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

Final: (1/12/0); withdrawn by candidate at 11:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

BlueCaper (talk · contribs) – Hello, I'm BlueCaper (talk). I have been on Wikipedia for over 2¹/₂ years, and have contributed more than 2,000 times to Wikipedia and sister projects. I have been blocked once, though, for the misunderstanding that Wikipedia is meant to be fully encyclopedic. I have changed a lot since then, and I marvel at how I see myself in a (I would think) benevolent position that I could not imagine myself being in a year ago. I have been constantly working to become an admin, for the good of Wikipedia.

I have learned a lot, such as the concept of non-free use and the situations in which I should and should not use it. I know that a block prevents a Wikipedian from editing all of Wikipedia (except for the user talk page), while a ban bars off only a page on Wikipeda from being edited by a certain Wikipedian. I have been hoping for this moment for a long time, and I feel that I have changed for the better, and have even shirked out of life needs to contribute to Wikipedia. I believe I am ready. BlueCaper (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this self-nomination.

:::ATTENTION: I, BlueCaper, am withdrawing because of Wikipedia:Not now, and because of personal obstacles that will restrict my time on Wikipedia. I will rerequest adminship when I feel ready. Thank you for voting. -BlueCaper (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in rollbacking recent edits of vandalism. I believe that too much vandalism is going on for Wikipedians to correct Wikipedia the long way -- "take the scenic route", if you will. If the same work can be done at a quicker pace, then the rate of benevolent editing will gain an advantage over the rate of malevolent editing.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I would say that my best contributions to Wikipedia are either minor grammatical edits or those edits falling under the scopes of WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Video Games, and WikiProject Koei Warriors Games. I came to Wikipedia out of interest, and all of my edits to this day are still out of personal interest (though with regard for facts and truth). I believe that they are the best because they have been the most and the most permanent. When they need a source, they are the best-cited edits of mine as well.

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: Yes, I have, although most were in the beginning of my time as a Wikipedian. I became defensive when someone critiqued my edits (whether constructively or not). I developed a hot temper and scowled when someone disagreed with me. But then, the more time I spent on Wikipedia, the more good faith I began to assume.

I would say that it started with the notorious two-day block. I was blocked by User:Hersfold for adding video game cheats repeatedly to Wikipedia, because I viewed Wikipedia as a fountain of knowledge, not as a respectable encyclopedic community. Because he was an admin, I realized that I am not invincible. I had a "Wikipiphany".

I had to rethink my actions for a while, before I edited again. It was a short break, but I feel like my whole life has changed since that moment. I solved a problem with another fellow Wikipedian who edited in the wrong place with civility. I stopped a vandal from defacing my user page and turned him around to be a good editor just because of a kind hidden message that would have never stopped me earlier on. I adopted a newcomer; I founded a quite active WikiProject; and I never thought I could do any of those four things the year I was blocked. I have improved a lot and will continue to assume good faith for eternity.

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

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

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 01:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:ATTENTION: I, BlueCaper, am withdrawing because of Wikipedia:Not now, and because of personal obstacles that will restrict my time on Wikipedia. I will rerequest adminship when I feel ready. Thank you for voting. -BlueCaper (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. I think you're a good editor and you won't break the wiki or delete the main page. Nonetheless, I'm afraid that you probably won't succeed with this RfA, and I'd just like to say don't let that discourage you. All of the editors here are really just looking for a little more experience and knowledge about policy. Stick around a while, and in a few months you might well succeed easily. Cool3 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, but at this time, I'm afraid I must oppose. It's only been six months since your block, and I see little evidence that you've improved significantly enough to become an administrator. In addition, you seldom use edit summaries, which I view as an important aspect to editing. Regards, –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 01:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose due to overall lacks of content building and understanding of policies such as V, RS, and Fair image. In your most edited article (actually "list"), I don't see any "source" provided. The article, Harry J. Lincoln that you created has big signs of "problems". I think you're not ready yet.--Caspian blue 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Per Julian and semi Caspian blue. Disagree with the content building part, you don't need to be a content builder but you do need to understand policy.--Giants27 ^T/C 02:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Per the comments above sorry. Please also note in regards to Q1 that you don't have to be an administrator to have rollback permissions. If this doesn't go through you might like to check the rollback page on instructions for application. Camw (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Per above comments. I'm afraid you don't have enough experience and a good grasp of policies yet. Perhaps next time - Fastily (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose largely per the above. Your answers to the above questions show me that you do not fully understand what being an administrator involves, and in my dealings with you I'm still not convinced you have enough of a grasp of policies, and still treat Wikipedia as a social site to some degree. I would recommend you spend several months (at least four-five, preferably more) involving yourself not only in article work, but also in administrative and "backstage" type areas such as deletion discussions, new page patrols, and backlogs, among others. As Giants27 noted, I feel article writing is a somewhat secondary concern to policy knowledge and demonstrating responsibility, which is what editors look for in prospective admin candidates. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose I have to agree with much of what was said above. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - Concur with Julian and Giants, also, user was recently at AN/I for sharing an account between three users. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 06:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Per a bunch of small problems that combined make think you need a bit more experience: the block six months ago, not much experience in content creation, few edit summaries, answers to questions that don't imply enough policy knowledge (for example, rollback isn't an administrative function), some strange contributions such as this urgent appeal for an editor review which makes me think you're not wholly aware of the RfA process - any one of these could be surmountable, but combined lead me to encourage you to wait and try again later. BlueCaper, I think you're an excellent starting editor and your heart is surely in the right place - I see a lot of politeness and good nature in your interactions with other users, which speaks very well of you. My oppose is not on your character, but a request for a bit more experience. I hope to see you back here again - don't give up! FlyingToaster 06:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose, doesn't seem to possess the level of experience necessary for adminship. The rollback permission would be sufficient for what you seem to want to do. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Weak Oppose Based on your response to Q1. But I hope that you will continue to offer a positive contribution here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose, you appear to be a good editor, but it is too soon after your block. Also, this is at best misguided, but at worst canvassing. I'm sure that in the future you'll have a bit more luck at RfA, just unfortunately your experience isn't quite there. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.