history/edits, I get the sense that User:TheOtherBob was right when commenting My personal view of BQZ thus far is that he's not shown good judgment or much maturity in this instance. He seems to me to have prioritized "winning" over building an encyclopedia, and seems to believe that any action -- no matter its effect on other editors, the community, or even his own reputation -- is completely A-OK so long as it fits within his interpretation of a rule. This was the only resolution to garner more than a few endorsements.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I should also add that I find this on his talk page to be unnecessarily POINTY in light of his failed RfA for canvassing. "I hereby explicitly request that any individuals with whom I have worked that wish to apply for adminship please request my review on my talk page. This applies to parties with whom I have both agreed and disagreed (or even those with whom I had no opinion). This also applies to anyone who has noticed my interaction with the subject of an RfA. Notification on my talk page should not be construed as a violation of WP:CANVASS, but an answer to the above request." If a person were to post on his page, I might deem it CANVASS despite this generic request.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose Lacks experience, and unfortunately it shows in the arguments used at IfD and various other venues. Seems to vote on anything, whether they understand the issues involved or not. Even considering I had this nomination watchlisted and was planning to oppose anyway, the strength of opinion in the opposes above, most notably Tim Vickers' and Sandy's, both users I have the greatest respect for, confirm I was on the right track with this. I would be very uncomfortable with this person having the tools, not because of any risk they'll abuse them, as I believe they operate completely in good faith, but quite possibly misuse them. Orderinchaos 05:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am quite concerned at this !vote. You'd planned on opposing me before this was filed? Can you specify why you think I don't understand the issues involved? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   oppose I share Tim Vickers' concerns; [4] [5] [6] [7] isn't reverting "image of Hitler" additions or reverting "Faggies" back to "Aggies" it looks like regular old 3RR edit warring to me. I wouldn't take it so seriously if you answered Tim's question a bit more forthrightly. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)I've read more carefully and think I may be wrong here in my characterization. Edits were to lede, and summarized section in body which was referenced... I'd think BQZip01 would have been treated pretty harshly to get a block for that alone. Consider me neutralPete.Hurd (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Strong Oppose Lacks administrative experience. Lajolla2009 (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you care to elaborate on this? Your vote could be interpreted many ways, but ill call a spade a spade and take it how I see it. How can someone lack administrative experience without being an administrator?

    talk) 07:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Concur. This oppose seems particularly stupid in a catch-22 way. Do elaborate for us, if you would. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not all administrative tasks require the administrator bit. I'm not sure if that's what is meant, but it's how I read it, if it helps. Orderinchaos 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see many records of participation in assisting current admins with necessary tasks, also Question #8 worries me that the user may not be ready for the granted power. Lajolla2009 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose per the temperament issues. Epbr123 (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose; administrators are likely to get into disputes with people who disagree with their actions, and are also looked to as examples to help mediate disputes. Coming into adminship with a long-term dispute with another user that still seems to be going on does not seem like a very good idea. -- Natalya 11:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose looking at the diffs, I'd say it's too soon for someone in a long-term dispute to get the bit. Minkythecat (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - per Q7. Very fishy. You'll allow the community to give you the bit, but wont trust them to take it away? Mmm... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Couldn't be further from the truth. I would be happy to submit to the consensus of the community, I (and many others) simply don't believe that the method outlined in

    CAT:AOR is the most appropriate method and is open to too much abuse (see Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests for links to multiple examples). — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I've read over, and not seen any "abuse" per se. Sure, a few malcontents starting omgdramahz... but the ones that were successful... were successful. Since its all we have, its all we've got. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And it is that which I wish to avoid. It isn't "all we've got" as there are other venues for this such as arbitration. If you aren't going to support because of this single issue, then I guess there isn't much that can be done. Have a pleasant day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely support BQZip in this regard. I find AOR to be a silly expectation. If a person needs the bit removed, then it will be yanked out regardless of whether or not they signed up at AOR or not.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While I shall note I am one of the other opposers, I think this oppose is pointy. People should not oppose a candidacy on the basis of their opposition to a process which is prone to abuse by either the admin or their opponents. I point to the situation happening to Elonka right now as a classic example of why recall is a farce and why it should only ever be genuinely voluntary. Orderinchaos 12:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not pointy. We have a difference of opinion. How odd that you would automatically go to

    WP:POINT... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

15. Oppose Per Balloonman and the AOR issues. MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. I generally avoid opposing RfA's, and have only done so in a limited number of discussions, but I strongly feel that appointing you as an administrator at this time would be a poor decision for the project. The temperament issues, as well as my concerns with your general approach (drama should be kept to a minimum, not a maximum, due to its uncanny ability to detract from what's important on here), raise some red flags for me, so I'm going to say "not now" to this nomination. Thank you for your enthusiasm for the project, however, and I do hope you work on the concerns. If I see you back at RfA in the future, coupled with a substantial improvement regarding the issues raised here this week, I may be pushed to reconsider my stance. Oppose at this time. Regards,
    Anthøny 14:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. The only time I've come across you was this, where IMO he acted extremely childishly. naerii 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong oppose - I couldn't have put it any better than just about anyone before me. I would not be happy to support giving this user the mop and bucket at this point in time, perhaps in a year or so I would reconsider.
     Asenine 
    16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose per nom. Timeshift (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This usually signals a good time for

    WP:SNOW - when people arrive and see so many opposes that they think the nom. is opposing! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    No, this RFA does not call for SNOW, there are 14 supports, which is fairly close to the number of opposes. This RFA will likely end as "failed" or "withdrawn", but SNOW is not applicable. Useight (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To Wknight: I'm assuming Timeshift was opposing because he didn't think the nom was good. Sometimes people will oppose/support per someone else, who doesn't necessarily fall into the same column. Enigma ^message 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose The links provided by Balloonman are too concerning for me to offer support. Furthermore, in question 3, you link to
    WP:AN/I would be the more appropriate place. If it was just oversight on your part, my apologies, but I'm mainly concerned about the drama, maturity and judgement issues. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
21. Oppose: Candidate comes across as inexperienced and generally unsuited to administrator of the project at present. The final nail however was the argumentative and annoying behaviour from the nominator, which leaves me with an uneasy feeling about the nomination and such. I would urge the candidate to withdraw at this time and consider standing again in around 6 months time, and with a different nominator, if applicable. Nick (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps that something you ought to consider taking up with the nominator, rather than out on the candidate? --

    talk) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Agreed with Malleus. IMO this nominator has behaved no better and no worse than others I've seen here, obviously they believe in the candidate if they've chosen to nominate them and may be watchful for what they feel is unfair criticism or opposition. However, it does not reflect on the candidate if the nominator is going out on their own and saying stuff they shouldn't. Orderinchaos 12:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regretful oppose I'm regretful to say I have to oppose here. I can't get past the fact that the user has been blocked before, as that showed a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.Switched vote to neutral--

    Fan 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Many have been blocked, including me. Doesn't prove that I misunderstand wikipedia policy any more or less than the blocking admin does. --

    talk) 00:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Even so, I'm hesitant.--

    Fan 22:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

22. Oppose Too hot-headed. Also, Q9 seems weird at first (which isn't a big deal), but after reading Oppose #2 it seems immature.--KojiDude ^(C) 21:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. (edit conflict)Oppose per all of the above. Suggest withdrawal. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Listing

    AIV as a page used to deal with stress and arguments is not good. Sorry, I'll accept that you made a typo in listing AIV, but I still have some concerns (particularly ones raised by Baloonman). Malinaccier (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Weak Oppose per OhanaUnited and Malinaccier. « Diligent Terrier (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (BQZip01 left message on my talk) - I'll take your word for it that the AIV/ANI thing was a typo. « Diligent Terrier (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24. Strong Oppose Sorry, but I am not able to support a candidate who is unwilling to make themselves open to recall. --Winger84 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think this is a valid reason to oppose. People seem to forge this little fact, but ALL adminstrators are open to recall all of the time, whether they agree to submit themselves to AOR or not. Just becuase BQ isn't going to advertise his openess to recall doesn;t mean it will be above its implications. Frankly, I would like to see a strong oppose paired with a better rational than this. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry that you feel that way, but that is one of my unwritten rules when it comes to how I elect to vote. Yes, it is understood that any administrator is available for recall at anytime for a valid reason, but - as someone pointed out above - if a candidate expects the community to trust them with the sysop tools, then that candidate must also be willing to trust the community's judgement and willingly place themselves out there on the line in

    AOR. It is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. --Winger84 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Well, not to be uncivil or anything, but I think what this really shows is a total misunderstanding of how any desysopping process would occur. In what other walk of life does a candidate, civil servant, employee, or person of authority "voluntarily" sign up on some arbitrary list to say that he trusts the community's judgment to remove him/her from power? There is a process in place for removal of admins who have abused their privileges. AOR is simply an ad hoc creation that has zero binding power and zero impact on anything. If you don't trust him with the tools, tell us why - or not. Having no reason here is better than "won't sign up at AOR". What you're saying is that you have no reason not to trust him, but you are going to oppose him anyways. Disingenuous.

    Tan ǀ 39 00:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Actually, there are other reasons than that, but that happened to be the one that I chose to cite. I'm aware of how the de-sysop process works. It is a matter of principle, in regard to the category. Folks can present any argument(s) that they wish, but if you're trying to get me to change my vote, it is a waste of time and bytes. Sorry. --Winger84 (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. I was pretty certain you weren't going to change your vote, but it seems that this comes up often enough to keep commenting on (I can see you voting to "strongly oppose"

    Tan ǀ 39 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

25. Oppose. I've seen BQ around IfD and had some positive interactions with him, so I really wish I could support, but the diffs provided by Sandy Georgia and the Cumulus Cloud drama just create too many worries for me. So, a regretful oppose, but an oppose I feel I have to make. Vickser (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. Circular on talk FAC. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 10:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose per Terraxos's, KojiDude's, Anthøny's, and others' impressively nuanced ways of saying,
    "take a chill pill." Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Oppose per most of the above comments. tabor-^{drop me a line} 19:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose per Tim and Sandy. Sarah 08:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose ostensibly per Sandy. I have encountered you before, though only slightly on FAC and I found him to be impestuous and slightly abrasive. Having since checked through your recent contribs, I have found this situation to have eased only slightly. That you continue the crusade with CC and didn't even mention it in Q3 shows a lack of judgement. I simply don't think you have the tact and nature to be an admin. I think that you would inflame a number of situations and act impulsively rather than looking deeper into situations. Whilst a lot of that is my gut-feeling, some of it is from plain observation. I really cannot support an you becoming an admin at this time. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose per potentially divisive userboxes on the user's page - such as "This user believes a marriage should consist only of a man and a woman." Not saying I agree or disagree with the sentiment, but I do not feel such a userbox, one which could create hostility, should be displayed George The Dragon (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Regretful Oppose I loathe opposing at RfA, and I hate even more opposing experienced candidates who contribute as much as BQZ does. But I'm concerned at various issues raised here and that I've seen in the contribs and just feel that the candidate does not display the ability to ride smoothly over the kind of flak that will inevitably come his way once he starts weilding the tools. I've agonised over this !vote and I'd far rather be up ↑ there, but the fact that I can't even in good conscience place myself down there ↓ reassures me that this is the right way to go. Really sorry BQZ. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose. After I read the candidate's answer to Question 4 ("my actions were construed as canvassing" ... "socks of a now-indef blocked user, interjected problematic comments/lies" ... "problems with people who felt I hadn't waited long enough" ... "some people felt i was being argumentative when I was trying to be thorough"), I found myself for a few moments tempted to simply post Eschew obfuscation here (fun, for me, but obscure and not helpful). I considering placing myself in the Neutral section, but after I read "I believe you are a good-faith editor and wouldn't abuse the tools" I then realized that I believe you might, even in good faith, abuse the tools. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose - I usually don't care about the
    WP:AOR question; however the answer was not satisfying. Also per some of the concerns that Terraxos has already explained. doña macy 23:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. Neutral for now, leaning toward support. Some of the points brought up by the opposers are a bit disconcerting; however, most of them were quite some time ago. I'm still weighing the matter. Useight (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   BQZip01 doesn't think the conflict is over. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Now just to fill in context for the casual observer of this train wreck: the wiki-link given within Wknight's diff is

   here; the edit prompting BQZip01's post to WQA is here. Interestingly, Rlevse (now a bureaucrat) is commenting on Cumulus Clouds deficiency in the case that CC was so persistently forwarding with the intent to take it to arbitration. BQZip01 instead chooses to seek a less confrontational forum to resolve the dispute. This is a bad thing? (Disclosure: I was also labelled by CC as one of the "friends of MQS") Franamax (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Neutral I'm on the fence for now. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough. What can I do to address any concerns you may have? Feel free to ask a question above too, if you wish. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral changing from support. My earlier comments about your article work and knowledge of policy still stand, but recent diffs indicate that you just don't know when to
   walk away from a dispute. You've dragged your grievance with Cumulus Clouds through numerous official channels and, though I think you probably wouldn't use the tools for a similar purpose, I'm just a bit wary of handing them to you just now. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Hey, sweet! Someone has heard of my essay. Useight (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral for now, leaning towards oppose. I found the info in the 1-st oppose (by Wknight94) particularly troubling. Also, I rather dislike the fact that the conflict with Cumulus Clouds was not disclosed by the candidate either in an opening statement or in responses to questions, particularly Q3. RFA is the time for full disclosure of significant conflicts and this one certainly qualifies (as recently as 20 days ago Rlevse suggested arbitration, among other things, as a possible way of resolving the conflict[8]. If this had just been a matter that happened 6 months ago, that would have been one thing. But the (whatever it is) between BQZip01 and Cumulus Clouds is, apparently, still ongoing. There is a longish contentious thread at Rlevse's talk page from mid-July regarding this, that I suggest people look up:
   User talk:Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive11#MQS. I tried to wade through it but it seems rather complicated and to refer to a lot of prior history. I may be totally wrong here, but my superficial impression was that BQZip01 and Cumulus Clouds are a bit like two pitbulls who have sunk their teeth into each other and are refusing to let go. I know that Rlevse is a crat now and he may not be inclined to vote in an RFA for that reason, but I hope that he will at least comment here, since he appears to have some more direct knowledge of the conflict than do most of the rest of us here. If there are other users who are well familiar with the history of this feud, I'd like to hear from them too, in case BQZip01 is being judged unfairly in this regard. Nsk92 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Good point about Q3---I can't believe that he has a case that he acknowledges is probably on it's way towards arbitration after months of RFC/MFD/ANI etc discussions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Respectfully, it has been about 6 months since any action on any ANI or DR page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   But only two weeks since you took it to Wikietiquette and about a week since it was on Rlvese page. Your conflict is ongoing and until you and CC can resolve your bad blood, you are bound to get resistance.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I was more on CC's side at BQ's last RFA, and they were equally at each other's throats. I got a little more experience with CC's tactics when BQ and I (and some others) were trying to help a fresh-start editor defend themself against CC's aggressive attempts to hound them off Wikipedia. This is a long story and not too important given the current state of this RFA but suffice to say IMO BQZip01 is deserved in his antipathy to CC. He should have made some disclosure at Q3 (though I understand how it would be difficult to "name names") and his previous spat with CC may be cause for a !oppose, but the recent encounter referred to at Rlevse should not be held against him - because he was calm, kept to the point and he was right. Franamax (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Unfortunately, even if BQ is completely innocent, and I don't think he'll be able to pass an RfA until the issue is resolved---perhaps via arbcom or some other forum. As is, it is too much of a he-said-she-said scenario for the average person to delve into---too much wikidrama. It might be one thing if BQ was exhonerated in his previous encounters, but he wasn't. He has been judged culpable by others in his dealing with CC.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, did I miss something? "[J]udged culpable by others" - do you mean judged in some external forum, or judged in this RFA? It doesn't matter for the purpose of this RFA, but I'm interested in the distinction. Franamax (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Take a look at my links above. In the past, when people have looked into his dispute with CC, they haven't walked away from it saying, "BQ, I know that you've done everything in a mature respectable manner, the problem is CC" they are leaving warning messages on his page. BQ took CC ANI, both end up getting a warning. During the RfC, several people agreed that that he's not shown good judgment or much maturity in this instance. He seems to me to have prioritized "winning" over building an encyclopedia. The fact that people who have looked into the disputes involving CC and BQ are critical of both of them hurts.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. I'm on the fence. On one hand, I did grant you rollback rights, and I haven't seen you abuse that, but your past history does give me pause. I'm going to have to think about this, do some serious digging, and let this RfA take its course and see if anything else comes up. I'll make a decision on the last day of this thing (as long as you don't withdraw early). -MBK₀₀₄ 05:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   He make not get that chance to withdraw; if this keeps up I betting the nom will be closed on SNOW grounds, NOTNOW grounds, or both. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   All he has to do is say he'd like it to run its course to provide useful feedback. He's established enough that NOTNOW won't apply and he can ask that SNOW not be applied. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With a approx. 50:50 split of supports and opposes, I do not think SNOW would be appropiate. So#Why ^{review me!} 07:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral Both sides, supporters and opposers, make valid points which leave me ambivalent and I cannot switch to one of the sides as of the arguments brought forth until now. So#Why ^{review me!} 07:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral. This is an example of an RfA I would probably support if we ever got round to some method of making de-sysopping people easier. I fully respect this user's pledge to leave things like the Cumulus Clouds thing behind him, and I've seen great work from him too. But the overall feeling I get from reviewing the diffs presented by some of the opposes is that BQZip01 has some overall temperament and civility issues. Between the objection to AOR on principle and the overall difficulty in removing admins that later turn out to be suboptimal, I just don't feel comfortable supporting right now. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral. I was all set to oppose based on SandyGeorgia's assessment and opinion mostly, but I cannot oppose someone that answers the AOR question so honestly. I'd much rather have an administrator say "no, I won't, and here's why", then say "Yes, I will" and never does. Keeper ǀ 76 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral per

   Tally-ho! 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I see your point here and I concur that the article should certainly have simply been a redirect. As for the "pernom" argument,

   "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom."". Thanks for the feedback! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Fair enough. --Happy editing! Sincerely,

   Tally-ho! 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

9. Neutral. IFD definitely needs more admin work. However I am concerned by the edit war with Cumulus, and by the disingenuous comments about the vandalism reversion of the main page featured article. Axl (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Comment - I'm not going to be submitting a vote here, but there is a great deal of evidence I would like users to weigh when they're making their decision about granting BQZip01 adminship.

    The conflict between BQZip01 and myself started over minor discretionary edits to Kyle Field. While I don't want to go over the minutae of that conflict, several points are notable. First, after the conflict grew beyond the edits at Kyle Field, BQZip01 created a page that he used to catalog any edits I made that he believed were disruptive or antagonizing. This page was brought to an MFD were BQZip01 stubbornly refused to be constrained to a timeline for filing an RFC, which he ended up doing anyway about a week later. The dispute worsened and the RFC was followed by a checkuser and a sockpuppetry case. There were several ANI requests and 3RR postings in the interim.

    The most striking thing about this case is that it so closely follows another conflict that BQZip01 originally had 2 months earlier with

    inappropriately owning. BQZip01 then created a "draft page" on the dispute, followed by a request for comment (certified by the same people who would later do the same on BQZ's other RFC) and finally the sockpuppetry case

    . ThreeE's subsequently retired from Wikipedia and has edited only sparingly since then.

    Though ThreeE had broken some of the rules (including sockpuppetry), he was dogged by that dispute until he quit editing completely. The most troubling part of this case is that BQZip01 acknowledges his effort at running ThreeE off the encyclopedia, and regards him as his nemesis. Since these cases sharply mirror each other, I have to wonder whether this was a process BQZip01 intended to use to remove me from this encyclopedia and whether he regards me as his nemesis.

    This is not the behavior of an administrator and targeting users for procedural harassment breeches the core policies we expect to see from them. I personally don't believe this user is ready to be an administrator (or will be for some time), but I will leave that up to the community to judge. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above description of the incident is missing quite a bit of context. I never saw any evidence that BQ was working to drive ThreeE from the project. When in the midst of a dispute, we encourage editors to use dispute resolution and should not be

    ThreeE's IFD of one of BQ's uploaded images. In summary, BQ was not the only one to file RFCs or request assistance in the dispute, ThreeE was actually found to be a sockpuppeteer[9], and ThreeE was accused by a previously uninvolved administator of harrassing BQ after the original dispute at []Fightin' Texas Aggie Band]] was resolved. [10]. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Right, but the way he refers to ThreeE and his comments here are still deeply troubling. He refers to the 4 blocks he was able to lodge against ThreeE in a way that makes it look like retaliation for the 11 hour block he recieved for 3RR. Again, not the behavior of an administrator and not the behavior of an editor acting in good faith. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why I have a problem with your comments. You took everything out of context. I invite everyone to actually read what I wrote in the above link. My intent was to show that you should know the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You will clearly note I stated "nemesis" in quotes as I meant it sarcastically, or at least tongue-in-cheek. Again, this is the kind of reason I have an issue with CC's edits. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't want your comments to be taken out of context, you should stop using the kind of language that can be so easily misconstrued. If you ever want to be an administrator, you should learn to speak plainly and not muddy your comments with a lot of colorful sarcasm or incendiary remarks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For your own sakes, please do not carry this long running dispute any further on this page.

    ^T 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I second Avruch's request. Should this section be moved to the talk page? Orderinchaos 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. Neutral per SoWhy, who said exactly what I was going to say. LittleMountain5 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral for now. Like Useight said, the issues mostly took place several months ago, but they are certainly still a factor to be weighed. GlassCobra 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Neutral I have watched BQZip01 since his last RFA and I have much more respect for his contributions to the encyclopedia than I did then, mostly because "then" I was only seeing his conflict with CC, RFA too fast, and imo rigid adherence to written policy. We had some spirited disagreements and I think ended up with mutual respect (not agreement mind you, but respect). I'm even more respectful now, he tries to contribute wisely and in valuable areas. I don't think the BQ/CC conflict should be held against BQZip01 at this point. Nevertheless, I would have advised BQ against trying an RFA right now (in fact, maybe I did) - getting
    ignore all rules. I won't support, but I'm no longer inclined to oppose. I mostly think this should have waited another three months, BQ next time, give me a chance to rip you up down and sideways before you go live. :) Franamax (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Neutral - I have concerns over the rigid demeanor and argumentative tendencies shown by this user, and the issues brought to light by SandyGeorgia worry me further. Still, the biggest issues I've seen are fairly deep in the past. I've had some interaction with BQZip01 on the FAC circuit, and I recall them being mostly positive. I'm not ready to support, but not ready to oppose either. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neutral. I like BQ and I think he is an excellent content contributor. He understands many policies and is willing and eager to learn when he identifies a gap in his knowledge (for example, his recent image work). I've noticed that in the past six months his communication manner has improved a lot and he is getting a bit more flexible, which tells me that he is willing to listen to feedback and modify his own behavior in response. I do think that BQ should be a bit more careful in his use of sarcasm. I get it and I usually think it is funny, but in an online environment, sarcasm can be difficult to identify, and (as evidenced above), it can be misinterpreted. At the very least, avoid sarcasm with users you are (or have previously been) in conflict with; that will help ensure the conflict doesn't get inadvertently escalated. I am close to supporting - could you flesh out question 3 a bit (see my comments under discussion)? Karanacs (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops. I missed that one. I'll respond in a few minutes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm...apparently, my comments didn't save the first time (probably an error on my part). The answer is there now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16. Neutral - Looks like a decent editor, but the opposes give me serious pause. Try again in a few months. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Changed to neutral. Still have concerns, particularly those raised by Balloonman. On the other hand, I've changed to neutral because I believe you are a good-faith editor and wouldn't abuse the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Neutral; you have some dark spots in your past— and not far enough in the past that I'd feel comfortable agreeing to give you the mop just yet. Spend a couple of months showing us your best temper and I would probably support. — Coren ^(talk) 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Neutral - Great editor, but very many dark spots. -- Freakatone ^Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Neutral BQ's done some pretty nice work, but there are some points in the opposes that caught my attention. IceUnshattered (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Neutral purely because I'm not sure whether to trust your attitude. However, work so far has been quite good, minus a few blips. Sorry.
    weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Neutral--LAAFan 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]