BusterD

RfAs for this user:

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (90/1/1); Scheduled to end 17:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

Nomination by Drmies

BusterD (talk · contribs) — Dear editors, I propose to you that we trust the administrative toolset to BusterD, a longtime editor with many content contributions who does a lot of good maintenance work. Buster has been here since 2005. He's made close to 40,000 edits, and has written a fair amount of articles, many on historical, military, and New York-related topics. He's got a clean block sheet. From all the evidence that I've seen, Buster is civil and even-keeled, and prefers cooperation over conflict.

BusterD is quite active in administrative or technical areas where the bit could serve him well, especially move requests. He's also quite experienced with various automated tools. In addition, his reports to AIV and RFPP are solid, and all that indicates that BusterD having the bit would benefit us all.

BusterD's CSD log shows he has a good sense of the guidelines. Almost the entire log is red, meaning he was correct in his nominations; I checked a large number of the blue ones, and found that the deletion nominations were correct (at the time) and the article deleted, but subsequently recreated. The list gives me good reason to believe that BusterD will not be a trigger-happy admin, or too eager to delete.

Combine the temperament, the good sense, the technical knowledge, the experience, and we have an excellent candidate here. I hope you will support this nomination. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Ched

I'd like to join Drmies in asking the community to consider giving BusterD (not to be confused with Buster7) a few extra tools to facilitate his efforts on Wikipedia. Buster has been around for 15 years, put in well over 10k of his 35k edits to article space, contributed heavily to the WikiProject Military history, and worked in the XfD areas. His efforts to the US Civil War era articles has been a great benefit to our 'pedia. Buster has a clean block log, and collaborates well with others. He's even tempered, doesn't rush to judgement, and is open to being corrected or informed. He's worked through peer reviews to get Charles Pomeroy Stone and Samuel Escue Tillman to WP:GA status, and put in a lot of work on American Civil War. Buster is already trusted with some of the semi-automated tools such as rollback, Twinkle, and various page curation tools; and has never abused that trust. IMO much has improved since his RfA 10 years ago, and I think the project would benefit greatly if we could see our way to granting BusterD a few more of these tools. — Ched (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, in the spirit of the symbol of en.wikipedia administrators, the mop. Admins bear only the Wikipedia community's trust. If the community invests its trust in me, I'm willing to do what I can to help and honor that trust with hard work. BusterD (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For full disclosure, I have edited under three accounts, User:BusterD, User:BusterD public and User:Paintflake assistant (an account created specifically for helping a local elementary school teacher introduce Wikipedia to his after-school group). BusterD (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For even fuller disclosure, I have never edited for pay and will not do so. I did openly defend an employer page WP:Articles for deletion/Tekserve in 2009, but my contributions were primarily to contribute sourcing. BusterD (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: As a regular vandalism patroller, I have experienced several situations where I needed to find an uninvolved administrator to jump in quickly. I’d like to learn how to help on AIV, which experiences backlogs. Likewise I have made sufficient requests for page protection to have gained valuable experience in that often backlogged process as well. My AIV and RfPP listings tend to be approved and acted upon, so I feel I'm on the right track. I have refrained from non-admin closes but a look at my AfD/MfD/DR participation will demonstrate my understanding of policies in the areas of notability and verifiability have matured. I’m starting to have some confidence in understanding guidelines to the page move processes. Dispute resolution may not be an admin-specific arena, but I believe I might be useful in those processes as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: On Wikipedia I’m primarily a compiler of biographies, so untold stories about well-sourced subjects are kinda my thing. Charles Pomeroy Stone and Samuel Escue Tillman are both GAs, though I confess I’ve been more of a guiding influence on Stone. After watching an old Sterling Hayden movie I was inspired to write John Hoskins (officer), perhaps my most complete biography (though it's begging for more improvement). Last year I stumbled onto William Longshaw Jr. and that may represent my best work, though the Legacy section hasn’t caught fire in my mind yet. Last month in trying to turn to blue a GLAM/Pritzker and Women in Red redlink I discovered Ruby Jane Douglas which was going to be a sweet, well-cited story about this 25 year-old WAC captain; then I found her married name. The article took a massive turn when I found scores of wonderful newspaper articles about this inspiring American soldier, composer, and musician. I found so many RSs I’m still correlating them for telling the acts 2 and 3 of her life. Submitted my first triple-article DYK for her. Had an awesome QPQ (a phrase I don't think anyone has ever used before). I expect to take her article (now at Jane Douglass White) to further improvement. I’m fond of Template:American Revolutionary War (which I created), Template:American Civil War and Portal:American Civil War (both of which I’ve maintained for many years)
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: On Wikipedia, disagreement is the healthy state. I’ve been around enough to get into disputes with many other long-time and currently active editors. I can't name anyone I regularly oppose in discussion. Someone looking at my page and talk editing histories would find many examples where I originally disagreed with a stranger and ended up as wiki-friends. I tend to benefit by trying to see the other contributor’s viewpoint, especially when we disagree. Doing so is the heart of assuming good faith. Arguing in a vigorous but collegial way is how consensus works on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I've learned that trying overmuch to please people violates WP:BOLD by restricting my own honest instincts and narrowing my perspective.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from
Optional question from Lee Vilenski
4a. Hi! Thanks for running - What are your thoughts on activity levels for admin? Noting the editing levels found on your xtools stats, would you expect your activity levels to increase/decrease or stay the same if given additional tools?
A: Thanks for the question. Over time I have seen so many great editors stop working because of pent-up stress. Developing consensus is stressful enough without putting specific deadlines or thresholds on myself. That said, members of the community have a vested interest in knowing that there are admins available at all times. For my part, I have a routine to avoid getting too caught up in drama (when possible). I check an extensive watchlist many times a day, and react to what I see. I would expect to visit RfPP more often, as an example, because it's a natural place for me to become more useful. I'm certain I'll visit RM more often. This might cut into my page creation "gumption" a bit, but this is the commitment I'm making by accepting the nomination. If the community trusts me with tools, I'll likely increase my activity slightly.
Optional question from Gwennie-nyan
5. Could you describe your philosophy/ideology/views regarding Wikipedia as a whole and as it specifically regards to editing?
A: Are you familiar with R. Buckminster Fuller? My daughter and I share reading time and last year we re-read Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. Fuller proposes (and I tend to concur) that historically, powerful men dominated their cultures by preventing most people from becoming educated. Fuller proposes one method of prevention used was the creation of the university system. By forcing adept learners into highly specialized content fields, the powerful men prevented adepts from discovering more generalized knowledge (how to become powerful men, for example). Now comes Wikipedia, a place where generalized knowledge is freely available. In every language known. For free. Fuller would have loved what Wikipedia represents, and I edit because I respect the dream of free knowledge for every one of us.
Optional question from Dolotta
6. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
A: I thought long and hard about this answer. I guess the most important limitation I face is that I didn't value learning a second or third language when I was in school and that choice has adversely affected my life as an adult. I had the chance. My high school offered three years of Spanish and French but I chose to be the drama club guy. I'll confess I do have some experience with drama, but having taken high school language classes would serve me well when I'm studying European subjects. That I speak only English is my biggest weakness (listen up, kiddos!).
Follow up, if I could, BusterD. What part(s) of the English Wikipedia does the lack of a foreign language serve as a limitation for you? -- Dolotta (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Herostratus
7. Thanks for agreeing to be considered for being an admin. We always need fresh admins and it can be a thankless and sometimes-annoying job, and I look forward to your presence enhancing the admin corps. Now to business.
Will you leave yourself open to a future reconfirmation (also called "recall") by:
7A) Placing yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall.
7B) If yes, describing the conditions under which you would be open to recall, either the "standard offer" described at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process (which is that a reconfirmation RfA would be triggered on the request of six editors in good standing), or some other (for instance, User:Lar/Accountability has an alternate criteria/process, and links to others are found at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria, or you can make up your own).
7C) If yes, are you willing to state that you will stand by your pledge, regardless of any text written anywhere about the criteria or procedure being after-the-fact optional or withdrawable-from or negotiable or subject to later reconsideration and so forth.
I'm quite confident that all this will be quite unnecessary in your case, but I consider it a important declaration for all candidates, even if just pro forma for almost all candidates including you I am sure.
(As a suggestion, if you're not ready with a alternative to the "standard offer", my personal opinion is that it is a reasonable criteria and should work OK. I think that experience has shown that six signatures is a bar seldom reached, and even then only triggers a reconfirmation RfA, which if one has been doing an OK job, one will pass with flying colors.)
A: Yes, I'm certainly open to recall if I was to become an admin, and the process I would use is based on one originated by one of my admin coaches, User:Shell Kinney: If someone feels I've been abusing the admin tools, please start an RfC. If the consensus of extended confirmed editors is that I was misusing the tools and the misuse warrants relinquishing the tools, I will resign them. If later I feel that I have resolved the concerns brought up during the RfC, I will use a standard RfA to request the tools again.
Optional question from Chess
8. At your last RfA you failed in part due to bad AfD closes. What have you done (or not done) since then to address that issue?
A: I believe the issue was with non-admin closes which were poorly worded/executed. I learned then NACs must be either unassailable or not performed. These were accurate critiques by editors I still admire; I acknowledged my errors in that process and even corrected one during the process. I have not closed any processes of any sort since that time. I did spend a lot of time participating at AfD after my failed run, because repetition made me feel more comfortable with the processes, policies, and guidelines. I think it would be challenging to identify any formal process in which I've participated since 2011 which isn't based firmly in policy, guidelines, and sources. I may not succeed in my assertions, but I try to put my best argument on the table.
Optional question from Oshwah
9. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors and content creators for repeatedly and egregiously violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? How would you handle these situations when they arise, and how would you determine that these blocks, if made, were done in a preventative measure and not a punitive measure?
A: Someone I admire once said something to the effect, "I didn't run for admin to block people." As a potential new admin, I think it unlikely I'll be facing the scenario you describe anytime soon. As a frequent vandalism patroller I expect I'll be forced to block somebody at some point. The thought does not warm my heart. I have exactly one experience being blocked; I was once caught up in a range block. I felt cut off. It did not "cool me down." I would not subject anybody to that feeling without due process or due diligence. It frustrated me. It made me mad. I'd like to think there are steps of conflict resolution we could exercise with long time editors who have civility issues before the block or ban-hammer comes out. Sorry if I can't give a better answer. I'd like to know the answer myself.
10. Can you talk about a particular time on Wikipedia when you performed a "fat-finger move" on your part, and made a ridiculous, really bad, or stupid mistake - something you did erroneously that you had to take time to undo and fix? How exactly did you fix that mistake, and how did you make things right with those that were impacted?
A: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord's Bank. I was using a closing script at the time and literally hit the wrong button. My closing statement used wording which dovetailed with poor language choices I'd made while non-admin closing other AfDs. I wasn't aware of the error until I was in the first day of my previous RfA. And I got the notice from a user I knew and respected while he was in the process of opposing my adminship. I felt pressured and guilty. I was aware I'd made a mistake but didn't want to look like a screw-up. I was unhappy with myself. Previously in the RfA I'd been argumentative and felt I was standing up for myself and my nominators. I remember the moment I realized I was not going to pass the community's test. It stilled me. Then I realized I didn't need admin tools to correct myself. I admitted my mistake, apologized to the RfA readers, thanked the fellow who pointed it out and then corrected my error, taking full responsibility. Instantly I was a better contributor to Wikipedia. Immediately I thought about the pedia as something to steward, not a place to accomplish great things. I've spent almost ten years trying to be a better user. Answering your question brought me full circle.
Optional question from User:Anachronist
11. I want to get an idea of your approach to using administrator tools with a hypothetical scenario (based on a real situation). Suppose in WP:RFPP you see a semi-protection request for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you find a slow edit war going on among the handful of edits per day. Not all the edits are warring. There have been more than three reverts by both sides but 3RR doesn't really apply because the reverts span more than a week. In the edit history you don't see much actual vandalism, maybe averaging one random incident per week. The most frequent anonymous IP edits, however, involve an anon attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting, characterizing the anon's contribution as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request. The anon has no talk page contributions, although the anon's edits are explained with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
A:
Optional question from Nnadigoodluck
12. Since you're interested in dealing with page moving if you get the bit, what will you do in this scenario, if user A request for an uncontroversial technical request at WP:RM/TR and you performed the move. User B comes out of nowhere a few days later and reverts the move with user A bringing it to your attention?
A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

Support
  1. Support: As a fellow Civil War editor, Buster's work there is fabulous, and I have no doubt he will carry the mop well! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (edit conflict) Strong support - I've worked with them quite a bit on ACW articles (see User_talk:BusterD#Category:American_Civil_War_battle_stubs) for an example. Excellent content creation and a good temperament, which IMO are the two most significant factors for determining admin suitability. Familiar with other areas such as deletion, as well. Clearly suitable for the role. Hog Farm Talk 18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trusted user, demonstrates a need for the tools. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 18:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Intothatdarkness 18:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 18:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Trusted noms, long history of constructive contributions: why not? Girth Summit (blether) 18:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - no issues here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I've seen this user around and observed his good work over the years. (As a fellow NY editor, the fact he also edits that topic is just a bonus for me.) Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius, I am happy to see you here: you know I'm a big fan of your content work, and I know that BusterD speaks highly of you as well. We need a couple of editors like you to do for Alabama what y'all do for NY. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support on strength of nominators, meeting my mins, and no big deal. Ifnord (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support a long apprenticeship and well known editors haven't found a character flaw. We need sound steady admins. and this one fits the bill Victuallers (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom Necctaylor (chat) 19:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support They already sound like an admin. If you want to see how they deal with other editors, the six years of comments at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian demonstrate a sustained, level-headed, policy-wise approach. --- Possibly ☎ 19:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support BusterD seems to be a well-spoken, even-keel individual with long history on the project and no apparent issues. May he be mopped. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support – excellent candidate. I reached out to him a few months ago to encourage him to put his name forward, and I'm thrilled to see he has done so. BusterD is wise, competent, and responsive to feedback – everything we're looking for in an admin. – bradv🍁 21:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support see no concerns. I like their answer to question 5. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Ab-so-lute-ly! - has a clue! Atsme 💬 📧 21:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - clearly a competent candidate. Moriori (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly support this well-qualified candidate. BOZ (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per Drmies. Daniel (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support no big deal, got a clue - TNT 😺 22:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Oh my, yes! Glad to see this. Opposite of jerk, has tons of clue. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Obvious Support is obvious - but "per Drmies" if that counts. Good luck BusterD — Ched (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - seems pretty ideal for the role. Can't say I've met them (much) in the past, but that's not an issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. No evidence that they would misuse the tools. Good luck! Miniapolis 22:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support good work, and good luck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good editor, no concerns, why not?Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: trusted user. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 23:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Good editor who will do well with the tools. Thank you, candidate, for putting yourself through all this! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I don't see anything to make me believe that they would abuse the tools, and I trust the nominators. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 00:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  32. BusterD has been editing almost as long as I have and has been blocked fewer times, so they must be doing something right. Jonathunder (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - trusted user, trusted nominators. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. 15 years and a clean block log says to me "trustworthy". oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, no concerns. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support The editor has learned from his past mistakes and can now be trusted with the tools. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support A very easy call for a longtime trusted user that is made even easier by Drmies and Ched as the nominators. Go Phightins! 03:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Have seen BusterD around AIV, with solid reports each time. Has my trust. SpencerT•C 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support; knows what's what. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support – All the best Princess of Ara(talk) 05:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, excellent candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support looks good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Why not? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support no reason to oppose I can see. JavaHurricane 08:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support – seems like a good one. Graham87 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per noms, no concerns Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, as the user shows a good track record, and a clear potential benefit from admin privileges. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support – nominated by highly respected editors and prompting no reservations at all in his answers to the questions above. Tim riley talk 10:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Buster is 222 times better an editor than I ever was, and ever will be. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Long term user since 2005 clear net positive.Trust the judgement of Drmies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, no red flags. WP:NOBIGDEAL. — kashmīrī TALK 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, seems like a good choice. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support no concerns. --Enos733 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, clearly considered and took on board the feedback from the last time, and improved from it. A check through contributions shows no cause for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I haven't come across BusterD very often in my time here, however I highly respect the nominators they have, and their answers to the questions above give me reassurance that they would make an excellent fit as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  60.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Looks good! DanCherek (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Yup, I, too, like what I see. El_C 14:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - not a jerk, has a clue, trusted nominators. firefly ( t · c ) 15:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Passes my RFA criteria. I also noticed that you're responsive to feedback from other users on your talk page, which is a good quality to see in a potential admin. Clovermoss (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support in line with noms and many above; happy days, LindsayHello 17:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Has a need for the tools, no red flags. AIV and RFPP could use additional help, as the sooner a page under attack is protected or a vandal is blocked, the sooner the regular editors trying to deal with those can go back to productive editing. Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Long-time, thoughtful contributor, no concerns. Have appreciated his thoughtful contributions at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian - and that page can be a real minefield to tiptoe through - as well. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per the MILHIST folks. No concerns. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, as I see no reason not to. Tol | talk | contribs 18:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 19:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: not seeing any temperament issues, has a use for the tools, good content work and mountains of evidence of competence and experience. Some really beautiful answers to questions (#5, #10) can't hurt either. — Bilorv (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Long overdue - Well qualified and trusted editor, A gret editor who would make a great admin. No concerns here. Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - on the strength of the nominators, as well as my own limited interactions with the editor. Onel5969 TT me 21:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support per noms, as well as the answers to #5 and #6. Beccaynr (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Sup. Worked with this user in 2007(!) on ACW template, good temperament, steady head, milhist, no brainer. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. No concerns. BD2412 T 22:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Not a jerk, has a clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, I think this candidate can be trusted to remain careful around AfD, as they are otherwise clearly qualified and an excellent content creator. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - a capable candidate. -- Longhair\talk 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support The kind we need. Rcsprinter123 (say) 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support of course. I know BusterD's work and general editing demeanour from their Milhist work, no red flags from me. Should be a useful addition to the admin corps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Sounds good, I hope to see the user partake in his adminiship duties. All the best --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support The candidates' exploration of the questions is purposeful with an intention to help maintain wiki. Fizconiz (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strong support - a good all-rounder here, that has worked in both counter-vandalism and article creation (I see that he's significantly edited two articles that made it to FA status!). I particularly like his answer to Oshwah's first question, too. All in all, a net positive - and someone that should've been made an admin a long time ago. All the best! Patient Zerotalk 03:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. People are going to hate me for messing up the unanimous support but I don't like the answers to question 8 and 6. The issue at AfD was not with "non-admin closes which were poorly worded/executed" and the lesson you learned (that NACs must be "unassailable") isn't the right one. The closes would've been a problem if you were an admin as well because your closes were wrong. This AfD was a conflation of "no consensus" with "keep". That's different from just making a mistake in the wording; as you're not fully admitting that your intent was wrong as well. Your answer to Question 10 was good, but it only seems that you apply that reasoning to the Lord's Bank AfD and not the other one. This would've put me at neutral if not for the answer to Question 6. The "what is your biggest weakness" thing is probably the most asked question in a job interview and you provided a decent response to that question. The problem was that the question wasn't "what is your biggest weakness?"; the question was "What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?" Your lack of foreign language skills aren't that relevant to the English Wikipedia and it makes me doubt if you really "thought long and hard about this answer". I'd have rather seen you write an answer that showed introspection about your onwiki activity rather than the answer you might use for a job interview. The most important qualification for an admin is their character; a Wikipedia admin has a lot of power and not a lot of oversight of that power. Part of the necessary character is the ability to self-reflect on not just what you've done wrong but what you've thought wrong and how you're currently wrong (because nobody's perfect). The answer to question 10 demonstrates the first two abilities and I admire that. But the answers to question 6 and 8 don't demonstrate that to the extent where I feel I have to oppose. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 20:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chess, Seems you will only allow role models to help with admin tasks, and won't allow any room for an innocent mistake... Ehh.... — kashmīrī TALK 20:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with adminship is that once you're in, you're in. Once someone gets the mop it's near impossible to take it away, and the mop comes with an extraordinary amount of power over probably the most important collection of knowledge in the English world. There isn't that much oversight over your power beyond ArbCom and yourself. Admins need to be able to accurately evaluate what they can and can't do as well as their mistakes as not many other people will be able to do that for an admin. Question 6 showed me that the candidate couldn't say what they were unable to do and the answer to question 8 didn't accurately evaluate the reason for the last RfA failing. Being able to recognize one's own shortcomings is something that should be necessary for adminship. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 21:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chess, I guess you didn't see what happened to RexxS then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. Are you opposing because BusterD thinks non-admin closes must be "unassailable", or because of this one questionable non-admin close from 2011? – bradv🍁 21:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv: Neither. The problem with the closes wasn't that they were non-admin closes; it was because the closes were wrong. NACs effectively do face a higher scrutiny than regular closes but those particular closes would've been wrong even if BusterD was an admin at the time. I'd be perfectly willing to forgive the mistake but the nominee has to acknowledge what the mistake actually was on their own. It wasn't in wording or execution or it being a NAC that wasn't "unassailable". It was because they misevaluated consensus. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 21:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. You don't like that he performed a poor non-admin close 10 years ago, despite the fact that he acknowledged and corrected his mistake. I've got to say, Chess, that's an impossible standard. – bradv🍁 21:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But the closes were ten years ago, you really need to let it go. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. In Q1 the candidate names AIV and RFPP as areas of interest. He also expresses familiarity with XfD and MR (although unclear whether those are somewhere he would like to do admin work). The candidate has made 4225 total contributions in 2021 and 2144 in 2020 (ie, he was quite active). However, he has made:
    • 2 WP:AIV requests in 2021. 3 requests in 2020. 5 requests in 2019. 0 in 2018. 1 in 2017.[1]
    • 4 WP:RFPP requests in 2021. 4 in 2020. 5 in 2019. 0 in 2018. 1 in 2017.[2]
    • 10 contributions to WP:AFD in 2021. 5 in 2020. 1 in 2019. 2 in 2018. 3 in 2017.[3]
I don't expect a full-time admin, but these numbers don't really suggest that the candidate has more than a casual interest in administrative areas. However, the candidate does seem to be a likely net positive. He appears to have good temperament, and don't seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the requirements of the role. I doubt anything will go wrong if he's an admin. But there doesn't seem to be a lot to evaluate this on, and it's unclear to me why he'd even want the tools since it seems his interest is mostly in creating content and not in doing chores (not at all a bad thing, of course). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Gwennie, shouldn't that max be 1200? Ifnord (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ifnord, I only used what is says here on the MW page about xtools. So I believe it's correct but if it's wrong, please adjust. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwennie-nyan, can you maybe elaborate on how "philosophy/ideology/views regarding Wikipedia as a whole and as it specifically regards to editing" will help you decide whether to support or oppose this candidacy? Clearly this is way above my pay grade. —valereee (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like an opportunity to opine (as I rarely get to do on Wikipedia). Made me think about why I DO choose to edit... BusterD (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD, I'm very glad you appreciated the question. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gwennie, the fact a candidate thanks you for a question does not mean it was a good question. Please, sir, may I have another? —valereee (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the motivation behind wanting fewer questions for candidates (less stress, which you've spoken about), but the question's been answered (quite happily). Can we please move on? Sdrqaz (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz, the basic problem is that in most RfAs, there are for whatever reason irrelevant questions that cause more stress to candidates than is strictly necessary. I have recently been trying to discourage that extra and unneeded stress by pushing back on the ones that occur, hoping that viewers of that RfA, seeing the pushback, will for future RfAs think, "Huh. Maybe my irrelevant question also isn't a good idea...maybe the fact I'm trying to come up with a question isn't really helpful" and possibly come to a eureka moment where they think "I guess I'll think about it for a while." —valereee (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, and I've seen it in the last couple of RfAs. However, I don't feel that pushing back against/shaming questioners is the way to go, especially in this case where the candidate has already answered the question and the issue is moot. Maybe a quiet word on their talk would be more welcome. Candidates are (largely) experienced editors usually backed up by even more experienced nominators who are perfectly capable of pushing back themselves if they wish. If they get questions like "what does your username mean?" and "what's your favourite colour?", candidates can either take them as a welcome respite from the more difficult ones or just decline to answer, as is their right. PS: Our thoughts on adminship and RfA are probably divergent and we'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't feel labouring the point like this is necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: 👍 Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did place a quiet word on their talk. No joy. —valereee (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Live and let live, I guess. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah, no argument from me about whether letting people live should depend on whether their questions are a bit silly... —valereee (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like lots of questions, as RfA really is a getting-to-know-you process, and even the more philosophical questions often garner a very insightful response. In this case, BusterD has chosen to tell us why he edits Wikipedia, and that is certainly relevant to RfA. – bradv🍁 20:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv you had ten questions at your RfA. I'm not sure you're qualified to comment on "more the merrier". —valereee (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now take a look at my two ArbCom candidacies. ;) – bradv🍁 21:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hahahaha —valereee (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ran in the same two arbcom elections as Bradv and like him generally enjoy answering questions but from my discussions with other Wikipedians that makes us outliers (and/or explains why we ran for Arbcom in the fist place because we have a tolerance or even an affinity for such things). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwennie-nyan: The calculated score misses the "Blocks applied" parameter, which if added would raise BusterD's score to 1232/1300. Otherwise, the current score indeed maxes at 1200. @MusicAnimal:? — kashmīrī TALK 19:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How old is that silly thing, anyway? —valereee (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ran it for User:EEng, just to see if there was an automatic point deduction for having too big a user page. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, not too shabby! EEng's score is not even 90 points less than mine! —valereee (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems everyone gets 100% for userpage - both EEng for 380kB and me for 300x less... — kashmīrī TALK 20:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, I only got +16 for userpage. I'm definitely unfit for adminship! Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not me! I only get 2... !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend the Iridescent solution for everyone who wants to be an admin without userpage content. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm weak in the RFPP area. *shrugs* - maybe next month. — Ched (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 article patrolled! Also, BusterD (Executed in 1.361 seconds) beats me (Executed in 47.956 seconds — was starting to lose hope). Pat-roll, you say...? El_C 17:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More