Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Editorofthewiki

Editorofthewiki

Voice your opinion (talk page) (9/16/7); Scheduled to end 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs) - I'm proud to present Editorofthewiki (or Ed for short) for your consideration. Ed has been a Wikipedian since January 3, 2008, so very nearly nine months. He has made a grand total of 12,000 edits in this time, with well over 1000 edits made most months.

Ed is not a vandal fighter like a lot of candidates. His high count is down to his excellent work on articles, and his collaboration with other editors. He has contributed to 7 Good Articles (Mary Meader, 1992 Nicaragua earthquake, Hell's Gate National Park, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Jean-Hilaire Aubame, Nki National Park and Paul Gondjout) and 2 Featured Articles (Lazare Ponticelli and 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake), and has worked on and nominated others that unfortunately did not pass their nominations. He has over 50 Did You Know articles, oh and did I mention, he has created 2880 new articles. I first came across him when he came to my talk page congratulating me on my efforts with my first Good Article (Jeanne Calment) and suggested we collaborated on a FA. We've yet to do that, but he's been very helpful to me so far, giving me an editor review, and reviewing Mark Speight for me, without me even asking.

He has had an ongoing editor review since March, and shows him to be less than perfect, but the whole point of an editor review is to improve, right? One point that came up was his use of edit summaries - they were pretty poor. His edit summaries have now improved greatly, and while he still doesn't all the time, it's above 90% for major edits. Another point was his username; a user suggested it might imply authority. He very nobly put his name up at WP:RFCN, and it was decided it was fine. This kind of humble act is exactly the kind of admin Wikipedia could do with: one who admits their errors, is willing to co-operate with others and is here to build an encyclopedia.

So without further ado, let's start this thing, and make this guy an admin! -- how do you turn this on 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I feel very honored to be nominated for adminship by an editor I've known for barely a month. I accept. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I am primarily an article writer. We volunteers at Wikipedia are here to create the best possible encyclopedia, using our methods of collaboration and review. However, of late "admin-related" forums such as ANI, AIV, RFC have usurped this idea, and my involvement as an admin will not be here. Rather, I view adminship as a way to help me in my day-to-day editing, such as deleting articles to make way for redirects, blocking particularly disruptive users, etc.

However, I shall not shy away from "admin-related" areas altogether. If I am given "the mop", my primary "adminy" related work would be at WP:DYK. As Hdytto stated, I have more than 50 DYKS to my name (52 creations/expansions and 1 nomination, to be precise, plus a couple at T:TDYK) and am very familiar with this area of Wikipedia. It is frequently backlogged, which is in part due to the relatively small amount of admins who work there. And they are often quite busy with their workload. It used to be an even bigger problem, but hey, the more the merrier? Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

A: It is very hard to pick out my best contributions to the wiki. I value each and every one in a different way. I have 2 FAs and 7 GAs to my name, which is usually judged as one's best. In addition, I am working on a 1964 Gabon coup d'etat featured topic. I have succeeded in bringing Paul Gondjout and Jean-Hilaire Aubame to the GA standard, though my work here is far from complete. Before myself and User:Nishkid64 (I must mention him--he did most of the work at Leon M'ba) came along, there were no articles at WP:GABON above B-class status. Furthermore, that sole article at B-class was written by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, an editor I closely work with and highly emulate. So that's basically the definition of poorly covered.

I am also active at WP:QUAKE. My involvement there has ranged from the major (featuring 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake with User:LordSunday and hopefully doing the same with LS and Blofeld on 2003 Bam earthquake) to the minor (uploading maps to several earthquake-related pages and going on a recatting spree). I do not particularly like earthquakes, it's just that thay are wayyyyyyyyyyyyy undercovered in comparison to tropical cyclones. My mission here is to develop poorly covered areas such as quakes and Gabon (and practically all of Africa, with the exception of South Africa). Combatting systematic bias, shall one say, as it goes against arguably our most important policy, WP:NPOV.

Oh, and I must mention my work in stub creating. This is probably the biggest factor in my relatively high edit count, for I rarely use automated tools. I began working in this area back in February, when I was recent changes patrolling (something I don't do often) and noticed an ungodly amount of edits by who other than Blofeld of SPECTRE. He, along with User:AlbertHerring were on a stub creating spree for all the communes of France. Realising how incredible that Wikipedia, with its 2,000,000+ pages, had neglected such an important area, I decided that I would help. I soon found this was the case for much of the rest of the world outside the US or UK, and since Blofeld had been incredibly busy with this, I thought "Why not?" and began helping him with the task. I was, in fact, one of the two editors (guess who the other one was) behind the controvercial User:FritzpollBot, which unfortunately has not been working on its stated task of helping us through this. However, we (and now User:EJF) remain undaunted. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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: Hell yeah. And if this should destroy my RFA, so be it. It really should be no big deal, although even our founder has retracted this statement via of our mind-boggling process which I am currently undergoing. For one, I do not have a clean blocklog. I was blocked (and rightfully so) for the harassment of User:Misza13 while a newbie. To be clear, I did nothing more than nominate her page for deletion twice, though this was a very stupid and immature action of myself. Hover, neither did my blocking admin, User:East718, which shows the power of good faith and a decent reformation.

More recently, I opposed User:Karanacs at her RFA for this edit, which I felt was uncivil. Others may disagree, though I was not the only person who thought this way. I demanded an apology, which is something I always do when I mess up. Drama ensued, and the RFA shifted from her to my and Eco and User:Gears of War's opposed, which is unfortunate I think. Karanacs and I have since made up, and we lived happily ever after. The end. :)

To prevent another fatal mess up, I will immediately list myself at Administrators open to recall. I understand this process has been controvercial at best. However, if I fail to live up to my duties as an admin, and one user in good faith thinks I messed up, I shall immediately resign and hold a reconfirmation RFA. If I don't do this, block/ban/ desysop me. Please. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Tznkai

4. As an administrator you will be the first editor many newbies and more experienced Wikipedia go to, to settle content disputes, to complain about harassment, and otherwise threaten to drag you into the drama. How will you handle this?

I will try to handle this with a fair bit of common sense and never, ever, any biting. I will try to guide these editors along their path to Wikiholicism. After all, we all were newbies once, right? If I don't do this, refer to question 3. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Would you be willing to change your user name, and can you guess why I might be concerned by it?

Yes, I would. The matter was already disgussed, however, a couple of months ago at WP:RFCN, and the concensus was that my username was not against our username policy. Hover, if the matter arises I will be happy to do such a thing. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from RockManQ

6. Do you agree with every Wikipedia policy? If not could you give an example and tell why?

Interesting question. I think that I would change the arbcom above all other things. It simply holds too much authority over people Concensus should overrule any case, not the otherway around. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

7. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: Verifiability. I would doubt this issue would ever come up though, and if it did it would be the concensus of a small group of editors, not the entire community. However, beside the 5 pillars concensus should trump everything else. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

8. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Yes. User:LordSunday became upset that User:Pedro thought that he would not make a good admin at that time. I told him that first off, Pedro isn't god (no offence Pedro), and he may be wrong. Second, I kinda agreed with him. LS got upset, and retired in the foolish fashion that I did a few days before. Upon pressuring from the both of us, LS maturely realised his mistake and decided that being an admin was not worth it. Message to LordSunday: you still would be a great admin, just not yet! the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A:

General comments

• See Editorofthewiki's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Editorofthewiki: Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• So...

Lighten up people

Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment here. The last two editors to cast their !vote haven't specified any kind of rational/reason. I urge people, for the benefit of the candidate, to elaborate further. Thanks! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Q3 -- Misza 13 is a he. Just so you know in the future :) 211.30.19.204 (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any chance that you could tone down your signature? It's far better than it was a few days ago; however, it's still distracting. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How about this: Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 13:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I don't see a difference. How about you remove the "Your friend" bit and one of the links, to make it less clunky? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine. You win. Take all the enjoyment out of this while you can, for offering to be ones friend at the wiki is no longer valued. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 13:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
        • No offence, WOTW, but you sound like a three year old. If consensus thinks that your signature is a bit silly, then you should probably change it. You know full well that we appreciate friendship. I don't know what your definition of friendship is, but I'm pretty sure that it's not one of those things where saying it makes it so. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
          • You are right. Saying that I am one's friend does not automatically make me one. But it is an invitation. After all, (this was the title of a book I think) all I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten. :) the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Sure, why not?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Synergy 03:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I've seen him around; he does good work.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support I don't see anything alarming. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Yeah, why not?. RockManQ (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Why the hell not, it's no big deal. However that your friend before you sign does piss me off a bit. --Theoneintraining (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong support I have always found Editorofthewiki to be a committed, good-faith editor who has always given his best to this project's goal – building an encyclopaedia. I have had nothing but good interactions with him. His commitment to creating content is proof of his good intentions. This post, among others, shows the need for Ed to have the tools to function efficiently here, instead of asking and waiting for others to do the work for him. More DYK admins are needed, and Ed has shown his competency there, by creating, nominating and adding articles to the next update template (WP:DYK/N). He has cocked-up at times (haven't we all?) but the "civility" incident is firmly in the past, and he has learned from it. The FAC incident is still too soon in the memory, but the tools will be used for uncontroversially deleting/moving pages, not in that area. All in all, I trust him to use the tools judiciously and competently where he has stated he will; to quote a famous user: "Nothing else matters". EJF (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support as nominator, but sadly I don't think this will pass now. -- how do you turn this on 12:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support to counter some of the frankly ludicrous opposes. Also, I like the lolcat. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
10. I don't see many alarming problems. iMatthew (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. There are quite enough misguided civility police on the admin payroll already. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   I have acknowledged the error in my ways, and I will try not to join the "cabal of misguided civility police". I will try to confine myself to relatively calm editing which is my norm shall I be accused of such again. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 02:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Wait, we're supposed to get paid for bleating about the civility policy? I'll be taking this up with the Wikipedia payroll department, that's for sure! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC).

2. Oppose. (edit conflict, I should've expected that). I think Editorofthewiki does a great job in the mainspace. And he's a very competent editor. But when I asked Editorofthewiki for some feedback about what he thought of my RFA standards I got a very revealing and concerning response here. First of all, know that I am not opposing this RFA just because Editorofthewiki doesn't like my RFA standards, please don't think I'm that vindictive and/or trying to retaliate and/or delivering a low-blow. It's the other content I was able to glean from that edit. Here are my reasons:

   • As per the edit linked above, Editorofthewiki believes that being blocked for harassment is minor.
   • As per the edit linked above, Editorofthewiki believes that "vandalism is often worse than blocks." I'd have to completely disagree with this philosophy. I'd say that getting blocked or something would almost always be worse than getting a vandalism warning. Maybe in the case of a 3RR block would vandalism be worse.
   • Editorofthewiki refuses to take suggestions from multiple editors to improve his editing.

   He said here regarding edit summaries that, "I understand their purpouse [sic] and all, but I don't see why we have to use them ALL THE TIME." Perhaps he doesn't understand their purpose as well as he claims there. He was later given the suggestion to use edit summaries more by Basketball110 here and Xenocidic here. His response to them was, "I am not the biggest fan of edit summaries and I think it is a fault of Wikipedia for all of its editors to use them all the time. I use them when conveniant [sic]." (found here) and "I said it was a fault for wikipedians at rfas to require them. For example, not every minor edit needs one, nor every single freaking edit if the es tells you nothing important." (found here). I disagree; edit summaries are very important as they make it much easier for another editor to discern what you're doing and/or your reason behind it, and it is not a fault for Wikipedians to want you to use them. This point is not so much that I have a problem with his opposition to edit summaries, but his opposition to learning from suggestions by other editors and instead he points the finger at other Wikipedians and the system itself.

   • Poor use of edit summaries.
   • On the 11th of this month he retired here, only to unretire 23 hours later here.
   • On the 26th of this month he decides he needs 25 supporters before considering adminship with this edit, but then decides here against that because he was nommed here. These two very recent incidents indicate an indecisive nature.
   • Also, from Q3, "I demanded an apology, which is something I always do when I mess up." I assume that was errantly typed, but even so, I don't think demanding apologies is the best practice.

   For these reasons, mostly because of his vehement refusal to take suggestions on how to improve himself and subsequent faulting of others, I will have to oppose. Useight (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   This is a completely valid reason to oppose. I have been known to be indecisive and porr judgement. However, we are all human, and we all will make mistakes. Since June I have thought over most of those "citeria" for a bureaucrat, and think you probably would have been a fine one. Other than edit summaries (does every single minor little edit deserve one? (this is a rhetorical question)). I am completely open to suggestions, especially as an admin. regards. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 02:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Indeed we are all human and are prone to err, I think in time you will have learned from prior mistakes instead of being doomed to repeat them. I look forwarding to supporting your next request in the future. Useight (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose. Your friend Everyme 02:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Uhh, why? Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Firstly, add a certain amount of lack of clue to my oppose rationale. This is mostly because my oppose, in a rather non-cryptic way, illustrates the reason why I can never and will never support anyone with a sig like yours. No smileys, no "your friend". Just imagine how would it look if you block someone, and your message on their talk page reads: You have been indefinitely blocked for persistant vandalism. --Your friend... It would quite possibly incite further anger. And that is the reason I strongly oppose: You are apparently not someone to be trusted with such subtleties. Just stay on your civil course, then you may never be inconvenienced with having to double-check your own somewhat stereotypical and rather simpl-ish idea of civility with the just-as-valid ideas of others. Everyme 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   How about you tone down the condescension in your response. Your tact is sorely lacking. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) I still would like to be the friend of an editor I indefblocked. Perhaps that would be a motivation to start editing constructively. The block can be overturned, of course, and you probably woun't be seeing a single block from me withing the next year. :) Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Wisdom, if you think that, then you have no idea about my tact. Everyme 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Add SandyGeorgia's points to my rationale, as well as the imho godawfully unfunny lolcat image. Everyme 04:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not going to !vote in this RfA, since I am (apparently, based on some of the opposes) not very familiar with the candidate. However, I am going to say this about you, Everyme, just to set the record straight here, since I assume that at some point EotW will run again, and people will be looking at this RfA at that time.

   Your oppose here, Everyme, has to be very close to the most petty, vindicative, childish oppose I have ever seen on an RfA. What the hell is wrong with you? You are opposing someone because they have the words "your friend" in their signature? I can see where you are coming from, but 1) EotW was obviously only trying to be nice to people and 2) he changed his friggin' signature after you yelled at him!!! What else do you want him to do? People like you are why RfA is so fucked up.

   And even given all that, I was not going to say anything. However, your attempt to justify what you obviously know is a shitty oppose rationale pushed me over the top. "...As well as the imho godawfully unfunny lolcat image" What the fuck??! What does that have to do with being an administrator? And what makes it worse to me is that the only reason you are saying that here is because you know that EotW won't reply to you here because then you would oppose him "for replying to the opposers". In my book, attacking someone without provocation who is in no position to defend themselves is practically THE lowest level that it is possible for a human being to step. You are despicable.

   I have never opposed an RfA before. If an RfA is already going down, I do not see the point of piling on. However, I promise that as long as your oppose here goes without an apology from you, if you run for RfA, I will never support you. And I will ensure that other editors know exactly how petty and vindictive you are. Although it will likely not make much difference, I would like to call on whoever closes this RfA to negate Everyme's !vote. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Unabashedly using an RfA to demand a token apology from an editor is either fantastically, profoundly over-sensitive, or just plain bullying. Dunno which option is better-faith. Some may believe that personality issues of that nature may vanish in the span of three months. Some also may believe that Jew Lizardmen control the Earth. At least the second belief has some slight metaphoric value. There also exist rather substantial communication concerns as incidentially highlighted in the diffs provided by Useight (massive oppose #2 above). Not only does having such poor (some might even say "sloppy-looking") communication in an administrative role have a poor effect on outside perception of the quality of Wikipedia's articles, but it has the obvious potential to cause substantial amounts of frustration for other editors of the wiki. Badger Drink (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Assume good faith, please. Karanacs and I made up after the debacle, and I struck my vote. If I messup again, please tell me, and I will request to be desysopped. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Assume the assumption of good faith, thank you. I'm sorry, but AGF is not a suicide pact. Whether you and Karanacs are on good terms now is irrelevant. The fact that you felt it appropriate to disrupt a user's RfA to demand an on-the-spot apology for a past "transgression" is what's disturbing. Badger Drink (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oh dear. And this is what Karanacs' initial comment here was about. Everyme 03:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   this little stunt from you is a disgrace and reflects extremly poorly on you. You would use someone elses RFA which is strssful enough, to demand an apology he did not owe you (his comment was not incivil, it was the truth in the was he saw it). Theres a word for that....sabotage. Well I think karma has its ways of getting back to you. Out of curiosity did you give him an apology for your shamefull attempt at sabotaging his RFA?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose I think Ed has made very impressive contributions to the 'pedia. Nevertheless, a review of some of the issues provided by Useight and a perusal of his contributions lead me to think that Adminship is not for him. This is only compounded by some of his responses to the opposes in this RfA. One of the tricky things in life is realising what you're good at. EotW is a good editor, but I don't think he has the temperament nor the judgement to be granted access to the tools. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry. Occasional bad judgement, including the matter in answer to question 3, which is recent. (Incidentally, you need to edit the last sentence of the first paragraph of that section.) N p holmes (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose for now. Ah. Well, I know that many folks maintain that content contribs are irrelevant to mop handling, but.. it's the lack of maturity behind the content contribs that are the problem here. In short, EOTW just doesn't seem to have a clue regarding Wikipedia, or perhaps doesn't know how to respect Wikipedia, at least not yet. Harsh words? No. Wikipedia is (or should be.. I doubt that "is" still applies) an encyclopedia, not a hangout for all the cool gang. I think EOTW loves the latter and has no clue regarding the former. The recent FAC was a telling disaster. I would never have imagined that someone could copy/paste content from the English and especially French Wikipedias without verifying an alarming number of key facts & then toss it up to WP:FAC. Let's not email the French Wikipedia folks (again!) and repeat the claim that Ling.Nut is accusing the French Wikipedia of substandard work. I don't know where the gross factual inaccuracies, significant omissions and especially the POV-laden text (with spurious verification, no less) in EOTW's FAC nom came from. It doesn't matter; the point is that EOTW never bothered to track down an alarmingly large number of facts and try to verify them. Anyone who has such disregard for FAC has not yet understood the encyclopedia's reason to exist. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Per Ling.Nut, Karanacs, and Badger Drink. Too much evidence of treating Wikipedia like a MMORPG. VG ☎ 09:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Per all of the above + SandyGeorgia, this "will try to confine myself to relatively calm editing which is my norm shall I be accused of such again" (in response to MF above) shows two things to me; "try to" - you acknowledge you have a problem, which although is good, doesn't mitigate it and "accused" this is a discussion, not a court. You say to others here to "assume good faith" but the only person I say here not assuming good faith is yourself. Caulde 09:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose, the user's heart is in the right place, but I cannot honestly support an editor who engages in the type of "retirement" nonsense highlighted in User:Useight's oppose above. It shows a pretty immature attitude, and such people tend to attract drama, and those sorts of people are not the ones we want in the admin seat. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC).
11. Recommend Withdrawl Per above i have seen enough, nothing else to add.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose - A lot of problems have been raised in this oppose section, I am especially concerned about having a massively solitary nature on such a communal site.  Asenine  11:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Pile-on strong oppose and strongly suggest withdrawal.

    • The wanting to be a Civility Police Force (you might say you've changed your ways, but I note you still have "There needs to be a small group of trusted supervisor administrators who have the ability to temporarily block misbehaving admins from doing any editing for periods of time up to a week and removal of admin powers for at least a month based upon the severity of the misbehavior." on your userpage – and I'm just guessing here, but I have a suspicion as to who you see as the "trusted supervisor administrator".
      • I would not be among that group, as one might think. I would obviously not be one of the most trusted admins here in the extremely slim chance of actually passing, since I've not even been registered for a year. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 13:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, this is a loaded question but I'd be interested in hearing your answer and it will likely affect whether I withdraw this oppose – can you give one or two examples of who you think would make suitable members of this Star Chamber? – iridescent 14:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That little "star chamber" would be determined by concensus. It would be similar to bureaucrat role. Admins (not you or anyone in particular) are given way too much leeway; if I recall correctly, Archtransit was given a mentor before being desysopped and banned. All worked out good in the end, but still, a fair bit of damage was caused. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 19:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The "your friend" sig.
    • The dreadful spelling (not a deal-breaker in itself, but – especially from someone lecturing the rest of us on "professionalism" – I don't like seeing admins who are unable to spell simple words and/or are too arrogant to use a spellchecker, on what is, after all, supposed to be a serious reference work.
      • I use Internet Explorer. There's no spell checker there. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 13:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The FAC debacle.
    • The statement that "Concensus should overrule any case, not the otherway around" ^[sic] – no, we're bound by law and owned by the WMF, and both of those overrule "concensus". – iridescent 11:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Extended discussion moved to the talk page. Everyme 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose Way too many concerns have been brought up here, and various things I've seen from Ed. SandyGeorgia's points back that up, and somehow, while adminship isn't a big deal, I don't like the fact that you've placed an lolcat on your RfA. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Per userpage. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Care to expand upon that? I can't see any user page related opposes/neutrals, so saying "per userpage" isn't all that helpful to the user. Sorry if I'm missing something. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    See part one of the oppose two up from mine. Daniel (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Ah yeah I see, thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

16. Strong Oppose Only nine months on wiki, low edit summary usage, and this from his userpage: "Welcome to my user page. You really should be editing right now. So why are you wasting your time reading this sentence? I could just go on an on about myself, but why should I? Since you are still here right now, I will welcome you under this comfy blanket." ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Nine months is more than enough, considering six months is often the recommended minimum. -- how do you turn this on 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    By your standards, perhaps. Badger Drink (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Who said anything about me? -- how do you turn this on 19:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose To many boubts of incivilty. Sorry. America69 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Iridescent.--KojiDude ^(C) 15:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose. A sincere editor, with excellent work to his name, yet who has shown a lack of judgement on occasion, such as the aforementioned civility issues. He readily admits this, and that's a good start towards steadying the ship. So I believe him when he says he has resolved to try harder. But I think a little longer with a clean record in the areas mentioned above is required before a renomination, whereupon I'd be glad to reconsider my vote if someone gives me a nudge. Steve ^{T • C} 16:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong Oppose - Lack of trust, also per SandyGeorgia and EOTW's comments in reply to her. This makes me question why this RfA is still running. KnightLago (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
21. You're awesome, Ed. Seriously. But I don't think you have enough experience. What happened to "I don't want to run an RfA for a year? Cheers, —'Sunday 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
22. I have a tremendous amount of respect for EOTW as an editor, but right now I'm not sensing that this RfA is open for the right reasons. Interpreting the discussion, the diff by KnightLago and the other comments around, this strikes me more as an editor review than a request for adminship. I fully understand the hope that constructive criticism can be found by keeping a request open, but requests shouldn't be kept open this long if there is little chance of success. Indeed, if the [candidate doesn't believe it would pass, then this is an issue that needs to be reviewed. I would suggest a withdrawal - there's no shame in this - and a detailed editor review specifically on weaknesses and the possibility of a RfA in the future. I don't believe it's wise to use RfA for this specific purpose, but it is, after all, the candidate's call. Best wishes, and good luck with your work; it's great so far! PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
23. I thought your comments in Karanacs request were pretty disturbing, to say the least. I feel like if you invite criticism of yourself you shouldn't cry a river when someone criticises you. That speaks volumes about how you will respond to comments on your actions as an administrator. Probably wouldn't support for a long time. naerii 20:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning towards support. Bwrs (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Nope, and I never will. Specifically, what makes you "neutralise" instead of support? Not trying to badger anyone, just curious. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am explaining off-wiki; I do not intend for my neutral vote to influence anybody else's decision. Bwrs (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral for now, but may switch to oppose if necessary. EOTW, I am surprised that you would submit to RfA so soon after a FAC you submitted was archived because you google translated an article from the French wiki, without consulting the original sources while admitting that you don't read French. Your action on that FAC caused a lot of work for a lot of FAC reviewers; work that could have gone in to helping maintain and promote FA standards on other articles. Understanding and respect for our core WP:V policy is fundamental to what we do here, and you show a great deal of immaturity to submit to an RfA nom (from someone who has been editing only two months, btw, where are the editors of long-standing repute who might nom you?) so shortly after this incident. (Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive1#Closing rationale). Adminship duties are not something to be approached impetuously: I hope you'll consider withdrawing for now, and spend some time in dedication to serious editing and improving your track record at FAC (both in terms of nominations and in terms of supporting other FACs without engaging WP:WIAFA) before resubmitting. You seem to be a person of pleasant disposition; if I see a solid respect for the featured article processes from you in the future, I would likely support, but spurious Support declarations at FAC and ill-prepared noms create an extra burden for editors who strive to maintain FA standards and shows a lack of maturity or understanding of the seriousness of our WP:V policy. Of course, there remains a large concern about what research you did on the DYKs and GAs you racked up, whether you consulted the sources on them, or whether you also google translated them from other Wikis without verifying sources. I'm concerned that your article editing might have comprised the integrity of more than one article. At a time that a task force should be evaluating all of your past contributions for compliance with WP:V, it is stunning that you would submit to the scrutiny of an RfA, which shows that you don't understand the seriousness of what you did. You can raise my respect level by withdrawing this RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah. I hadn't planned to submit an RFA so soon after the debacle, and specifically put that 25 names on the page for that reason, but I decided to remove it when Hdytto nommed me. Anyhoo, I'm leaving this open full course to see if I can get constructive criticismfrom it. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 12:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Not a great call. You should withdraw. At this point, you should be trying to salvage your next RfA. Keeping this running when it's going this badly isn't a good idea; it makes it seem to uninvolved people like me that you can't recognize consensus. Plenty of constructive criticism above. Darkspots (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   I honestly don't think I have a chance at a next RFA, and never did. I just "treat Wikipedia thike a MMORPG" and "dont have the tempermeant". Quite honestly, I'm suprised one would even nominate me in the first place. I see where this is going, I just want to see if anything positive can be made of it. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   I feel so bad about myself after reading Sandy's comment. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Why's that? -- how do you turn this on 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   I, too, am guilty of taking the FAC process for granted. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Don't beat up on yourself, Mailer diablo. You really have been an awesome admin, though I really haven't known you outside the DYK proces. Specifically, how did you take the FAC process for granted? the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 19:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral - Good mainspace edits, but some less than desirable interactions pointed out in the opposes as well as the nomination lead me to think this user might not be ready. I have a bad gut feeling about this editors attitude and immaturity, and paired with my other concerns leads me to be neutral. And please, change the colour scheme on the big black red and white box on your userpage. It stands out, sure, but reading it causes what one could consider to be a minor concussion. My eyes are still re-adjusting after a good five minutes. Good luck, Matty - (Talk) 07:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I was inclined to support for use of the tools as he specified, "deleting articles to make way for redirects, blocking particularly disruptive users," and helping out at DYK. However, he seems to be on a steep stretch of the learning curve where readiness is not yet apparent. As well, it's not appropriate to be dismissive of edit summaries, particularly as an admin is something of a role model, like it or not. I don't want to wonder what someone's done, I want to see a description there every time. (Useight said it well: "they make it much easier for another editor to discern what you're doing and/or your reason behind it, and it is not a fault for Wikipedians to want you to use them.")
   BTW: I think what was meant by "I demanded an apology, which is something I always do when I mess up" was that when he messes up he apologizes (which is good, if a little startling as written ;-) but better to ask than demand, or just let it go. — Athaenara ✉ 08:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral per no bad experiences with this user (personally) but extremely good points put forward by Iridescent (talk · contribs) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). I strongly suggest you withdraw this RfA if you have any intention of reapplying in the future. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral. The candidate has good potential, but will benefit from additional experience. Ling Nut and SandyGeorgia raise all too valid concerns. Keep up the good work, Ed. Majoreditor (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning toward oppose I cannot outright oppose this RfA as of yet, but due to his edit summary usage, or rather, lack thereof, I also cannot support it and will, if necessary, switch to oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikTheBikeMan (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Note: He has only been on wiki for 9 months, which is too short for me to do anything but oppose. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Remember to indent next time, please. It screws with the bot otherwise. :)  Asenine  17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

7. I like Ed; he's a prolific writer and has good intentions, I think. Some things brought up in the oppose section are... strange. I'm not swayed by Ed being here "only" nine months or *shudder* not using edit summaries, heaven forbid, but Iridescent summarises everything about Ed that worries me, particularly the overall lack of clue. I'm rather torn by this nomination. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)