Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/E 2

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

E[edit]

Final (72/19/6); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate E for adminship. This is his fourth RfA; see also: 1 2 3. E's primary work on the encyclopedia is on a minor, background level, working to make it easier for us to contribute. He also creates articles, as is noted on his userpages, and has submitted numerous images for use across Wikimedia. E has contributed significantly to the help desk and AIV, demonstrating a sound knowledge and application of policy, and has also assisted significantly in bot related issues. I believe E would make an excellent administrator, and I thus nominate him. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I co-nom E for adminship. As one of E's admin coaches, I strongly recommend E for the mop. I've found that he likes tedious repetitive tasks, and he's competent in the activities he selects. He knows his limitations. He's perfectly suited for many of the chores admins are expected to do. I trust him completely. The Transhumanist 09:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I kindly accept this nomination. Thank you Giggy.. and The Transhumanist. — E talkBAG 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Extranet ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: In my spare time on the project, I am a recent changes and new pages typo patroller as both typo fixing and vandal fighting are in my field of interest. I revert any vandalism that I may find, followed by warning the user and then reporting them to AIV upon their fourth vandal edit. I will always attach a detailed description to my report as to why this user should have their editing privileges revoked. As a sysop, I anticipate to help out in various ways and in various areas, including AIV, RFPP, UAA and of course the famous SPEEDY. As most of the pages of the administrative backlog are currently on my watchlist, I will action on any outstanding requests during my free time alongside the other sysops in order to clear the backlogs. If any user, whatsoever, requires any help at any time, whether it be wiki-related or IRC related, they are free to make a post on my talk page and I can assist them to the best of my ability. In my opinion, Wikipedia is growing everyday with contributions from users all around the world. Vandals are just here to make our job even harder - that's why there is such processes for eliminating these users. In another point, I am a channel operator for some of Wikimedia's IRC channels on the Freenode network. I started the trustworthy position of a #wikipedia chanop in late October 2007, and have since had to deal with many conflicts. In regard to the wiki, if there is any other areas that sysops would like me to try out, I'd be glad to take a look and familiarise myself with such processes/tools - just let me know :)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Since my joining of the project on 6 October 2006, I have made numerous contributions in most namespaces. Since my last RfA, I have begun to edit more in the mainspace, where the most editing happens. This has brought my edit count to a stable level and I believe it is enough experience to become a sysop.
My favourite hobby is photography, and as you can see in the nominators statement, I have uploaded a few of my good shots to Wikimedia Commons. These photos were taken with my Casio Exilim digital camera. I have also updated and provided logos of many different kinds to improve the quality of an article. In regard to my typo fixing, I use the semi-automated wiki editor, AutoWikiBrowser and absolutely enjoy using it! It functions by retrieving the latest 1000 new pages and using the RegExTypoFix module, it scans each of these pages and finds common typos.
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-wiki, the conflict is not really common in my point of view. In my time here, I have been in around five conflicts with users for reasons such as article errors and image rationales. Also being a channel operator for #wikipedia has brought me into many conflicts with IRC users about how they react and complain after they have been given a temporary "quiet" (/mode +b %) or even ban (/mode +b) for their actions towards other users. As usual, you need to resolve such issues in a sensible and professional manner.
Optional question from Mr.Z-man
4. Why do you feel the need to run AWB typo fixing on articles that have been proposed for deletion? Mr.Z-man 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Since realising that I have been editing such articles (ones with {{db}} tags on them) a few weeks ago, I have added the exemption of 'Skip if {{db}} is on article' to the syntax of the process. To answer your question in full, I actually felt the need to edit such pages because it could potentially, not saying it will, improve the article and save it from deletion. Most articles that I do typo fix with this template intact do not last, so I have made the decision to exempt it. Hope this answers your question. — E talkBAG 06:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Pedro
5. Hi E, and thanks for your request. I note from your Q1 you intend to help at C:CSD. As an admin, whilst perusing the current candidates you find an article with the following text (ignoring the name which I've made up);

Joe Symes is a noted author, who has written dozens of books for children and won an award for doing so. More to follow soon.

The text has been tagged with a speedy request under WP:CSD#A7. The history indicates only two entries - the creation of the article by a new editor and the SD tag. What action would you take? Would A7 be the best criteria for deletion? Pedro :  Chat  08:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. In regard to this type of action, I would wait and see if the article creator was going to add any further detail to the article. During this process, it would also be in the author's interest to add the {{inuse}} tag to denote their active creation of the article. If after a certain amount of time, this article is not further developed, it can be sent to AfD where it should be nominated for deletion. Hope this answers your question. — E talkBAG 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 12:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A. I did know about it in a breif form through both the mailing lists and on-wiki, but did not take much interest in it. Since you have posted this question, I have read up about it and I my understanding is that any such unsourced material added to such articles or articles created with such material must be deleted without prior discussion as it could be a clear violation of some content policies. It may only be re-added or restored if it conforms to such policies.
7. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A. Firstly, I would have the community gather a clear consensus on whether the material should be reinstated and then someone with more knowledge in this area would be able to restore (or undelete) the article or texts. Please do let me know if my interpretation is incorrect. — E talkBAG 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Rodhullandemu, posted 12:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

8. An editor posts to WP:ANI citing an editor who has put a real-life threat of violence on either an article or his/her talk page. It appears the original editor is a schoolkid. What's the appropriate response here?
Could you please clarify that this is a threat of violence to the individual themselves, or to the community. — E talkBAG 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear there; I meant a threat to commit violence to people in real life, e.g. a school massacre. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether that provides the clarification E was asking for. I think E wants to know whether the threat is of violence against the schoolkid who posted to AN/I, or of violence against the community. In other words, is the schoolkid reporting a threat against themself, or not? --Coppertwig (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This unfocussed approach from all tells me that nobody really has a clue, or has been watching WP:ANI or WP:AN over the last couple of months. I would regard that as minimal for an aspiring admin, but since it seems that the Foundation, including Jimbo himself, sees this as important issue, but not so important as to hammer home the importance of saving life, then I can't blame User:E for not answering the question; therefore, I neither support nor oppose his candidature. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Gnangarra posted 13:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. What influence should an IRC discussion have on admin actions and who is responsible for these actions?
A. From what I understand from your question, I believe that such IRC discussions should have a weak, but positive influence on any such sysop actions. If any such action was to be taken by any admin, it would be their responsibility on behalf of the IRC influence, if I understand correctly. I do not believe that any such debate on IRC should ever be brought to the wiki, because it could potentially cause discourse. There is already have a tough job as a sysop for cleaning up backlog and 'eradicating' vandals. I hope my interpretation is correct. Seasons Greetings! — E talk 20:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • I must also add that in the event of one of my close family's friends' passing, I may not be able to answer user questions in a swift manner. I apologise for this and will try my best to stay focused. — E talkBAG 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I decide my stance here, I'd just like to say that I think that this new trend of usurping single-letter usernames really wasn't a very good idea. I've come across quite a few single-letter users and I always forget who is who. Even now, I know I've seen "E" many times before but I can't recall exactly where or what was my impression of his work. Quite confusing, even for someone who enjoys playing scrabble. Húsönd 06:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They probably are a bit confusing, but...well...OK, I don't really have a solid rebuttal, other than "how will it affect his ability to use the mop?" — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Husond, what about User:B and User:Y? — E talk 06:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of their requests for adminship Y and B had different user names. I echo Húsönd on this. I had an extremely bad run in with either User:N or User:E or User:L or User:R or User:T (one of the freebie letters in the final puzzle on Wheel of Fortune) and I thought to myself at the time "this person is seriously unfit be an admin." I've tried several times to figure out who it was, but I've been unsuccessful. Looking over your contribs here, I don't think it was you. As I suppose this is my own mental deficiency I certainly won't oppose for it. If you do pursue a rename at some point, you could address W.marsh's concerns with a simple link to your RfA or mention of your previous user name on your user page. --JayHenry (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. Please refer to this edit where I told W.marsh himself that I would have such links as a permanent fixture to my userpages if I was ever to rename. — E talk 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. As nominator. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very Strong Support - He deserves to be an admin for all the hard work he has done over the years...--Cometstyles 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very Strong Support: Great work on improving since your last RfA, and improving Wikipedia in general! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seeing as most of the opposition in the Previous attempts were simple no experiance i think it is clear that you now have significant experiance for this position. good luck! Sirkadtalksign 05:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Maser (Talk!) 06:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. It took me a second to remember which single-letter user was which... then I remembered E is that hard-working one with plenty of experience and dedication to the project. :) --krimpet✽ 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I figuratively got out of bed for this :P -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. But of course! Snowolf How can I help? 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As co-nom and E's admin coach, I give him my full support. He's ready for the mop. The Transhumanist 09:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. An ironic support. I was thinking of nomming him/her last night, how co-incidental! Great work is evident right across the namespace. Rt. 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support looks like a great candidate with reputable users backing him. All the best, -Pumpmeup 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Great editor, lots of experience. Good Luck! Harland1 (t/c) 12:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. S (that is, not the user) --Coredesat 12:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a S - don't wanna go causing confusion here! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified. ;) --Coredesat 12:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. How rude, putting this up when I was fast asleep, I wanted to be the first to support ;) Seriously, though, good luck, E. Qst 13:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, nothing wrong with AWB contributions as long as he contributes in other ways too, which he does. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This is quite remarkable, a subsequent nom where the user actually heeded advice from his previous nom! I say we should support. -JodyB talk 13:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Good work. I'd ideally like to see more substantial mainspace editing (i.e. building articles) but this isn't essential in an admin. I will be very disappointed if I see anyone opposing because of their disdain for single-letter usernames (indeed, such an oppose will destroy any remaining faith I have in the essential sanity and order of the Universe. :-)) WaltonOne 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I like your answer to Q5, I like your username too :) Mr Senseless (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support; having admins who understand what the bots do (really, really understand) is a Good ThingTM. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I-would-have-beat-the-nom-with-support-but-he-supported-before-this-RfA-was-transcluded —Animum (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that and another 19 people got in ahead of you ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I blame my need to sleep. :-P —Animum (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I supported last time and my support is stronger this time. Captain panda 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yah. Spebi 21:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Sure, won't abuse the tools. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Adminship is no big dea; I don't believe nom will abuse the tools. Adminship is not a reward for being a heavy-duty editor, and I don't believe the nom will confuse speedy deletion with hasty deletion. Dlohcierekim 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Would be a good admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Glad to be able to support this time. Best of luck! Jmlk17 04:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, no evidence that I can see that this editor would abuse the tools. Good luck! Lankiveil (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  28. Support Of course. Good luck! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Strong answers to questions. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Per Master of Puppets. I like his answers. PookeyMaster (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I think he will do a fine job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, good participation in administrator-related areas (AIV, XfD, et cetera). Trustworthy and likeable, and will communicate as well with his syop. peers as he has with the community at large, to date. Best of all, will use the tools. Good luck! Anthøny 13:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Certainly ready for admin tools, will do well. GDonato (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I think you're ready SQLQuery me! 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - definitely.   jj137 ♠ 20:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support John254 00:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support as the previous comments have shown. Marlith T/C 00:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I thought he was ready 5 months ago, so why not now? ;-) --Agüeybaná 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I previously commented that article talkpage edits were disproportionately low - and this still seems to be the case. However since nobody else seemed to think it a big deal I should conclude that I was wrong and that the other good (and improved) aspects of this editors contributions mean I should support. So I do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support — I thought he already was an administrator ... -- Cobi(t|c|b) 05:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Would make a great admin. Singularity 06:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Sure a diff username would make him easier to ID, but then again, does it hurt the encyclopedia anymore than 20 character usernames? Mbisanz (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I'm not Mailer diablo, but I approve MY message. 14:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Of course - I've seen E around for many months now and I'm always pleased when I see his name in discussion - he knows his stuff and he's always civil. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as it's the most common letter in the alphabet, Ryan must be quite the happy chappy :o)
  45. Weak Support Even though he lacks mainspace edits, his/her well rounded experience makes me think he/she is ready to be an admin. Still, mainspace edits are important though due to conflict issues you might entangled. PrestonH 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Looks good. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Per Nom, E deserves to be an admin. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Provided he stays away from the stickier disputes until he's gained more experience. Oh, and I know that IRC has very little to do with Wikipedia, but I find him to be a good op in #wikipedia, measured and appropriate responses to incidents, and that is probably indicative of his overall attitude. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I forgot that I hadn't already supposrted support--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support No qualms with this candidate. --Sharkface217 07:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strongly per Riana, and with a weak request that he changes his username as discussed below. Should make a fine administrator. I do understand the concerns raised by opposers about manual editing, but E (unlike so many candidates who fall into a similar category) has proven he has Clue. Daniel 10:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per above. Lots of good edits. Stupid2 (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I trust E not to go rouge or do anything stupid(well maybe a few muck ups while he gets used to the tools) --Chris 10:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Festive support. I have known E for some time now and he has plenty of experience and knowledge of the project that will make him an excellent administrator. Definitely has my support. Will (aka Wimt) 12:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - All arrows point to the bullseye. I don't think I've seen E around, even as Extranet, but looking through contributions, I suspect this is due to his gnomish editing nature. I think he'll excel as an admin. --lincalinca 13:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Most of the reasons under Oppose are underwhelming; the only one that concerns me is the question of interaction with other editors, and I feel that IRC helps to offset that (even though it's off-wiki). Your contributions have been pretty good - I'm not too worried whether they've been done with tools like AWB, so long as they've been used correctly - and having the support of both of these noms, who tend to make good decisions, is encouraging. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support No reason to oppose or to believe that tools would be abused. --Strothra (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Looks like E would make a fine admin. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Neutral: Weak support. I would like to support you, but is it normal for RfA candidates to update the tally on their own RfA? Isn't that a conflict of interest? --Coppertwig (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The tally is just a count, I don't see how there would be a problem. Everyone does it, anyway. (Well, maybe not EVERYONE, but most people) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to "weak support" based on s,uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs comment. I see no other problems with this candidate. I still don't like the updating of one's own tally, otherwise it would be just plain "support". --Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Seems to be a good editor. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support More than enough experience. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per Kurt Weber. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, though I acknowledge (from personal experience) that a one or two letter name or pseudonym can cause confusion, and an admin can ill-afford to have editors confused about who he/she is. Though I support the candidate even without a name change, I would ask that they at least consider it. Either way, the candidate's body of work strongly indicates that we should expect no problems with this user as an admin. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support There is nothing wrong with wanting to be an admin. I would trust E with the tools. --Mark (Mschel) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. The concerns brought up here are not big enough for me to oppose, or go neutral. You are not the ideal candidate for adminship, but who is? Good luck!--SJP (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support-3 unsuccessful Rfas is quite enough, I strongly support this user, he will make good admin!--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support --Charitwo talk 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per Cometstyles (and Kurt Weber's oppose, which I completely disagree with). Lara❤Love 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - The lack of article-writing doesn't bother me. I think that E will know his limits, and not get involved in situations that he's not ready for and end up over his head. Keilana 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support I don't feel that you would abuse the tools. Icestorm815 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I see an overwhelming amount of minor typos fixed with AWB, I don't think that's really the way to gain experience editing in the mainspace. Doesn't seem to have made any real progress on that front since the last RFA. Also, the repeated references to IRC duties don't have much to do with Wikipedia editing and experience. RxS (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made other edits in the mainspace also, it is not always AWB and typo fixing. That is simply edits made on behalf of the Typo WikiProject. I have also stuck my head into most policy pages and will be editing most other mainspace articles by using suggestions by SuggestBot and also cleanup category pages. Also, with AWB, it is not such 'automated'. I do each page manually and then decide whether the typos presented are legitimate for the article. I am gaining experience through this as AWB is just another 'browser' as you may call it. — E talkBAG 05:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, RxS, these such activities demonstrate an excellent willingness to perform many mundane sysop activities, and they everything to do with editing and experience Pumpmeup 10:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixing typos aren't sysop duties, and doing that doesn't take the nuance that would show the judgement needed in an admin. And fixing typos doesn't give an opportunity for editing and interaction with the regular community of editors that a potential admin needs. And to justrespond to E's comment, I never said AWB was automated, it's just a repetitive action that doesn't really give a user much insight into normal editing practice. Anyway, I'd invite readers to go through the contribs themselves and come to their own conclusions. RxS (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose per lack of encyclopedic work and weak answer to Q5. A better approach would be something like "I research whether the claims are true, feel slightly ashamed that we don't have an article about this notable author yet, and expand the article myself, dropping a note on the author's talk page inviting him to expand the page further. If the claims appear not to be true, I just delete the page." If you find a poor article on a worthy topic, your instinct should be to improve the article, not to tag it for deletion. Kusma (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was never my instinct in the first place. What if I never knew about this author? I would first offer the user to contribute further, including references and other sources, then tag it if it has not significantly improved from the state of the first revision. — E talkBAG 00:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the author or article subject were unfamiliar to you, do a little research, then expand the article. Tagging an article before doing any research seems unwarranted; AfD is not article clean up. --Iamunknown 03:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD would be the last action I would take. Cleanup would always be in the first steps to take in improving the article. — E talkBAG 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree that attempting to source, improve and expand the article oneself would be the right thing to do, but there's a lot of editors and admins who don't bother and it's a bit hard on E to hold him to a higher standard than the depressingly trigger happy norm. Nick mallory (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose per RxS's concern. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 05:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on! You never oppose for a lack of mainspace contribs... — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Changed his username already, plans to change it again in a few months? We have enough anono-admins already with little connection to the identity they went through RFA as. Wait until you've figured out who you're going to be before you ask us to trust you as an admin. --W.marsh 06:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I think this is a pretty poor reason to oppose. Do you think E is trustworthy, to the extent where he would use the admin tools well, or not? Questions as to whether he is going to change a name that many people have already stated they would like him to change anyway are hardly relevant. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3 minutes... nice. --W.marsh 06:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3 minutes... nice. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 06:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only, and I mean only reason I have made the suggestion of renaming myself is due to an earlier discussion where a few users would prefer that the username be changed due to reasons of, in my understanding, it 'being too small'. Although I have a new username in mind, I have since noted to myself that both B and Y are sysops, and have had no previous debate regarding their usernames being 'too short' and was thinking to myself, why does it have to be brought out on me? I see absolutely nothing wrong with my username, and would certainly like to know why it is such a problem. — E talk 06:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented on this in the discussion section. Neither B nor Y used these names at the time of their RfAs. If they had, I likely would have encouraged them to consider a rename. It's nothing against you personally, E. --JayHenry (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally understood. Sorry if I had offended anybody with my statement above regarding it being 'pinned on me'. I have only just found that they were, at the time, under a different username. — E talk 01:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should consider adding to the changing username directions to bureaucrats that a protected redirect to the user's RfA should be part of renaming a user with admin bit? I don't actually see the problem as the user can still be scrutinised. Orderinchaos 00:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose — This user has four RfAs in the past year. Admittedly, two of them were within about three weeks of other, and the last one was about six months ago; however, this user very clearly wants to be an administrator. Frankly, that worries me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What worries me is why our failing Arbcom didn't block you for harassing people who actually want to do something for this wikipedia which in recent years has become a craphole filled with people like you trying to destabilize it through whatever means possible and frankly, your "opinions" don't matter and would never matter since I believe its about time you said Good-bye and retire before people lose all the respect that they might still have in you (though I doubt it anyone in their right mind respects you)..so as the saying goes "quit while you are ahead"..Vinaka..--Cometstyles 10:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt has a valid concern here, one expressed by many in numerous other RfAs. The harshness of your comment is unwarranted, especially in this context. The community doesn't agree with you, let alone arbcom, and it's unclear why you mention them at all. –Pomte 10:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at the fact that "his last RfA was 6 months ago".. (no rush there)...thus it means that he knew what he did wrong in the previous ones and he managed to improve those within the timespan and that is a really good thing....if you want to oppose....oppose on facts and not make belief opinions and prejudicial comments. Of course Everyone wants to be an Administrator and most just "kiss posterior" to become one and others work hard for it which is what E did and people like this should become admins since they deserve it for all their "real" hard-work and they don't do it for Fame/power/recognition...Sorry, but harshness is really the only way to point out the truth and if being uncivil can get things done then so be it...--Cometstyles 11:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard an IAR justification for incivility before. I can't imagine how this is helping the encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I don't think you're doing E any favors here. Cool Hand Luke 11:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cometstyles, not everyone wants to be an administrator, and some people deliberately don't kiss ass. Your generalisations do not withstand scrutiny. --21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Only users who want to become admins do become admins because those who don't want to will just decline every nomination offer; this is why I see no merit to Kmweber's oppose. —Animum (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. As I have explained before, my ideal admin candidate is someone like Cincinnatus or George Washington — someone who does not want the "reins of power", and only accepts them reluctantly at the strong behest of the community. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree - some become administrators because they would like to help clear backlogs, not because they desire the position of administrator. --Iamunknown 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose hardly any contributions that were not mechanical - about 300 or so non mechanical article edits. Coupled with the high levels of RfAs, that is bad. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out curiosity, what level of activity outside of mechanical edits would you expect for an administrator? Is there a minimum level of edits for admins/admin candidates in admin-related areas? How about ArbCom members in ArbCom related areas? (Per Signpost, no ArbCom activity since Oct 2006). Avruchtalk 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I'm not normally a stickler for experience, but user appears to have no article-writing experience, nor any experience in content disputes of any kind (32 talk page edits, and many of those are reverting vandalism). I know that vandal-fighting admins don't need to be prodigious writers or wise mediators, but I doubt this user has enough experience to work harmoniously with others. And per Blnguyen, user's many automated edits and RFAs give me the heebie jeebies. Cool Hand Luke 10:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong about article-writing. Weak oppose. Cool Hand Luke 10:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose – relatively little activity in the mainspace beyond fighting vandalism and typos, and almost no substantive edits to the talk namespace. All administrators need a background in the mainspace, constructing articles and working with others. ×Meegs 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose high volume of mechanical edits aren't the way to gain experience, its the lack of significant interaction with the community thats my part of my concern if it was this alone I'd have gone neutral.The other factor is the answer to my question about IRC, its well documented that when an admin reacts to an IRC discussion the resulting action ends up at AN/I. Also an admin is the one responsible for their actions alone, not on behalf of any one. All of this gives me the impression that when push comes to shove and due to a lack of significant experience E is more likely to respond to herd. Gnangarra 12:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Inexperienced, too eager for adminship, some temperamental concerns. Xoloz (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. With some regret -- I'm opposing mainly because I don't think E has had any real experience in disputes, even minor, and I think that's important for an administrator. Ral315 (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Blnguyen, although not as strongly. Sean William @ 02:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I am opposing because I think that an administrator should have substantial (though not extraordinary) experience writing articles and interacting and attempting to resolve interpersonal conflicts. I conclude, by examining E's edits, that he or she lacks these experiences. Admittedly, article writing does not relate directly to administrative tasks, but it seems clear to me that administrators should contribute to the encyclopedia. Some of our best and/or most prominent administrator, recently, have come to the same conclusion. In my opinion it is, in part, because if an administrator or non-administrator does not regularly (though not necessarily often) contribute to the encyclopedia, he or she tends to become jaded, incompassionate and, generally (in the case of an administrator), not the person he or she used to be when he or she was given the +sysop flag. I do not wish this outlook upon E or the encyclopedia he is to administer, and so oppose this request. --Iamunknown 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Blnguyen. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Nom doesn't meet my criterion of a productive, successful editor in the mainspace. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per my neutral comments below, and per Blnguyen. --Maxim(talk) 13:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose 99% per Blnguyen, but I would have liked to have seen the candidate step in and just give some of those users who have questioned those Opposing a little tap on the shoulder, and telling them to leave those Opposing alone. Nick (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I understand this. You're saying that E should step in and tell the opposers to leave themselves alone? I dorftrottel I talk I 19:45, December 27, 2007
    and try to prove his innocence but people will take it out of context and oppose him for something he says here..bad idea...--Cometstyles 19:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I believe Nick is saying E should have reigned his supporters in. I agree with Nick. If E had lightly chastised Cometstyles for his irrelevantly personal and uncivil remarks, I would have switched to support. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you understand as I have just woken up (UTC+10). I have since spoken to Cometstyles on IRC about this comment, and have told him briefly that I do not want (s)he commenting in this manner which would come across as a bit 'out of line'. Please regret any such comments as everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I can see where Nick is coming from. — E talk 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, this comment...? Are you not aware of his much more offensive comments to Kurt Weber above? --Iamunknown 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It applies to all such comments on this RfA - everyone is entitled to their own opinion. — E talk 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I would like to see more encyclopedia-building from this candidate, especially as he seems rather ambitious in his desire to become an administrator. gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Blnguyen and Xoloz -- Y not? 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - Vote was placed after RfA was scheduled to close. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Username is too short – Gurch 11:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may eventually get another usurpation in the next few months to a more common username if this does become a problem. — E talkBAG 13:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point..his username is too short and too easily forgotten :P ...--Cometstyles 14:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a joke, right? - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah? Check out User:B. Maser (Talk!) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right. B has been an administrator for a while now. I haven't seen no debate about it. — E talkBAG 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, people taking a Gurch-joke seriously :O — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so we don't count this in the tally? My mind, it explodes... Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware neutral votes contribute absolutely nothing towards the final result, aren't you? – Gurch 21:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to play devil's advocate... would you expect an RfA to be passed with a tally of 10/2/70? One could think of neutrals as bearing no weight, but one could also think of them as lending some weight to each side -- some inclination to support but with some reservations. — xDanielx T/C\R 09:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I would have supported him but the mainspace contributions are a bit low. --JForget 00:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your situation with this vote. I assure you I do understand the process and ways of the mainspace, however. — E talkBAG 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leaning toward oppose, not confident that the user has enough experience in admin related tasks. Mr.Z-man 03:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (moved to oppose)As long as the candidate will rename himself, I'm not adverse. But going under a single letter doesn't rub off well on me, showing some poor judgment from the candidate. --Maxim(talk) 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maxim, at this stage, I can give my definite answer of a username change within the next month or two. — E talkBAG 22:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's quite stylish. Besides, it's about what you do not what you are. Gutworth (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think E is an awesome name, and I think opposing on the basis of your particular name is lame. I think you should keep it. E for excellence. E for effervescence. E for exemplarism. E for energetic. E for etc. The Transhumanist 03:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I opposing? :-/ --Maxim(talk) 03:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The short username shows that you had the foresight to snatch it up before anyone else, which puts you in a good position to auction it off on eBay or other venues in the wake of Wikipedia's future expansion, much as some of the cybersquatters did in the early days of the dotcom boom. To relinquish it would be akin to Sears' decision to give up its single-letter listing "S" on the New York Stock Exchange when it combined with KMart. I would only request that when you do sell it, that you remember me and share a small portion of your wealth so that I can pay off my credit card debt accumulated during college. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarsaparilla, why would I do such a thing? Just for your information, I would never do such a thing and the only reason I thought the name 'E' would be beneficial to me is because it is a unique username which only 26 users could have, and I had no intention of it looking like it was a 'snatch up'. — E talk 07:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was just kidding around. My impression is that usernames are on a first-come, first-served basis around here. It's similar to getting a username on an email server, or indeed any other reservation of a finite resource. If you're the first person to grab [email protected], good for you. The early bird gets the worm, as it were, and everyone else has to settle for [email protected] or some other awkward number-appendaged thing. Reserving website urls is more closely akin to buying land, in that the value goes up and it can be easily resold (a wiki username by contrast carries the baggage associated with the previous user's legacy) Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting the feeling you had to settle for [email protected]. LOL. I think "E" is a slick name, though it's drug connotations are not desirable, the name is hardly an issue. B, Y and I'm sure there's someone else out there, but it's not the first single letter username, and is very unlikely to be the last (Maybe I'll usurp to L...?) I don't think this should be sufficient to bring a vote from support to neutral, but then again, that's my opinion. --lincalinca 14:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Per concerns raised by Blnguyen, Iamunknown and Gnangarra - I don't feel strongly enough to oppose outright, but I believe the concerns are valid and the candidate would be well advised to take them on board. I think it comes back to the principle that some excellent editors do not necessarily make good admins, I'd like to see more demonstration of dispute resolution and good judgement in situations which require judgement (on-wiki). Orderinchaos 00:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I would have hoped for an answer from the candidate himself to the question I asked; it was not rocket science. However, he seems to have a firm grasp of the basics. For negligent delegation, I mark him down, as my talk page is always open. For being well-spirited, I mark him up. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I'd like to see more work in AN/I and substantive edits in mainspace. The lack of experience with conflict (outside of IRC, of course) is a little troubling but editors edit in their area of interest, and some areas just aren't prone to conflict. Still, much of the fires are put out at AN and AN/I (except for the ones that just flame higher to ArbCom) and some experience there would show your temperment much more clearly. Avruchtalk 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral and suggest abandoning this account should this RfA not succeed (i.e. in case you're interested in helping out using the admin tools). Good faith, as far as not putting the ability to learn past fellow users goes, is practically nonexistent on Wikipedia. I dorftrottel I talk I 19:54, December 27, 2007
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_2&oldid=1145854817"