Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BuickCenturyDriver

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

BuickCenturyDriver[edit]

Final (0/12/0); ended 04:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC) - Withdrawn by Candinate

Nomination[edit]

BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs) – After 3+ year and over 5000 edits I think I am ready to take my Wikipedia experiance to the next level. I've considered adminship many times but feel the aforementioned experiance could make me a good candidate. The number of people getting nominated has dwindled lately so perhaps this could be me chance. I have been editing since 2007 and am proud of my history, by in large. I especially enjoy editing baseball related articles. I think I could be trusted with the extra tools since I've been able to use rollback without any problem though I haven't used reviewer very much since the feature is new. However the rollbacker has come in handy and I think I could handle the other toold such as blocking and unblocking without any backlash. Though there are users with a lot more edits in a shorter wikilife than me, I think experiance could help, though I'm open to addressing any question and opposition as best I can. from–BuickCenturyDriver 02:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work with unblock requests, I enjoy reading them and feel a lot of disruptive users come from the fact that they get refused unblock requests and many go on to take their frustration on the site. A second chance usually is a way to tell them "don't say we didn't warn you if you get blocked again". I could also close AFDs and delete them myself. I have a whole list of AFDs which I nominated on my userpage though I usually don't close an article which the consensus is delete since I can't do it myself.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I can answer this one easily. My two best articles I've created are a the 1978 American League East tie-breaker game and the {{ipsock}} template which help tag IPs belonging to a specific user. The template has been so well received by the community that has been protected so it feels strange not to be able to edit a template that I've introduced and heavily contributed to. I've contributed to create many other playoff page games and received credit for creating a good article on Wikipedia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The achillies heel I have on the site is uploading images. I've uploaded images that are copyrighted but were deleted since I didn't know which tags should be used, I usually don't make attempts to upload them again to avoid edit wars. As far as interacting with other editors I haven't had any chronic grudges that I would know of.
Additional optional questions from MC10
4. When should cool down blocks be used, and why?
A:Considering that this is a very short block it should be used to warn a user that's making a lot of disruptive edits in succession or to stop a confict from getting out of hand. Generally a standard first block for me would be a 24 hour block after that user was warned but stubbornly kept up his or her unruly behavior. I would rarely consider the CBD discussed in the blocking policy.
5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A:A block is a technical measure which disables your abily to edit under that name or IP. A user blocked generally is forbidden from evasive measure such as creating new usernames unless the initial block is resolved. A ban is a formal measure taken by the community or Arbitration Committee against a user forbidding any editing from editing under anyname. Basically if no one is willing to lift a block on a given editor or if that given editor's contributions are reverted without question, He or She is banned.
6. What is your view on ignoring all rules?
A:This should only be invoked when all parties invoking it will agree with its use. If it results in a conflict it should not be used. Case in point, we generally have a "one per customer" rule on account with sysop priviliges but we've allowed editord to have certain bots to be upgraded as well as keep access on their primary accounts since they further the project. Since most would agree, IAR is okay.–BuickCenturyDriver 03:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Basically, if the project as a whole has to gain from its use, use it.[reply]
Additional optional question from The Utahraptor
7. Imagine for a minute that you have recently blocked a POV-pusher. They request to be unblocked, and say that they weren't trying to be pushy. What do you do?
A:I would and discuss the block, if he or she has valid point but also ask for the opinion of another sysop if the block I issued was deserved but generally when it comes to blocking it all depends on the circumstances and the users history. I also would consider waiting to see if that user's unblock request is handled and how another sysop would respond. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from  7 
8. What is your view on privacy and anonymity on Wikipedia? I am less interested in a quote from a policy, and more interested to hear your personal opinion on how editors should operate here (e.g. anonymous individuals or real life aquantainces who see eachother at meetups). While I don't personally have any problem with deductive reasoning or friendly questions, I noticed these ([1], [2], and [3]) so I thought it might be helpful to hear your opinion.
A:I feel a user is entitled to his or her privacy unless he decides to edit under his or her name, then he or she discloses his or her identity at her own risk. If the meetup is not agreed upon the two should move on. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Access Denied
9. What is your stance on civility blocks?
A:Well if someone gets blocked for offending someone else and a lack of etiquette and a violation of rules, let it stand. However if the blocked user agrees to stop they might have another chance. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Seraphimblade
10. Will you please address the issue of your misuse of an admin account, when you learned the password to it? What have you learned that could lead us to trust you with administrative abilities?
A:I noticed an admin posted his password in a recent chances view and I decided to log in and see it if really was the password, it tured out it was and I experiment with the account. I gave a poor block summary was blocked, since the login shard my ip address. I apologized, and was unblocked. I was an experiance I would like to forget and made a difficult decision to want until this was asked for, but since I am closing this you are free to discuss it on my talk page. Since the incident, I haven't had any other conflicts or blocks.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

  • Edit stats posted to the talk page.  7  03:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose – Completely whiffed Q4. Answers to Q1 and Q7 Q6 are also shallow. IAR does not need to be invoked only when all parties agree. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per answers to questions 4 & 6. The candidate seeems not to understand received wisdom on Cool Down Blocks and the answer to IAR just seems to be flat out wrong. MtD (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose (moved from neutral) Completely missed the questions. Q9 just plain stupid...plus all my concerns below. ǝɥʇM0N0 04:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Questions 4 & 6. Why does Question 9 exist.Updated Question 9. Maybe next time.--iGeMiNix 04:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Concerns with policy knowledge, lack of experience, judgement, and maturity. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Optional question answers are scary, particularly IAR. Townlake (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - problems with answers to questions as outlined above. Additionally, I'm seeing seemingly pointless creations of test pages in mainspace (example is unfortunately admins-only), edits that demonstrate some misunderstanding in regards to WP:V (example, removing a deadlinked reference without attempting to fix or replace it, in a BLP no less), relatively low activity levels in the past year or so. I'm also not sure why the user would have received credit for the GA, as he made only 8 non-minor edits to the article a year before the article's review and promotion. Overall a decent enough editor, but...Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and if this was a serious question...sure, but it didn't really help much, and it would be better if you indicated that it's a revised answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per questions 4 and 6; I don't think you're experienced enough for the mop yet, even though you've been here a long time... Salvio Let's talk about it! 04:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I have concerns with the answers to the optional questions. — Gfoley4 Wanna chat? 04:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I'm very disappointed with the answer to Q4... cooldown blocks should never be used. The Thing T/C 04:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I won't say you whiffed the questions, but quite a few of them sliced so badly they're lost in the fescue. Courcelles 04:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose as candidate, per above and per WP:SNOW. 5 Questions and three opposes make it look like this is just not in the cards. But like a road test, you can try again. See you in a few months. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
It seems you are decently acquainted with "the Wikipedia way", however, your answers to the above questions leave something to be desired. I'm not going to to say "not now",as you've been here a while, but I honestly think administrators should be able to upload images. Additionally, to combat the "RfA problem", you seem like a good candidate someday. To conclude, I feel as if the problem is not that you aren't experienced enough; it's that your answers need a little tightening for meaning. ǝɥʇM0N0 03:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added your signature back, which seemed to have not been added to this page (only the timestamp was there). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Probably used ~~~~~ instead of ~~~~. ǝɥʇM0N0 03:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No surpise for this one, I did say deleted images are my achilles. It's not that I don't know how to upload them but often the get deleted because someone orphans them and I let them go. The most recent ones were let go because I didn't have any rationale to put for them. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BuickCenturyDriver&oldid=1142577020"