Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EricV89

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.


EricV89[edit]

Withdrawn at candidate's request at (13/43/9) by Kingturtle at 14:12, 29 June 2008

EricV89 (talk · contribs) - I've become devoted to fighting vandalism on Wikipedia and removing unsourced, biased material from article space and tagging new pages created following Wikipedia's guidline for speedy deletion. I've become use to reverting pages more than once becuase of blatant vandals who repost the same useless stuff over and over again. I recall becoming frustrated once when the same article was being vandalised over and over again and even when I reported the I.P. there was quite a substantial time between the time I reported the I.P. and the when the user actually got blocked.(maybe it was becuase it was 3:30 A.M. EST and basically no administrator was online) Anyways, I've thought it would be time to change that :-). I don't mind working the night shift. I've used Wikipedia since I was in High School, 4 years ago, and fianlly decieded to register with Wikipedia in November of 2006. I became fully active a few months ago oppose to my edits here and there over the years I was registered. I AM and WILLING to fight to protect Wikipedia from vandals and idiotic ideology. While I may of only contributed a few times to articles, I certainly know how to edit and follow the rules and procedures, not to mention guidelines of Wikipedia and serving as a SYSOPS would make it easier for me to stop vandals before they corrupt Wikipedia anymore. I am a student, still learning from the world but I do find myself sometimes clicking the RANDOM ARTICLE link to just learn about something new. I love it. I'm very proficient with Huggle and I got a keene eye for detail and bad edits. I strive to maintain a 0 tolerance policy against vandalism(blatant).

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: I plan to work mostly in fighting vandalism and blocking repeative vandals and removing biased material from the recent changes filter, as I strive to maintain neutrality in articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are my reverts, I'm persistant in fight vandalism and you can find proof here, [[1]]. I'm not a great article writer, but I really do try to improve some aritcles when I feel that I have the right sources and correct information. I appreciate contributions by all users and believe that I can contribute more, in terms of adding material, in time.
2.2 As a quick follow-up, what do you believe to be your best non-revert contribution(s)? Metros (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Well that will defiantly have to be the material I added to the Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) article. I'm always following what he does, he is an interesting character, to me anyways. You can find the sourced material I added, [[2]]. Like I said, I may not contribute a lot to Wikipedia in means of writing articles but I WILL add material when I have the RIGHT sources and the correct wording.
You linked to a diff where you removed a single word. Enigma message 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Not so much so, ocassionally I come across a user(I.P.) who feels idiotic material, obviously vandalism, should stay in the article becuase they thought Wikipedia was a place where they can add whatever they like too. Such examples here, User talk:EricV89.

Additional question from Frank:

4. Can you comment on whether or not this edit is correct? (Completely coincidental that your edit was right before this one; I'm interested in the edit summary given for this diff, nothing to do with you.) The user is claiming (loudly) that s/he has the right numbers. Correct or not, and why?
A: Yes, however if you notice the revert on that same I.P. it was vandalism so I reverted it, the numbers were not stated sourced, also, they were not entirely not correct(so they've claimed) becuase in the newer edit, they changed them again. The I.P. is a sockpuppet, those contributions looked false.
Actually, you didn't revert anything past that diff I provided - as I said, I was interested in the IP's edit, nothing to do with you. The edit was small, looked helpful - trying to correct an editor, and the edit summary was forceful. But was the editor correct? (And please leave sockpuppetry out of it; it's not the point of this question and that assertion doesn't appear to have been conclusively decided at this point.)
No he/she was not, I do not considor contributions by those kind of I.P.s to be correct in helping stability in a article. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, and I really hope I'm interpreting Frank's question correctly, but I find that answer rather disturbing. There is indeed something wrong with that edit, but I'm hoping you could explain what exactly "kind of IP" that is and what makes it different from the many thousands of anonymous editors that contribute positively every day? L'Aquatique[review] 05:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not looking at the older revisions by that anonymous user, he simply vandalised the SAME article just minutes before, what would make me trust random numbers by a unregistered user who just finished vandalising the same page he claims to contribute to, which, by the way, ended up being changed by the same person even though he claimed they were right. There wasn't a event cited census. What prevents anyone from changing numbers to the anything, also, take a look at the edit summary. Just becuase he capped locked his words(loudly, like he said before) doesn't make it right, does it? --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to miss where User:75.91.175.147 made any edit to that article before the diff I provided above. I've already expressed my oppose below, but to clarify further, I'm troubled that you seem to to be saying that editor made a previous edit, which I can't find any evidence of, even when looking at the past 500 edits on that page.  Frank  |  talk  13:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Bigvinu

5. As an Admin would you be inclined to do anything besides an anti-vandalism agenda? You seem pretty good at that, but I don't see qualitative experience with Wikipedia content.
Yes, of course. Like I said, I know how to use Wikipedia very well, I just think I'm good at anti-vandalism. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:JeanLatore

6. Can you name some articles that you contributed substantial prose to? JeanLatore (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Substantially? No. I'm not a HUGE contributor to articles, I know that. However, I feel that I don't need to contribute to articles in terms of writing to know how to. I will take the advice and become more active in other areas so you can see more of the abilities I have. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

For the edit count, see the talk page.

Before you vote in regards to me using the Huggle tool[edit]

I take offense to those who call me a mindless reverter using Huggle. Take a look at my earlier reverts from early April... even early May. I did not use ANY tools what-so-ever. Absolutely none. I did everything by hand by using the Recent Changes link on the Wikipedia web site for a while. Rollbacking and copy and pasting the templates using nothing by my browser. I did not even bother to download and use Huggle until just recently, within the past month and half. I both undid the revisions and reversions by using the interaction's link on the Wikipedia web site. Even today, I do not just use Huggle all the time, I actually take the time to read the new sections and flag them appropriately. Huggle is just a tool I use to help me do this faster. These votes seem to be on a biased vote of me using a anti-vandalism tool that Wikipedia offers. It's not like I don't know what belongs in articles and doesn't. Just becuase I press a red button doesn't mean I am not learning about this process has I go. I know and get the idea already. The reason I mention this is becuase I like fighting vandalism and am best at this, not nessacarily meaning I am inept from other contributive activities on Wikipedia. Therefor, I can't not understand why you base your vote on this fact. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/EricV89 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Comments like "ridiculous" and "if it gives you pleasure" are probably not appropriate when directed at someone who wandered into the wrong room at the wrong time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an interesting analogy, and one that I think is apt. Gary King (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved this comment out of the neutral section because it was creating the list to increment even though you were not actually voting and when there are more oppose votes it wont be easily apparent to see what you are talking about. -Icewedge (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved this to the "Discussion" section which is most likely where this was meant to go, especially since this is commenting on more than one of the Oppose votes. Gary King (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks, I was too much of a weenie to put it front and center. To be fair, the comments I objected to were in line with what's expected at RfA, and thanks particularly to Metros for looking through the edits. I'm just saying that I think we can be clear about what's needed here without having to go into that kind of detail. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is how I think I would respond if I was doing recent-change patrol and encountered somebody changing numbers:
    1. by default (if I do not have a source that I can check quickly), I would mark it as {{fact|date=June 2008}} and post {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} on the user's talk page, unless I had just reverted vandalism from the same IP a few minutes ago, in which case I would escalate the warning to the next level (e.g., {{subst:uw-unsourced2}} or go to WP:AN/I or WP:AIV if they had reached their "last" warning.)
    2. For this particular article, however, I know where to find data, and the edit summary suggests a verifiable hard fact. So I would go to http://www.census.gov, where I would see 2007 total population estimates of 2,565,382 for Nevada and 1,969,915 for New Mexico, and exact (year 2000) counts of 1,998,257 for Nevada and 1,819,046 for New Mexico. The 2,495,529 for Nevada is a 2006 estimate, and I don't know where the 2,499,481 for New Mexico came from. Bwrs (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Opposes unconvincing. We give someone a tool and then oppose them for using it? What more experience do you need to recognize vandalism than reverting it? Huggle just helps the candidate be more efficient. The candidate still has to use judgment in using the tool. And I think a couple thousand vandalism reverts are enough to learn how to recognize it. I also think some of the oppose comments are outright insulting in their sarcasm. Dlohcierekim 04:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support There should be more people like you. --Forbidden (palhost) (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  4. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools, and in protest against what are, in my opinion, some very feeble rationales for the oppose votes below. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Of course! Al Tally talk 10:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, they already told the reason. Dar book (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support.Great vandalism fighter. Very good editor. Deserves the tools.Gears Of War 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Adminship is a janitorial position, and this user should be able to graduate from one of those little broom thingies to the mop. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I see no trust issues, and I don't have anything against using the tools that are available to do what they are meant to do. Support, here, is a no-brainier for me. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support — I use Huggle, does that mean I won't be accepted if I chose to reapply for adminship? I sincerely hope the community wouldn't judge me on the legitimate use of a tool they supplied. Maybe i'm missing something? — CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 22:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I see no real reason to not support this user. All of the "issues" brought up below aren't valid reasons to oppose, in my opinion. This user is an active vandal fighter, and I believe he'll use the tools to block vandals. I also don't see anything that indicates he will misuse the tools.--SJP (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia is important, and I thank the user for his efforts against vandalism. Giving him the tools will enable him to further what he is contributing to the encyclopedia. Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support — self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great Support - to make a point only. ShoesssS Talk 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I just went back through over 2,000 article edits by you in the last month before I found (I think, I could have glanced over an edit along the way) a non-revert to an article. Actually, it does look to be a revert, but the edit summary attached to it is ridiculous. While I appreciate what you do in your reverts, I don't feel comfortable supporting a user who appears to have very little outside of reverting. I also have concerns that the user doesn't really discuss anything. The vast majority of talk page edits are warnings or reverts. I think focus needs to be placed on things other than reverting before I'd considering supporting. Metros (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the two (admittedly minor) non-reverts within his last 130 edits that you missed[3] [4], content writing isn't helped by adminship, so it is not, in my opinion, relevant. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I, personally, believe that the one of the best ways to show understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies is through contributions to articles beyond reverting. Because it is necessary to understand these guidelines and policies to be an administrator, I feel that there isn't enough evidence to show the understanding just through his reverts of vandalism. Metros (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Poor understanding of the role of an administrator. There is more to it than just combating vandalism. I'm concerned by your lack of content writing as well. Reverts are fine, especially for anti-vandalism, but as things currently stand, I cannot judge how you would handle the tools. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Two months of Huggle reverts and you think adminship beckons? I think not. Please do carry on with your Huggling though, if it gives you pleasure. RMHED (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm and being a jerk isn't going to help the process whatsoever. Though I presume your oppose is well-founded, I think it was expressed very poorly. Drewcifer (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose primarily because this is an encyclopedia, not a club. IPs do have as much right to contribute, and since they could actually have multiple people on the same IP, it is very important not to characterize them as "those kind of I.P.s". It's true that some IPs (and accounts) vandalize - some repeatedly until they are blocked - but the decision on a particular edit should always be about the content. Regarding the diff I asked you about, the editor was using census data from a different year than the rest of the article, so there was some validity to what was being said, even if it was ultimately not correct for that article as it currently stands. I'm not supporting a suspected sockpuppet, but rather noting that each particular edit must be judged on its own.  Frank  |  talk  03:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make any sense considoring I reverted a vandal edit by the same IP prior to the IP even posting the numbers in that article. Are you suggesting I ignore the contributor's editing history if the edit they just did looks good enough to be in the article? --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where you reverted a vandalism edit by the same user as the diff I provided to you, but really it's beside the point. In the case of population statistics, as with most topics, the edit is either right or wrong (remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth). To assume it's wrong because a recent edit from the same IP was vandalism is not helpful to Wikipedia. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at IP vandalism and checked for previous edits, only to find that IP has made useful contributions within the past several days. It has to be about the edit - not the editor.  Frank  |  talk  03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Metros. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per RHMED. Endless Huggle revisions doesn't establish trust.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose While I have a great amount of respect for someone who can sit spend any extended period of time mindlessly reverting vandal edits, there's way more to Wikipedia than that. While I strongly doubt the user would purposely misuse the tools, I'm equally certain that you cannot possibly pick up all you need to know to be an admin from Huggle. Just my two cents. L'Aquatique[review] 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose per everyone above. You all make solid points; I greatly appreciate the vandal-fighting, but you may need more experience yet, and some of your actions show some signs of immaturity. Come back in a little while (say, 4-6 months), you'll do well, I'm sure. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for now -- should have longer non-vandal-fighting baseline first, imho.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, with moral support. Definitely experienced, but I don't like the big bold "don't-blame-me-blame-huggle" message at the top, and there is no article work there. Sorry, but I'm sure you'll do well next time. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I wrote. I am not blaming anyone just trying to clarify the situation. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I find that you don't have enough patience for the tools. Article building and collaborations are good ways of learning patience and other aspects of adminship--Lenticel (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Per Wisdom89, Metros and Frank, huggle and any other anti vandalism work just doesn't prove that you understand how to be an admin. Advise withdrawal. Harland1 (t/c) 09:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Regretful Oppose - Normally I wouldn't oppose, but this?. I think it's over the top, and, to echo the above, there is more to being a sysop than reverting vandals. Sorry. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose For now. Normally I wouldn't oppose without investigating closely, but this is enough to oppose in itself. We need more vandalism reverters, but adminship is not just reverting vandalism. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Three things tell me your not ready. I really don't feel like your ready for the tools. Then your Huggle explanation as Juliancolton said is reason to oppose already. And three, this edit summary [5] gives lack of confidence. Sorry. America69 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I am normally am a big proponent of specialist admins, but you have only been actively editing for about 3 months, you have only used one type of anti-vandalism technique, and you haven't diversified even a little bit. Recommend you spend another 3 months doing other things like patrolling new pages, maybe some afd, join some wikiprojects, etc. I won't go as far as some others to say you need to be exposed to everything, but some breadth of knowledge is useful to gain perspective.--Finalnight (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Oppose This user lacks the experience, patience, and seems to have a poor attitude in general. He is somewhat uncivil at times as well. Furthermore, you do not need tools to revert vandalism. He seems to at times mindlessly revert IP's just because they are IP's. Admins should have better writing skills, not saying his are bad but they could be better. Landon1980 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong oppose There are some very good editors using Huggle, but someone who relies on a tool like this – which by its nature generates a stream of complaints – needs to demonstrate that they can communicate and explain their actions. I don't mean to sound rude, but reading your talkpage and this RFA you just come across as petulant whenever anyone disagrees with you. And this is just plain ridiculous. – iridescent 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose (edit conflict). Sorry, but you need more experience. Only 85 edits in the Wikipedia namespace and 0 to Wikipedia Talk are good indicators of this lack of experience. Also, I don't like it when editors use automated tools like a crutch (a vast majority of your last 2000 edits were via Huggle), right before an RFA. Also, you've only been actively editing for three months. More experience (and doing your own work by hand) is needed before I can support. Useight (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Steve Crossin and Juliancolton. LittleMountain5 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. You said you want to be involved in the speedy deletion process, but I observe your lack of involvement with Articles for Deletion. You are doing a good job fighting vandalism, but I would like to see that you have some experience with the internal processes within Wikipedia to obtain the mop. Suggest that you do some content-writing as well. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Absolutely not, per Metros and Iridescent. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose with moral support - this user's heart is clearly in the right place and I strongly encourage them to continue with the most helpful vandal fighting. However, neither this RfA nor the candidate's contribution history indicate that the right kind of experience has been accumulated for adminship duties, particularly some of the intended duties named by the candidate. In a nutshell : While this user looks to be on the right track there is not yet enough substance for me to decide whether I can trust them with the mop. Shereth 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Oppose After reviewing this IP Talk page history, I think the candidate does not yet have the experience or maturity necessary to deal with problem editors. I would guess that several months experience discussing content issues would be necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that I understand. Would you like to elaborate? Bwrs (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try. It helps if you read the entire History in order. At first, Eric just templates the IP for their contributions. But then the IP makes an angry all-caps response implying that it's a content dispute rather than simple vandalism, which Eric reverts, beginning a revert war with the IP. At one point the IP offers to leave if their Talk page is blanked - an AGF challenge, for sure, but Eric responds with this barb. The IP removes warnings from their Talk page (check if you're not sure what policy says about this) and makes numerous offers to leave, some polite, some less so - Eric's response in every case is to revert without even adding an edit comment. Even when the user blanks their page, Eric restores it. It goes downhill from there. Is anyone surprised? I'm not. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it's clear now when I see all the diffs rather than just taking a recent sample. Reminds me of work lol. (Incidentally, I think that I feel like prodding that user-talk page.) Bwrs (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose Per the reasons offered by User:Iridescent--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 22:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong oppose The answer to Q1 is very worrisome. It suggests that the user equates (or nearly equates) NPOV violations with vandalism. Vandalism is just junk - while it may be a NPOV violation in some cases, that's wholly irrelevant to why we remove it. On the other hand, an NPOV violation is not necessarily vandalism (I think WP:VAND explicitly mentions this...) and the drive-by reverting from recentchanges used for vandalism is a poor way to deal with potential good faith users who make some biased edits as well as a great way to misuse warning templates and start an edit war. Further, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP are about the least backlogged admin areas. While we generally do need new admins, we really don't need any who specialize in antivandalism. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose He seems to have a lack of patience and a poor attitude in general. --Kaaveh (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. 1) Huggle, Twinkle, AWB, whatever you want to use is fine. It's the "rapid fire" mindsets that a lot of the heavier users bring to the table that are the problem. 2) "I've become use to reverting pages more than once becuase" - two typos in one of the first sentences of your request for adminship does not bode well. See #1, "rapid fire" mindset. 3) Overdone sigs tend to have a pretty positive coorelation (not that coorelation is causation) with maturity issues. 4) Communication issues (awkwardly written sentences such as "I do not considor contributions by those kind of I.P.s to be correct in helping stability in a article."). 5) No evidence that you have a knowledge of the technical mechanics of blocking, article protection, and so on. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Per reason above. --Creamy!Talk 03:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. A couple of factors bug me - (a) absence of article work, (b) a bit too much sarcasm and volatility in handling important issues, which may possibly become an issue if you obtain the blocking and deletion buttons. I think what is needed here is participation in writing articles and helping with other admin-related tasks to show you can handle other important work. Vishnava talk 05:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose I generally want to see a broader skill set than purely anti-vandalism work, 85 edits to the Wikipedia: space as well as the low number of article Talk: edits concerns me, try diversifying and come back in some time. MBisanz talk 07:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose This is just my view, but shouldn't an admin be responsible for more than simply anti-vandalism? Wikipedia is meant to be a medium for people to have access to substantive knowledge and information. Anti-vandalism is important of course, but I feel that an admin, which is trying to request high authority in the Wikipedia community, should be contributing information and knowledge to Wikipedia which is what the project was meant for, instead of simply fighting vandalism. Bigvinu (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose – in 3 to 4 more months come back than. Take this as a learning experience of what you need to do and you will be a fine addition. ShoesssS Talk 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Administrators need to be able to communicate well. I counted thirteen mistakes in the opening paragraph of this nomination. Sorry, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose The argumentative, defensive attitude displayed here wouldn't bode well for adminship. Nick mallory (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose (changed from Neutral) per SheffieldSteel. — Athaenara ✉ 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose, the large, bolded, argumentative comment about Huggle use gives me the impression that this user would not be very successful in interactions with other users. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong oppose Sorry, there's really only two months of activity, and there's no real article exposure.--LAAFan 02:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose - Two months of activity is not enough for me, and this edit is not something I would expect to see from a candidate.  Asenine  08:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  41. Oppose The Huggle Paragraph is not something I'd expect a Wikipedia admin to post. Townlake (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose - I didn't even look at the candidate's contributions before voting here, and trust me, I never ever do that, and I disapprove of people who do it. The reason I am bucking this trend, is that the candidate's over-passionate attitude shown in the opening of this RfA and the answers to the questions show that this person sees adminship as a position of power, where people who edit negatively ("vandals") are slayed simply for pleasure. There is so, so, so much more to adminship than slaying vandals. Lradrama 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose per Iridescent. Communicating properly with other users is well-respected, and the statement in regards of using Huggle is preposterous. SchfiftyThree 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I like your style. I wish there was a way to give you some tools to help out, but you don't show the in-depth knowledge of WP that makes me want you to have the full set, either. If you came back in six months with fuller experience in different areas of the website, I'd be happy to support. Darkspots (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I can appreciate your sincerity in wanting to provide assistance, but I think you need more experience in a variety of areas within Wikipedia. Keep at it, and do not be discouraged. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not piling on oppose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Admin tools aren't needed for reverting vandalism. Please make a practice of reporting persistent vandals on WP:AIV if that is your primary concern. Note: like Darkspots above, I am likely to support your later RfA after more time and experience. — Athaenara ✉ 13:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose per SheffieldSteel. — Athaenara ✉ 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NeutralI'd like to support, but I do believe some of the oppose reasons are valid. Try some work at XFDs, CSDs, Prods etc. I do however, support your statement on Huggle, and I think Oppose Two months of Huggle reverts and you think adminship beckons? I think not. Please do carry on with your Huggling though, if it gives you pleasure. RMHED (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) is just plain rude. TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I'm disappointed at the incivility of some of the Opposes, and they seem way too concerned about the Huggle stuff, but I do see some of their points. So far you've done a good job of combating vandalism, and I hope you keep it up, but I'd like to see some more experience in a wider range of WP stuff before I support. Drewcifer (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Participate in a wider range of activities to broaden your perspectives and get more experience in key areas. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral (comments). By the way, use of huggle is just fine. Bwrs (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I'll keep this neutral as there are already enough pile on opposes. Early this month, I noticed that a vandal you were reverting was spamming your talk page with my picture. (he had recently vandalized my talk page too) When I made a comment about it, you responded as if I were the vandal. [6] Before you are given the power to block users, you need to learn to tell the difference between vandals and their victims.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not the difficult to see you were considoring you commented on my talk page about the the situation less than 8 minutes after the anonymous user stopped doing it after I said to and you magically appeared out of no where on my page under that name. How did you even know he posted a your picture on my page? I took a look at the number of times he vandalised my talk page and there were more than enough times to notice how many times he posted your image and speak in regards to it. It just doesn't make any sense. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's easy to explain. The IP user in question had just vandalized both my user and talk page here and here most likely in response to me reverting him here. (using Huggle BTW) So I was keeping an eye on him. That's why I noticed so quickly what he was up to on your talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I am not impressed by some of the above opposes. Good job on combating vandalism, but I have a few concerns. You seem to have problems keeping cool on some occasions, and yes, your knowledge of the inner workings of the project is a bit limited. Please become active in more areas outside vandal-reverting (Special:Newpages and AFD can always use an extra hand or two), and don't feel disheartened if this RfA doesn't go as you expected. We can always use admins to help fight vandalism, and I hope you make another request in the future as you could certainly be a very beneficial member of the community. --cremepuff222 (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2008 (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/EricV89&oldid=1147960117"