Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/E

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

E

[edit]

FINAL (32/25/11); ended 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

E (talk · contribs) - Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I would like to nominate User:E for adminship. Formerly known as Extranet, E has been making the internet not suck since October 26, 2006. Since then, he has accumulated over 3000 edits (for those of you out there with a mild case of editcountitis). He has had two previous RfA's (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Extranet and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Extranet2), and I think he's learned from both. He has reported various users to AIV and WP:UAA. He is also a regular on the Signpost, having written several issues of the Features and admins section. E is also a little tech savvy and runs three bots; EBot, who archives finished requests at Wikipedia:Abuse reports, EBot2, who archives completed cases at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and ENewsBot, who delivers the newletters for WikiProject Iceland. He also occasionally provides comments at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. I trust this user and am confident that he will not block Jimbo or delete the Main Page if given administrative buttons, as he has been trained by the best at TT's Virtual Classroom. I am confident that he will be a great administrator if given a few more buttons. Fellow Wikipedians, I give you E for your consideration. Eddie 14:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept Eddie's nomination. Thank you for a great statement. — E talkbots 22:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am a recent changes patroller and fighting vandalism is in my field of interest. I revert any vandalism that I find, followed by warning the user with one of the five vandalism warning templates. If this vandalism continued, I would notify the user further, followed by reporting them to AIV with a reason which is explained in detail. That brings me to my first point, as I would like to help out in various areas around the encyclopedia, including WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA and CAT:SPEEDY. The pages in the administrative backlog will be on my watchlist and actioned on until they are no longer backlogged as much. If anyone requires any administrative assistance is free to post on my talk page if anything is needed such as a vandal investigated, page protected, etc. I am very familiar with the username policy and will often monitor Special:Log/newusers to spot any inappropriate names that may be listed there. I then either place {{subst:UsernameConcern}} on their talk page or report them to WP:UAA if it is a serious violation. I like to help people and if any user requires help (either at CAT:HELP or WP:HD), I will always be glad to assist them with my current knowledge in the field of the enquiry. If there is any other areas that other administrators would like me to have a go at, I'd be glad to chip in my extra few edits there as I do like to check out new things and try them out.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Throughout my time at Wikipedia, I have made numerous contributions to various articles of all types from biography to geography. My favourite hobby is photography and I have uploaded quite a few logos, personal images and screenshots to the encyclopedia to help expand the article in question. I do still anticipate to create and cleanup more articles on behalf of some WikiProjects. I run three bots on the project, EBot, EBot2 and ENewsBot, which are also making edits to help build a better and more productive encyclopedia. Below are a few of my great edits to the project, and I believe that this list will be growing to a larger amount soon.
Articles:
Images:
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: Throughout my time here at Wikipedia, I have only been in around three conflicts with some users regarding matters such as image rationales, factual and article errors, but in particular vandals (usually anons). I have resolved all of my conflicts in a non-violent and peaceful way, and will continue to do so with any future ones. I never try to bite the newcomers, but in some cases of serious vandalism, there is actions that we do have to take to stop the vandal. Another situation was when I got in the middle of a conflict between two other users (cannot remember names) about a factual error, which was successfully stopped because of my actions. I believe they both left the project in early January, but it was a relief to stop the conflict between them.
4. What were you thinking when you made this edit? Particularly regarding length of time required to be an admin? Majorly (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hello there Majorly. Since adding that comment to the RfA, I strongly regret adding it. 1½-2 years can not always be right, but when I looked over numerous RfAs recently, quite a few of the candidates are actually around that 'age' (if that is what you would call it). Again, I regret adding it and will always think twice about what I add for comments. Thank you for your question, and have a great day. — E talkbots 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Hey, E. Since it is important to know this sort of thing as an administrator: What, in your own words, is the difference between a block and a ban? Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 02:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hello Arknascar44. In my opinion, a block is the act of removing a particular IP or user's editing privileges on the project due to vandalism or other disruption, whereas a ban is the formal way of removing privileges to edit one or all pages on the project. Thanks for your question. — E talkbots 06:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Optional Question from User:Rocksanddirt How much time to you spend on WP now? (either per day or per week), and how do you see that changing if you were to become an admin?
A: Hello Rocksanddirt. I usually spend at least 5 hours a day on Wikipedia at the moment, but if I do become an administrator, I believe it would increase to a larger amount of around 8-10. Thanks for your question. — E talkbots 06:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/E before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Strong Support- The nom said it all. :-) Eddie 12:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please Note:This !vote was added before the RfA started, as I'm going on a Wikibreak and will not be able to participate at a later time.
  2. I have seen E around, and I am confident that he won't stuff up. Sebi [talk] 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I've seen E around QUITE a bit, he's a very enthusiastic and capable editor, runs a few bots, and has my trust. --ST47Talk 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Arithmetical issue having been resolved, I am happy to support. A good editor. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to point out that there is still a fairly significant issue with the fellow's opening sentence in his answer to the second question - Throughout my time at Wikipedia, I have made numerous thousand contributions to various articles of all types from biography to geography. Bit silly, that. gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're a bit bad at math. It's no reason to oppose :-) Eddie 23:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, mate, the issue is not with your maths, but with E's comment that he's made "numerous thousand contributions to various articles..." This is quite false and attempts to portray E as a prolific article writer when this could not be further from the truth. gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True. E should remove it. Eddie 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have since removed the word thousand from Q2 as this seems to be confusing some. In my opinion, I meant pages on the encyclopedia. — E talkbots 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (Edit conflicted) Support - often around with his distinctive single-character name. Seems experienced, and IMO no need for penalising for incorrectly writing vote instead of discussion - users contributions to (for example) RFA show that s/he knows the difference, whilst I can't see a single use of the word (or !word?) in his past few contribs. ck lostsword•T•C 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support: Per ST47. —« ANIMUM » 23:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Looks like a good editor! Politics rule 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. His answers to the questions are confident, and he has the overall experience. Sr13 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I trust that the candidate would use the tools well within his areas of interest, and would know when to act unilaterally and when to consult. Newyorkbrad 02:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. S It's single-letter user admin week! (See R, below.) If you do even half of what you say in Q1 - and that's quite a workload - it's worthwhile to let you into the cabal. I've seen nothing wrong from E before. Shalom Hello 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. An Excellent candidate. Sorry, just had to do it. *dodges tomatoes* G1ggy Talk/Contribs 04:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I have seen you around, you will be a fantastic admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - most of the oppose votes centre around the candidate's supposed self-promotion in claiming "thousands" of edits to articles, but that looks to me like a simple slip. Candidate clearly has plenty of experience with essential maintenance tasks, and would be willing to work on backlogs. Waltontalk 11:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. SupportI agree with Walton, as usual, and believe this editor should be given admin tools. I think the candidate is willing to work, and has plenty of experience with essential maintenance tasks. old windy bear 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support- I have seen E around and I believe he can handle the job as an admin quite well..He was one of the few user that helped me a lot at WP:ACC and he has enough experience and edit counts from my POV to qualify as a good candidate..Good Luck...--Cometstyles 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Trustworhty contributor, dedicated to the project. GDonato (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support E's made some nice bots, and the tools would help him out during bot testing if nothing else. I think the objections to his "bragging" are a bit alarmist. Well, if the RfA fails, at least you know how to answer the questions next time. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support I have seen him around he has some great bots, and I think he'll become an excellent admin! Davis160Talk 18:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No concerns that would prevent me from supporting. Captain panda 03:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support It looks to me like he'd be an excellent admin and willing to help. Regardless of how many edits he does or doesn't have, it's the quality of edits and the overall support to the community that matter to me. E has done a good job where I think it counts. Wyv 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Terence 12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Per no big deal. ~ Wikihermit 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm sorry, but I thought E was an admin! 'Support :) -- Stwalkerster talk 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I'm afraid this nomination probably won't pass, but please try again when you have addressed some of the concerns below. For what it is worth, I support this bid. Andre (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Like Andrevan above I think your nom is in danger. The math error has proven significant. However, I am familiar with this editor and he has done much good work. I do not see him as a danger with the tools. JodyB talk 22:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I don't see why not. The answer to question 4 cleared an issue; I have no reason to oppose this user. Acalamari 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. OMG-He-Made-A-Mistake-Support I don't think there's an admin out there, that is perfect, nor would I expect E to be. That's just plain unreasonable, and, as adminship is supposed to be No big deal, I see no reason not to support. (If you succeed at this, please don't block me by mistake!) Good luck with the Pile-ons, E. --SXT40 10:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, no evidence he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I trust this user. End of. By the way, my comment above might need an irony flag attached, but the shops had sold out of them. --Dweller 12:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support- I'm going to go ahead and support. I don't really believe the oppositions are that severe to prevent this individual from becoming an admin. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I went through your history (contributions, talk pages, count, etc.) and I could not find anything that raised any alarms that would have me believe you would be a threat as an administrator. --Ozgod 21:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - it takes all kinds of editors to make this work. The comments regarding a tendency to desire policing rather than contributing directly are well founded; however, I don't see any actions that make me think you abuse this worthwhile activity. The number of vandals demands some very active, consistent vigilence. Good luck. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. The nominator overstates E's mainspace contributions as does the candidate himself in his answer to the second question. In looking at the fellow's history, I see very few significant mainspace contributions. The snarky overstating aside (which is a bit of a concern in and of itself), I don't feel as though E has enough experience in the mainspace to effectively and judiciously click the extra buttons gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Gaillimh, thanks for leaving your comments. Firstly, I may not edit much in the mainspace, but I can guarantee you I do take great knowledge of the mainspace and it's functions. I am actually starting to edit more in the mainspace as that is what I picked up on my last edit count check, and I believe I will do a good job with deletions and protections of the mainspace. — E talkbots 22:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi E, thanks for taking the time to comment! While I appreciate your willingness to take on an added role in the project, I remain dubious of your "guarantee", especially as your nominator and your answer to the second question overstate your mainspace experience quite a bit. My primary concern is that there is no substitute for learning our policies and honing one's judiciousness when it comes to protections and deletions than encyclopedic contributions in the form of mainspace editing. Editing in the mainspace also allows for cooperation, discussion, and collaboration with other editors. Admittedly this can be had elsewhere (project-space, for example), but I feel that significant mainspace experience is essential for a potential administrator, because we are, after all, an encyclopedia. While I recognise that we're all volunteers and we all have unique and special ways to help out, if one wants an added role with extra buttons, I feel that one should work in the mainspace a bit before using these buttons which will affect the mainspace in a significant way. Thanks again for the commment, and I do wish you luck with your request. gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. Thank you for your participation. Eddie 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, he's well over 3000 if edits to deleted pages are included. I know that's not how it's normally counted, but he is a recent changes patroller, so a lot of his work will have been deleted. -- But|seriously|folks  00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this has nothing to do with "editcountitis", as you say. The issue that you brought up has to do with his misrepresentation of his experience. If you'll look at his answer to Q2, E states that he's made have made numerous thousand contributions to various articles.... The fellow has made around 650 edits or so to the mainspace, most of which are minor and/or automated AWB edits. To say that he's made "numerous thousands" of contributions is just a false statement, ya know? Six hundred and fifty is not one thousand, let alone "numerous thousands." gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have since removed the word thousand from Q2 as this seems to be confusing some. In my opinion, I meant pages on the encyclopedia. — E talkbots 00:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose — Simply being interested in power won't gain my support. Switched to strongly opposing you: we discuss and come to consensus, we don't vote (or "!vote", simply prefixing an exclamation mark doesn't change the word's meaning). Is it so hard to say "discussion"? (I'm guessing so...) Matthew 22:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, where did he say vote? Furthermore, how does saying vote affect a user's ability to correctly use administrative buttons? Eddie 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew, I have serious concerns with the WP:ABF apparent in many of your RfA votes recently. Although lack of article-writing is considered by some as a valid reason to oppose, your comments on several recent RfAs ("simply interested in power", "too bureaucratic", and other comments in a similar vein) are somewhat uncivil. And, given that about 50% of editors believe RfA is a vote, I don't think it's fair to oppose this candidate for believing that. Waltontalk 11:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully-endorse Walton's assessment, Matthew. You have gotten way out of hand. Please take a look at some policies that you seem to overlook. Thanks. —« ANIMUM » 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course RfA is a "vote"; how can anyone claim otherwise? There is no typical criterion for promotion save for hitting the magic percentage. To oppose because someone used the word "vote" when it is plainly the case is nothing short of a WP:POINT violation.  RGTraynor  14:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Actual total number of edits is 2987, with 641 in mainspace. I feel that accuracy is of paramount importance in an RfA. This is not accurate. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, the nominator, who isn't even the one up for adminship, was off by 13 edits! Let's ban the candidate! --Rory096 23:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for the mistake (I'm making a lot of them recently). I could have sworn I had seen 3000 edits. Please don't penalize E for my mistake. Eddie 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not far off though, Anthony. And Eddie, I think Rory was joking around ;) Sebi [talk] 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that *cough* I meant Anthony's oppose :-) Eddie 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    O, right. Sebi [talk] 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed to support. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I normally don't like edit counting but here I make an exception. In your answer to Q2 you mention "Throughout my time at Wikipedia, I have made numerous thousand contributions to various articles of all types from biography to geography." That is clearly not true, you've only made 640. Whilst this might be an error, good admins will always check their facts before rushing into something. It could be disasterous sometimes. I also feel those 640 edits aren't really contributing much to actually adding much content, which is of course why we are here. This combined with Q4, where you did not check your facts on another occasion, and made a rather odd assumption about how long users had to be around before they could apply to become admins, and other times I've seen you referring to "voting" - I'd rather not have a "voter" having the ability to close XfD discussions, which must never be closed as a vote. Sorry, but not now. Majorly (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Majorly. Thank you for your comments. I have since removed the word thousand from Q2 as this seems to be confusing some. In my opinion, I meant pages on the encyclopedia. This includes wikipedia, category, user and template. Have a nice day. — E talkbots 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my God, a candidate made a grammatical error? This is a matter for CN, not RfA! --Rory096 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez Majorly, like you don't make typos. On another note, I hardly see how E's ability to vote in RfA's will effect his ability to perform admin tasks. Wait for the RfB, mate. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 04:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see it as a "grammatical error" at all - when we contribute to articles, that is the mainspace, not anywhere else. G1ggy, his "voting" may not be much, but how do I know he won't go closing XfDs as a vote? "Wait for the RfB, mate" - is that a threat or something? This is a reasonable problem, not only brought up by me, but by Gaillimh and Nick below. Telling me to "wait for the RfB" is not really productive is it now? Majorly (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wait for the RfB, mate" - We don't judge rfa comments in an rfa, as admins have no more power then regular users in an RfA. In an RfB, however, they have more power, so you can oppose based on his bad RfA votes as much as you like in an RfB. As for vote closures, I'm yet to see an admin who will close an XfD with 10 deletes and 1 keep as keep just because the keep argument was strong. Like it or not, there is a lot of vote in it anyway. Giggy UCP 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per unrealistic expectations made on past RfAs where he suggests candidates should return over a year later for another RfA. This suggests widespread unfamiliarity with process. Nick 00:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Nick. Thank you for your comments. I, myself, do make mistakes (as stated in Q4), and I'm sure you do too. I don't really think that something like this should be a reason to oppose. If you do wish to keep your oppose vote, I will accept that. Have a nice day. — E talkbots 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Can you provide a link? I don't really think that something like that would be a reason to oppose, especially as your only concern - do you have any recommendations as to how E could improve this, beyond getting more experience? I'm sure it would be helpful to him and future visitors to the RfA if there were specific incidents of his unfamiliarity with process. --ST47Talk 00:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] and it seems E has only been active since 26 October 2006. I'm having difficulty in reconciling his 9 or so months with claims he's making on other editors RfAs where he suggests they need to wait months and have close on 1½ to 2 years experience. I mention the lack of experience because E has made a lot of his edits in the Wikipedia namespace away from anything really relevant to adminship, The Signpost, Request an Account and to a lesser extent BAG and Help Desk. There's little sign of policy discussion or consensus building. 26 Talk page edits and 47 Wikipedia talk page edits. E needs to get more involved with article writing, discussion surrounding articles and needs to be far more consistent between his own standards and what he sets for other users. Nick 00:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so a candidate's comment on a process that has nothing to do with adminship is a reason to oppose. It makes perfect sense; perhaps we should start desysopping people who say stupid things on RfAs too? --Rory096 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comments directly above you. Nick 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly asked the same question above (Q4) and my reply was that since adding that comment to the RfA, I strongly regret adding it. 1½-2 years can not always be right, but when I looked over numerous RfAs recently, quite a few of the candidates are actually around that 'age' (if that is what you would call it). Again, I regret adding it and will always think twice about what I add for comments. But, really, everyone is different and some people think that some people need more time than others before requesting for adminship. Kind regards, — E talkbots 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Majorly, other Nick. ➪HiDrNick! 02:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Majorly. Candidate says he has edited thousands of articles, yet he has only 640 mainspace contributions. I'll AGF that this isn't intentional deception, but it is woefully inaccurate. If candidate can't be bothered to check his own edit history prior to his RfA, this is not time for the mop. Xoloz 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Xoloz. I appreciate your comments, but I did remove that claim as some people were taking it the wrong way. As in numerous thousand articles, I meant pages on the whole project (not just mainspace). Is there a reason to oppose? We all make mistakes, I'm sure you've made some too. — E talkbots 03:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Psh, real Wikipedians don't make mistakes. --Rory096 04:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I make six billion mistakes a day, so that isn't my issue. My issue is that the candidate seemed to brag, and got caught in an exaggeration. It isn't the mistake itself, but the character of the mistake made. Xoloz 05:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he's bragging- that's what the question tells him to do. It doesn't seem to me that he was actually exaggerating. The way I read it, it seemed like he was just referring to his total edit count, rather than just his mainspace edit count, and just mistakenly wrote "articles" instead of "pages." I doubt he was trying to make people think he had more edits than he had. --Rory096 05:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what Rory096 said is correct. I was referring to my full edit count rather than my mainspace edit count. I apologise to everyone that took this the wrong way. — E talkbots 06:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Majorly put it nicely. —treyjay–jay 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. E's contributions would be sufficient for me to support, but adminship is also about trust, and my trust in E has been eroded by various issues in this nomination. E, I accept your apologies, but apologies shouldn't earn you a mop. I think you could easily become an admin someday, probably when you meet the adminship criteria you used until recently. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Majorly and Xoloz. - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per all the above comments. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per some of the above but also per very uninspiring answers to questions. In particular the answer to Q1 is strikingly similar to that of R (talk · contribs) given below and which I also criticized. Actually there are striking similarities between these two users (besides the 1-letter username) and I oppose mostly on the same grounds: lack of significant experience with content writing, over-eagerness to get the admin status (I can't see how anybody can say he has "learned from both previously failed RfA" since none of these contained any significant debate), perceived lack of maturity, questionable judgment. Both users run a bot, have good technical skills and are useful contributors (both at CHU) but I have a hard time trusting that either would be able to efficiently face people questioning their actions. Pascal.Tesson 10:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Pascal.Tesson. Thanks for your comments. I do see your concern between the similarities between R (talk · contribs) and my RfAs. I never really noticed it myself, but it does seem that both myself and R enjoy contributing the same areas on the project. To clear things up, I have no affiliation with R whatsoever, other than a editor-to-editor friendship. Having a single-letter username does not put me in a better situation - a username is a username. When I heard about usurpation of single-letter usernames, I thought this would be a great opportunity to join a limited group of under 26 people. Hope this explains everything. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Kind regards, — E talkbots 11:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and both of you also have the sentence "Unless you know me in real life, you are unlikely to find out my real name." on your userpage. In any case, I don't really mind the similarities except I don't feel confident that either of you would do well as admins. Pascal.Tesson 11:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did in fact copy that statement from R's user page, I'm sure he won't be too worried that I copied one statement from a paragraph. R lives in the USA, and myself in Australia. I don't see why R should be brought into the RfA, after all it's about E. — E talkbots 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pascal's oppose pretty much didn't have to do with your or R's username. It even said "similarities besides the 1-letter username." Your reply to it only covers the username and then you say "Hope this explains everything." I share some of Pascal's concerns, so a response that addresses them would be helpful. Leebo T/C 13:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Once again, we have another editor applying for admin who is more interested in the "policing" aspects rather than building the project. The applicant vastly overstated his/her mainspace contributions--less than 20% are in this area, and most of those appear to be reverts and the such. The best admins, IMHO, are ones that contribute in many areas of the project, but spend a lot of time building articles. Orangemarlin 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Orangemarlin. I have said before that I will begin to contribute in the mainspace a bit more, some with WP:RA and my WikiProjects. — E talkbots 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, we don't get to look forwards only a snapshot looking back. I'd suggest, based on the lack of consensus, that you need to try again. But don't just say you're going to edit, do so. It will show that you are committed to this process (which I personally appreciate). And second, this is just me, but I'm mildly put-off by responses to each oppose. I think you need to respond if someone has it completely wrong, or to ask a question. Orangemarlin 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Why are you here? Looking at the past 500 contributions I don't even see what you are doing. Some vandalism and sock puppet reports, but very little to do with what Wikipedia is - writing. More editors, less cops. You seem to want a wiki-career out of of being a wiki-policeman without doing (and therefore not understanding) anything involved with those being policed. SchmuckyTheCat
    Hello SchmuckyTheCat. I am here to build a better encyclopedia. Mainspace edits might be low, but I believe that if I get the mop, I will start to contribute in all areas around me. — E talkbots 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What prevents you from contributing now? Why will admin tools help you to contribute to writing? Admin tools are about blocking problem users and protecting pages, those are useful tools but they don't do anything at all to help you contribute to writing an encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat
  14. Oppose per Rspeer and Majorly, lack of article writing and trust in general in my opinion. Jaranda wat's sup 22:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, inadequate article editing. I also have to say Pascal's points about the similarities to another editor also at RfA right now are rather unsettling. Everyking 08:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Everyking. Please note, I do not have any affiliation with User:R whatsoever. He lives in the USA, and myself in Australia. Pascal's comments are not true and therefore should not be used as a reason to oppose. — E talkbots 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is striking, that's all. It's not my basic reason for opposing, but it's an additional concern. If you are worried it could affect the nom, see if you can get a checkuser to look at it; it should be easy to tell if people are editing from opposite sides of the world. Everyking 10:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm not accusing anyone of sockpuppetry here. I'm simply pointing out these similarities because my rationales for opposing both R and E's RfAs are very similar. Pascal.Tesson 10:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Although a huge ammount to admire here I'm afraid Majorly hit the nail on the head. Please do not be discouraged, and keep up the positive work your are doing. Pedro |  Chat  10:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - I am not someone who likes to oppose and have read this thro a time or two. However - to me - enough valid concerns have been raised by some people who's opinion I respect for me to do so - sorry --Herby talk thyme 11:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oppose, because my friends did." Wonderful. --Rory096 15:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, very little encyclopedic contribution. Neil ╦ 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Neil. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose... sorry, but I just don't trust you enough. It's partly the issues in this discussion, but there were problems before too. I'm sorry that I can't provide specific diffs, but I don't really remember why I have the problem. I just remember that I do. -Amarkov moo! 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Majorly. --Strothra 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Majorly. User doesn't fulfill [2] his/her own standards [3]. —AldeBaer (c) 06:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has changed a lot since the time some of the admins were sysopped. Opposing another user over standards you don't fulfill yourself at about the same time is another issue. —AldeBaer (c) 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC) (clarification: not supporting rather than opposing, but to me it amounts to the same level of, well, hypocrisy. why would E be exempt from his/her own recently stated standards? it's the worst kind of double standard when you apply expecations and rules differently to others than to yourself.)[reply]
  23. oppose. Insufficient contributions to building the encyclopedia, not enough track record to justify trust that he won't abuse admin powers when there's no way to remove him. I particularly dislike E's apparent need to reply, oppositionally, to every single oppose. User:Argyriou (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He replied, from what I can tell, to 9 of 22 current oppose comments. Not even half, much less "every single oppose". I don't see why the user shouldn't address concerns raised in the oppose comments, Personally, I think it's a good thing, that he tried to address the concerns raised. Not that it matters, at this point, however. --SXT40 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose I know I've encountered you before on Wikipedia, but I don't remember where. I'm sorry I cannot support you because of your reply to oppose #13. You say that you're going to be an admin who spends a lot of time writing articles, but I have a feeling you said that just to please everyone. That's not right, because I have a feeling you won't contribute to writing articles. Not saying that it's a bad thing that you don't write much, but you're trying to come off as someone who does in order to be an admin. Just stick to your guns and say who you are. You just seem overly anxious to become in admin, with your statements, and even looking at your userpages with your to-do list and "Administrator Reading List". Just with experience on Wikipedia, admins who are over-anxious to be admins, generally are anxious to abuse their powers and act like they're better than non-admins. Not saying you will, I don't know you, but that's been my observation and a caution sign to support an admin candidate. I still appreciate the edits, keep up the good work.++aviper2k7++ 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Same reason as above. --209.247.5.113 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ip addresses are not eligible to support or oppose a candidate. --Dark Falls talk 08:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I didn't make it my first time either. Address the issues raised here and wait for someone to nominate you again. Best of luck, OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I am somewhat torn here, as I think the editor has a good heart about the project as a whole, and will be a great admin...someday. But experience is the deciding factor, and there is just not enough of it here yet. Jmlk17 04:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I am in the same state of mind as Majorly, just perhaps not as fervent ; therefore I am neutral. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral: while I see no evidence that this editor cannot be trusted, I am concerned by the edit shown in Q4. This was made just one week ago, about an editor with similar experience. So I am a bit concerned that "what applies to you doesn't apply to me" may come into play in the future. -- MisterHand 14:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral What concerns me is the low level of talkpage contributions in spaces other than user talkpages. Knowing and acting upon policy, rules and guidelines is one thing; explaining them to others, resolving misunderstandings regarding same, acting as a conduit between an editor and the principles of WP, are very important aspects of adminship. I don't see any evidence of it, and am therefore not supporting. As I see no evidence of that E is likely to abuse the tools, or is untrustworthy, either then my position has to be nuetral. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral E look like a nice editor to me but some of the oppose have made good points. Good Luck E. --Chris g 10:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - Per Chris G. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per many of the oppose votes. I do not think his low content edits to articles is a big problem. We are here to build an encyclopedia but people who help upkeep it are important. Sorry:(--†Sir James Paul† 00:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Helpful user, but the number mainspace contributions on the encyclopedia as the valid concerns raised above from the opposers keep me from supporting this user. Yet, I do not believe that these concerns warrant an oppose from me. So, I will stay neutral. ɐpuɐɹıɯ 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral, essentially as Miranda.. Too many legitimate concerns to support, which will no doubt be addressed over the next few months if E wishes to try again. Deiz talk 11:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral leaning oppose, username is too short – Gurch 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. How does that make the user less qualified to be an admin? --SXT40 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. If it did, I'd be opposing, wouldn't I? – Gurch 19:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously WP:UN doesn't matter if other people don't like your name. I think Betacommand has proved that very thoroughly. --Laugh! 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral - though helpful, I agree some of the acrimony stirred up may be symptomatic of systemic problems. Agree that a few months passing would greatly assist a future RfA. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 12 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/E&oldid=1258115320"