Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BusterD 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

BusterD

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/BusterD
• Requests for adminship/BusterD 2

Final (189/2/0); Closed as successful by SilkTork (talk) at 17:12, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Frankly, the question was so broad I wrestled for some time about what aspect was most important to me. I chose the arena of sourcing where language skills could help me. In many of the biographies I have researched, especially West Pointers, an ability to read French would be extremely useful. There were a number of ACW soldiers who post-war served as officers in the Egyptian armies, for example. All of those Egyptian archives are in French, not Arabic. If I had better language skills I likely would have attended the Alexandria Wikimania and visit the host library while there. There are a number of subjects, like Charles Pomeroy Stone and Peter Hagner who visited Europe during the 1848 revolutions as military observers. I am interested in finding sources, and not being able to even reference sources is frustrating. Further, there are articles on French Wikipedia which interest me and I think would interest English speakers, but sources in English are not as deep. I've been interested in partnering with French wikipedians about subjects like Laboulaye, Bartholdi, Maximilian I of Mexico, and Dreyfus affair, where the French sources are more robust, but I'm hesitant to connect because of my "ill-preparedness". I consider myself a content editor interested in the second half of the 19th century and I'd like not to be limited to the American-centric sources I've read on this period. I do not consider myself an en.wikipedian. As a multi-language platform for information, Wikipedia is the ideal plaza where cultures can unbuild walls of language and preference. Everyone is enriched by the connection across cultures. I wish I could contribute more to THAT effort which includes THIS encyclopedia.

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.

In his oppose, User:Chess expresses some concerns about the lessons I learned during my first RfA (and the lessons I might have learned). Chess specifically questions my intent. For the record, I admitted then I had made several bad choices and decisions; all this was because I had insufficient experience and knowledge of the XfD processes. If I did this inadequately, then I can concede that. I was not ready. In the years after I made myself more familiar with AfD and CSD because I wanted to improve my knowledge and experience as a wikipedian, not as an admin candidate. Since then I participate in formal processes as they arise but do not seek them; I did not intend to run again for admin. A few weeks ago while exchanging pleasantries with User:Drmies he asked if I would be willing to be of service to the pedia and put myself forward for discussion in this sort of forum. I was flattered but hesitant. I do not edit like a normal admin candidate because I didn't anticipate this run. It was the enthusiasm of the online poll contributors which changed my mind. Questioning the intent of any editor is outside my willingness as a wikipedian and an admin candidate. Questioning editor actions is exactly in my wheelhouse.

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: I am WP:INVOLVED with the regular editor, having had several disagreements and other interactions over the years. I choose NOT to do anything as an admin. As a wikipedian, I may well create a neutral page talk discussion about the slow-motion edit war.

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: I would politely advise User A to file a requested move. I choose NOT to do anything involving tools. As a wikipedian I might offer to help A to file the move and invite B to contribute to the discussion.

Optional question from Aussie Article Writer

question number. Full disclosure: I started WP:AN. My question is this, have you ever seen a situation on WP:AN/I where one editor appeared to be bullied by a group of other editors? And what would you do about it? Further, if another editor defended the person under attack and they had their comments hatted, what would you do? Ultimately this questions boils down to what you would do if you saw bullying on WP:AN/I?

A:. Dude! It's great to see your datestamp! It is nice to know we're still alive after all these years! Full disclosure: I am certain generations of admins will keep this diff on their dojo walls. As to your question, I choose NOT to do anything involving the bit. I don't read AN/I that regularly, but will delve more now. As a wikipedian I would be mastodonish (and unwise) to come fresh into any cantina and just start taking sides or throwing haymakers.

Optional question from Beeblebrox

14. This is a follow-up to question seven, due to the discussion of your answer in the oppose section. Before being asked, had you planned to make yourself open to recall, or did the question prompt you to consider it? Did you feel pressured or bullied to provide a positive response, and in light of the comments down there, would you reconsider your answer?

A: Thank you for providing an opportunity to discuss this topic. These processes don't allow an easy way for the candidate to directly answer oppose or neutral comments of interest to the candidate. For the record, I expected this question. These days this is inevitable (like the old days' block/ban question). I was planning to answer it in the affirmative. I am concerned myself about lifetime appointments. I checked to see how people I knew and respected arranged their removal process and designed mine similarly. I thought the question as asked in this process was somewhat condescending, certainly leading, and absolutely improper (a three-part question in a section where the multipart rules are bolded at the top). To be honest, at first I was going to reply "this is a three part question" and then not answer further. After all, the rules have evolved over time as the result of previous consensus, not because they were written on stone tablet and were brought down a mountainside. But that would be pointy and overtly clever. I chose to ignore the slight to the rules and answer the spirit of the question, which is fair: "Do you think you are here for life with no process to remove you?" Remember this project isn't old enough to drink yet. This is Wikipedia's Y2K issue (how long is too long for an admin to hold the responsibility?). The issue is a fair one. The question as phrased was unfair; the third part was a big AGF fail.

Optional question from Tigraan

15. Do you intend to take part in CSD/XfD in an administrative capacity? I do not find your answer to Q1 particularly clear on that point. While I do think your record in those areas is fairly good (both stats-wise and looking at the actual comments in XfD discussions), it is also a bit old: since 2019, you participated in less than 20 AfDs, and made no substantive CSD nomination (all were G6 or G8 technical noms plus one G7 for "created at wrong location").

A:. I expect to begin entering the administration arenas cautiously and I think it likely that at first I'll stick to the areas in which my participation was discussed clearly (AIV and RfPP) in my answer above. I also think I'll be performing move closes, since I do have some experience participating over many years (see recent process participation here, here, here, here, here, and here). I think it very likely that as I feel more confident in not deleting the mainpage and other basic tasks, I'll look at stretching my activity into realms with which I already have some experience, like deletion procedures. An observer would likely see me contributing as a participant in more XfD processes and taking on some easy CSD deletions. I expect to draw on my nominators and other supporters to coach me in various processes and make certain I'm comfortable before I branch out overmuch.

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/BusterD
• Requests for adminship/BusterD 2

• Links for BusterD: BusterD (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for BusterD can be found here.

---

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)
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)
3. Trusted user, demonstrates a need for the tools. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Intothatdarkness 18:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I've Done.)} 18:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Trusted noms, long history of constructive contributions: why not? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
7. Support - no issues here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
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)

   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)

9. Support on strength of nominators, meeting my mins, and no big deal. Ifnord (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
11. Support per nom Necctaylor (chat) 19:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
16. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
17. Ab-so-lute-ly! - has a clue! Atsme 💬 📧 21:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
18. Support - clearly a competent candidate. Moriori (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
19. I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly support this well-qualified candidate. BOZ (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
20. Support per Drmies. Daniel (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
21. Support no big deal, got a clue - TNT ^😺 22:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
23. Obvious Support is obvious - but "per Drmies" if that counts. Good luck BusterD — Ched (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
25. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. No evidence that they would misuse the tools. Good luck! Miniapolis 22:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
26. Support good work, and good luck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
27. Support Good editor, no concerns, why not?Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
28. Support: trusted user. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 23:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
29. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
33. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
34. Support - trusted user, trusted nominators. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
35. Support. 15 years and a clean block log says to me "trustworthy". oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
36. Support, no concerns. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
39. Support Have seen BusterD around AIV, with solid reports each time. Has my trust. Spencer^T•C 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
40. Support; knows what's what. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
41. Support – All the best Princess of Ara_(talk) 05:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
42. Support, excellent candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
43. Support looks good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
44. Support Why not? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
45. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
46. Support no reason to oppose I can see. JavaHurricane 08:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
47. Support – seems like a good one. Graham87 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
48. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
49. Support per noms, no concerns Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
53. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
55. Strong support, no red flags. WP:NOBIGDEAL. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    —— Also, I love their answer to Q5. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
56. Support, seems like a good choice. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
57. Support no concerns. --Enos733 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
60.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
61. Looks good! DanCherek (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
62. Yup, I, too, like what I see. El_C 14:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
63. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
64. Support - not a jerk, has a clue, trusted nominators. firefly ( t · c ) 15:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
66. Support in line with noms and many above; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
69. Support per the MILHIST folks. No concerns. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
70. Support, as I see no reason not to. Tol | talk | contribs 18:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
71. Support Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
72. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
74. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
75. Support. likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
76. Support - Long overdue - Well qualified and trusted editor, A gret editor who would make a great admin. No concerns here. Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
78. Support per noms, as well as the answers to #5 and #6. Beccaynr (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
80. Support. No concerns. BD2412 T 22:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
81. Support. Not a jerk, has a clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
83. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
84. Support - a capable candidate. -- Longhair\^talk 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
85. Support The kind we need. Rcsprinter123 (say) 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
87. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Zero^talk 03:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
91. Support, great candidate. Cavalryman (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC).
92. Support per nom and answers to questions. Looks well qualified. Zsinj^Talk 03:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
93. Support - clear net positive. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
94. Support - although candidate is slightly less active in chore-ish tasks than content creation (not a problem), they have good temperament and would be a good fit for the tools.
95. Support- Seems like a good candidate, net postive. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
96. Support per the candidate's ability to "self-reflect on not just what you've done wrong but what you've thought wrong and how you're currently wrong" and his interest "mostly in creating content and not in doing chores". Vaticidalprophet 04:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
97. Support - I think you will make a useful administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
98. Support – Hell yeah. Mojoworker (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
99. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
100. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
101. Support per Chess. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
102. Support looks good. Dracophyllum 10:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
103. Support I've found nothing to suggest that he won't be a net positive to the project. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
104. Disappointed by the long wait. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
105. Support – Thanks for being willing to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
106. Support EN-Jungwon 13:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
107. Support An exemplary candidate. Acroterion (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
108. Support: Essentially seems level headed and looks will do some useful work with mop as looks as if can be trusted. My thoughts: Per a recent AfD nom. by candidate they were persuaded to withdraw the Afd nom., while that may (or may not), leave a question about AfD work it is a big plus insofar as in practice they seem willing to review/reflect their actions. Might only work for limited periods in some areas they feel comfortable in only but that would still be a big help on the total workload front. Might be a shade too hesitant in taking decisive action on e.g. blocking obvious vandals but not a showstop to my !vote. Admins seem to think they can work with the candidate and would like them on the mop team. In totality very pleased to support what appears to be a nice candidate. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
109. Support – Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
110. Support per the above. No concerns. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
111. Support, despite the rationale of the opposes below. Will use the mop well, I think. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
112. Support: per above. Seren_Dept 17:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
113. Support Reading the five biographies mentioned in question #2 was a real pleasure, and the answers to all the questions show a level head and a dedication to the project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
114. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
115. Support Cant seem to find any big enough issues that would make this user undeserving of the mop.--LocoMotive 1776 20:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
116. Support, no concerns here. the wub "?!" 20:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
117. Support I am pleased to support this worthy candidate. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
118. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
119. If Drmies, has faith in you, I do too. They are competent and seem to 'have a clue' that’s sufficient for me. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
120. Support BusterD has been here longer than I have, which is pretty long, and he has an excellent track record. I'd say that he more than served the kind of apprenticeship required to wield the mop. Agent 86 (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
121. Support I have read this entire page and seen no rational reason to oppose. In particular @Hipocrite:'s oppose seems pointy and disruptive. They clearly have a problem with the process itself rather than the candidate and have disrupted several RfAs the exact same way. Super tacky. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
122. Support I trust this editor, this editor is trusted by other editors I trust. BusterD has also been cordial to me, and offered me encouragement when I was at my lowest last month. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
123. Support Very experienced editor who seems very reasonable and could use the tools. Sasquatch t|c 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
124. Support. Longtime user with good temperament. No concerns. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
125. Support. 15 years of experience, Trusted editor. --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
126. Support, no problem. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 07:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
127. Support, no problem. --Bduke (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
128. Support We certainly need more admins, and this sounds solid. I trust he has improved since his last attempt 10 years ago, and the answers to the questions are convincing. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
129. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
130. Support Looks good to me.North8000 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
131. Support per nominators. Happy to support. --Ashleyyoursmile! 15:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
132. Support The answer to Q#14 delighted me. No reason not to support this.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
133. Support I've seen this editor's work around Civil War and New York articles and in talk pages thereof. Absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't make a good admin. Star Mississippi 16:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
134. No concerns. — The Earwig (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
135. Thanks for volunteering. I especially liked the follow up answers to 6 and 14. Levivich 19:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
136. Support - No concerns. Seems like a trustworthy, experienced editor. Netherzone (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
137. Support Has the right mindset and a good history of content creation. It is especially heartening to see an RfA candidate that recognizes the need for cross-language collaboration. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
138. Support - Trusted and well qualified.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

     Support -Admin user.KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC) — KamranBhatti4013 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Safi Bhatti (talk · contribs).

     Striking vote by blocked sock. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

139. Support Great editor and content contributor. Good answers to questions. Very collegial with good interactions with people - good temperament. Work in reviewing shows that BusterD will be helpful in blocking vandals. Established trustworthiness long ago. Glad to support. Donner60 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
140. For all the reasons laid out in the noms I'm pleased to be supporting. My only concern is with myself for taking so long to support. Thoughtful answers and I like the idea of having someone who is a steady contributor over a long period rather than someone who spends tons of time daily (like myself) join the admincorp in 2021. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
141. The quality of the two current opposes easily moves me to support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
142. Support Never encountered the candidate, but I do tend to avoid articles on the American Rebellion. But if Hog Farm says he has clue, that's good enough for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
143. Support productive, conscientious contributor open to suggestions, trusted by many. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
144. Support Good candidate. Knows what he wants to do with the mop. Has a clue. The oppose votes don't concern me, the first is too stale to be a concern and the second is more a criticism of the question than the candidate. Neiltonks (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
145. Support Trustworthy candidate. The answer to question 6 could have been more wikipedia specific but no concerns. Polyamorph (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
146. Support TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
147. Support. Great candidate - good luck!:) — sparklism ^hey! 09:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
148. Support - not a jerk, has a clue, excellent content contributions, and nothing in the oppose !votes that worries me at all. I particularly like your answer to question 14. It shows that you understand things, and are not afraid to be honest about yourself and our processes. Good luck to you, and welcome to the admin corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
149. Support - I'll pile on my support for this very long term user. It's obvious that this person has a clue and giving them the bot would be a clear net positive for the project. - tucoxn\^talk 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
150. Support No issues here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
151. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
152. Support No concerns from me. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
153. Support – competent and pleasant editor; no concerns are apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
154. 20 mule team Support B has been an asset to the project for many years and this will enhance that. MarnetteD|Talk 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
155. Support Good luck Buster!! Helen(💬📖) 22:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
156. Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
157. Per the candidate's demeanour and temperament. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
158. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
159. No concerns. JBL (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
160. Stephen 05:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
161. Per answer to question 5 — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
162. Support --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
163. BusterD approached me in 2016 and 2021 and brightened my day both times. He is generous, warm-hearted, and supportive. His answers to the questions (particularly for Q5, Q6, and Q14) are impressive. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the biographies he shared in Q2. His content work is solid, and he has two well-respected nominators in Drmies and Ched who have done excellent work explaining why BusterD would be a strong admin. I trust BusterD. Cunard (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
164. Support - Welcome aboard. -- œ^™ 12:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
165. Support - Graham Beards (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
166. Support Trusted user, well qualified. Keep up the good work! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
167. Support We need more admin, not less. SunDawn (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
168. Support Trusted user with all the right qualifications. Learns from his mistakes, shows humility. GhostRiver 17:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
169. Support go for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
170. Support Doing good work on the huge, complex, and easily-contentious Civil War is impressive to me. Looks like the worst thing people seem to be able to say about you is some bad deletions back in the day, and some weird bickering about recall pledges. I look forward to your success in this RfA. Jasphetamine (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
171. Support The responses were appropriate and the candidate showed restraint and character in answering what I would call an inappropriate question about recall that is not applicable or binding, but did so in the spirit of the RfA process. I also found some of the answers to be delightful, especially, reading with his daughter. I gained a love of reading from my Papa. I also look at who nominated and found two editors I respect in Drmies and Ched. I trust their judgement and wish BusterD all the best! --ARoseWolf 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
172. Support why not SK2242 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
173. Support on the basis that, in no particual order: we strongly need to reinforce our admin core, I know the name from around and never saw a red flag, scans of talk page archives to early 2019 dont raise any hairs, the RFA nom was made by experienced, broadly respected and frankly canny community members. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
174. Support qualified candidate AnApple47 (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
175. Support—Most definitely. Excellent candidate. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
176. Support - Piling on at this point, but I've actually worked with Buster for a long time and trust his judgement and intentions such that having the tools really is no big deal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
177. Support; looks absolutely fine. Good overall work and no red flags I can see. ~ mazca ^talk 09:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
178. Support. All indications are that he'd be a net positive. I like the overall philosophy to editing Wikipedia (Q5), and the sense of restraint towards blocking in Q9. I'm sure he'll be a great admin. All the best! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
179. Support No problem, good luck. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
180. Support. Wikipedia definitely needs more BOLD admins, and he is fully qualified. Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
181. Support - Seems fine. ♟♙ (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
182. Support - Lots of high quality work, long tenure, and I find the opposes highly unpersuasive. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
183. Support - We need more admins like Buster! Good luck! -AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
184. Support — Thoughtful responses to various questions and no reason to oppose. Shushugah (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
185. Support Long time trusted user. TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
186. Support - No doubt in my mind the candidate will not break the project. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  10:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
187. Strong nom, strong support, strong answers. Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
188. Sure Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 15:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
189. Sort of a formality at this point, but I wanted to get my support !vote in under the wire. I'm particularly impressed by the clear, thoughtful answers to questions. I think you'll be a great admin. Go out and do good work! MastCell ^Talk 15:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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) 20:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

   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)

   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) 21:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

   Chess, I guess you didn't see what happened to RexxS then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

   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)

   @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) 21:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

   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)

   But the closes were ten years ago, you really need to let it go. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

   Foreign language skills certainly are relevant to editing English Wikipedia. All too often I see perfectly good sources being ignored or rejected because they are not in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

2. Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus. In this case, more so than most others, this is exceedingly clear, as the shitty recall question purports to present an avenue to create a binding commitment, and the candidate does not take the purported steps requested to make it binding - despite the well known fact that it cannot bind. As such, I object. Hipocrite (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   Hipocrite, What would be your answer if asked the same question? Share with us please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   I'm not running for adminship. However, any answer I would accept would make it clear that the subject knows that the "recall" system consists of nothing but empty pledges. If they then chose to make an empty pledge? I wouldn't care. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   The user states that they are open to recall, when asked. I have no idea what the "correct" answer would be. How is this a reason to not want the candidates to have administrative capacity? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   I don't respect people who pander to the crowd by pretending "recall," exists, or who are so uninformed about something they are "pledging," that they know it is toothless. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   Hipocrite, the second part of your comment is incoherent. If the candidate is uninformed about what they are pledging, how could they know it is toothless? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

   There's a missing "do not" before the know. Apologies. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

   The "recall question" is a bit of a mess for complicated reasons that were being discussed on the talk page before a recent derailing comment, and have been discussed elsewhere such as WT:RFA; there are legitimate criticisms to make of it. Hipocrite's opposes are a bit pointy as they don't make a particularly coherent criticism, but I can see why people might have their opinion of a candidate lowered for not looking too deeply into it. (Personally, I think lowering your opinion of a candidate on that basis is putting too high standards on said candidates for meta/background knowledge, but my ideal RfA candidate is "someone with 40 FAs and 4 non-FAC projectspace edits".) Vaticidalprophet 10:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   It is not disrupting the encyclopedia to oppose an RFA candidate. Please retract. My criticism is that the candidate is pandering or uninformed - both disqualifying. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   Hipocrite, I am of the opinion that it is somewhat rude to force an issue that is really not a failing of the candidates, but the system. The RfA process can be brutal enough with every personal blemish and feature under the spotlight, and being forced to join a personal battle on pain of facing a spurious oppose vote is disruptive. – Anon423 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

   If this experience is too brutal for Buster_D, he's not qualified to be an admin. It's got to be oh-so-terrible to be opposed twice. Alternatively, he could recall his pledge to be recallable, or note that every admin is essentially recallable. Hipocrite (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

   I normally dislike commenting at oppose voters at RFA, but this is just WP:POINTY. Just because you don't like the way the recall system works doesn't mean you should take it out on the candidate and oppose with nothing actually about the candidate. Hog Farm _Talk 14:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   It is not disrupting the encyclopedia to oppose an RFA candidate. My opposed is based on his toothless pledge, not the recall system. Please retract. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   Hipocrite, Ok then, what make Trialpears's pledge more binding that you did not comment on it? They don't say anything about the recall system being toothless. Techie3 (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

   Didn't see that RFA. Am I obligated to read everything here? Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

   So, User:JayBeeEll, this is the fifth time they pasted this stuff here? It's a shame they don't follow RfA closer, cause they could have posted this a thousand times already. Maybe they can start an AN discussion and propose it be added to my RfA, in retrospect, with a pass/fail outcome--that would be exciting. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   The comment I posted above is unique. Your comment is not civil. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   I personally feel exactly the same way about the attempt to shoehorn recall into a binding procedure by basically tricking people into it, it's shameful and dishonest. That being said it isn't a reason to oppose the victim of this mistreatment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   While I agree the question is deeply abusive, there are many answers the candidate could provide, including "this question is abusive and I will not answer it," that would result in my unquestioning support. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   In the midst of this crank-like behavior, you still haven't given a concrete reason as to why you're opposing. You are objecting to an unrelated practice and taking none of the other candidate's qualities into account. Wouldn't an RFC be a better avenue to make your stand? WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

   "I don't respect people who pander to the crowd by pretending "recall," exists, or who are so uninformed about something they are "pledging," that they [do not] know it is toothless. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

   @Hipocrite: You realise a pledge does not have to be binding and enforceable by others to be a pledge, right? Consider election promise. They are also 'toothless'. I presume you abstain for voting at any democratic election (since the form doesn't let you 'oppose') because all the pledges made by all candidates are 'toothless'? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

   This is not a multi-candidate election for a contested slot, so that analogy fails. I find that candidates pledging to do things that would only be relevant if they ignored the pledge ("If I'm corrupt, I'll quit!") makes me more likely to pick the other evil. Hipocrite (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

   @Drmies: at least the tenth: Alansohn (2010), Rannpháirtí anaithnid (2011), Slon02 (2011), ItsZippy (2012), Avicennasis (2012), MelanieN (2015), Titodutta (2015), Ashleyyoursmile (2021), and Less Unless (2021). It seems likely there are many more (their edit summary at the Rannpháirtí anaithnid RfA was "Oppose, see other admins who have pledged recall") but I got tired of digging through their edit history to find them. (To be clear, Hipocrite's has also voted oppose in lots of RfAs during this period for other reasons, and occasionally even has supported someone.) --JBL (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

   JayBeeEll, Normally, such disruptive behaviour brings the word TBAN to mind... — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

   Why all this discussion? Let's just let Hipocrite have their say, in response to which the bureuacrat who closes this will make the correct allowances, and get on with more important things. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

   I agree with the premise here that the "recall" system is silly. Either enforce a system of recall for all admins, or accept that the only way for them to be removed is by ArbCom. IMHO it should also be forbidden to ask questions such as #7 at RfA, as it's basically a gotcha. Anybody who says they're not open to recall risks attracting oppose votes, but on the other hand a pledge to do so risks you being seen as disingenuous if you later change your mind. And also, putting yourself on the recall list puts you at a disadvantage compared with admins who didn't put themselves on said list. I don't agree with Hipocrite's oppose, obviously, because it has nothing to do with the candidate's suitability for adminship, but I do agree with them that the voluntary recall system is bogus.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

   Very well said! — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

   In particular, Part C is a bald attempt to make the pledge permanently binding, which it never, ever will be no matter how many dirty tricks are attempted to make it so. (it's also actually three questions when the limit is two, as the candidate pointed out.) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

   This is not the place to carry on an extended debate about the merits (or lack of) of the recall system. Johnnie Bob (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

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 doesn'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)

Moved to support. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• Procedural comment: I believe that the candidate's acceptance traditionally includes disclosure of the editor's alternate accounts (if any) and whether or not they have edited for pay, though I don't remember off the top of my head if either of those is explicitly required. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • They do indeed denote alternative accounts on their userpage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Both disclosures are required by our policies on administrators and on sockpuppetry. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • It's a perfectly valid concern and I appreciate your raising it promptly. I have added a statement after my acceptance disclosing names of all three accounts I've used to edit the pedia. BusterD (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
      • User:Lee Vilenski, GeneralNotability, et alia, blame the nominator (me); I can't even work the templates for the nomination and I should have reminded Buster of that requirement. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Informational comment: For those who might be curious about the XTools Admin Score for BusterD, it is currently 1132 (out of a maximum possible 1300). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Gwennie, shouldn't that max be 1200? Ifnord (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

BusterD, I'm very glad you appreciated the question. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Valereee: Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I did place a quiet word on their talk. No joy. —valereee (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Live and let live, I guess. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

Now take a look at my two ArbCom candidacies. ;) – bradv🍁 21:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

hahahaha —valereee (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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)

How old is that silly thing, anyway? —valereee (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

Ooh, not too shabby! EEng's score is not even 90 points less than mine! —valereee (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems everyone gets 100% for userpage - both EEng for 380kB and me for 300x less... — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Darn, I only got +16 for userpage. I'm definitely unfit for adminship! Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Not me! I only get 2... ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I recommend the Iridescent solution for everyone who wants to be an admin without userpage content. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm weak in the RFPP area. *shrugs* - maybe next month. — Ched (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

+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)

• In coming to a quick support I found the answer to Question 5 particularly convincing. That was partly because it was quite a nice summary of what we're trying to do here. But also, anyone who has the patience to re-read Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth with their daughter surely has the patience required to be a responsible admin. That book is full of good ideas, but I almost gave up the eighth time I learned that something is non-simultaneous and synergistically omni-transforming. To go back for seconds and take another person with you is impressive. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A nice thing to say. To be clear, we originally read through the book when she was in her teens, while we were driving long distances. We re-read it during the lockdown while trapped in our respective domociles. These days we read together on a video-sharing app. In 2020 we read and discussed Homer, Hesse, Defoe, Pirsig, Shakespeare, too many others to share. This year we are taking on Machiavelli. Right now we are reading Goethe's Theory of Colours, which will take a while. I encourage adults to make the time to read with their adult children. Our experience has been one highlight of an otherwise unpleasant year. BusterD (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)