Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The ed17

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.

The ed17[edit]

Nomination[edit]

FINAL (52/28/17); closed 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC) by EVula

The ed17 (talk · contribs)

Co-nomination by TomStar81

I hereby nominate The Ed17 for adminship privileges on the English Wikipedia. Ed has been here for just shy of two years, and in that time has taken on several interesting tasks. He has adopted three new users and has been helping them learn the ropes of Wikipedia, and has also contributed significantly to 1 Featured Article, two A-class articles, one GA-class article, and has received seven DYKs. After his co-opting to fill in as a coordinator in my absence he demonstrated an ability to rapidly pick up new ideas, concepts, and responsibilities quickly, and was trusted enough by the community to receive rollback rights for anti-vandalism work last year. I have never seen him lose his patience or temper when dealing with Wikipedia and its contributors. I therefore believe that Ed will make an excellent admin on Wikipedia, and offer up this co-nomination. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by MBK004

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Ed for adminship. I have known Ed since he started working on ship articles, and since then he has produced a number of exceptional articles in the genre along with other areas, listed here which includes a Featured Article which appeared on the Main Page on 7 December 2008. He has been co-opted as a Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject, ironically enough when Tom decided to take an extended wikibreak in November 2008. In the course of his duties he has as Tom mentioned, rapidly learned the responsibilities associated with the position, which in some instances are closely similar to what administrators do. While he is unlikely to take up full-time residence at CSD, he has clue and I haven't seen him make a bad decision which leads to him having my full trust and belief that he will use the admin tools wisely. -MBK004 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

With amazement that two people who I respect very highly want to nom me, I accept. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:09, 6 January 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, to be honest (even if I get slammed for it), I'm not going to wield my admin mop too often. For the most part, I plan to use the mop when I need to when responding to "please help" requests at WT:MILHIST, WT:NOVELS or my talk page. However, if I get bored with content additions, I may try to help with the backlog...we'll see.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Far and beyond in first place is "my" FA, USS Nevada (BB-36). Over the course of my almost-600 edits to the article, it developed from a literal DANFS copy to a FA with 75 in-line citations and 22 books used. Also, this article showed me just how much fun researching and hunting for sources could be, which helped me gynormously later on when I had to do that for my research papers in college.
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: No real conflicts or or any other stressful things...the only thing close was an article that was written in a lipogrammatic format. See the articles' talk page archives from here down and here.
Additional question from Jmundo
4. Do you agree that Wikipedia suffers from cultural perspective gaps? --Jmundo (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, of course it does. There will always be a major gap because the English-speakers are going to come mainly from the U.S., the U.K. and Canada - a significantly lower number of editors will be coming from Vietnam, India, Egypt or Sri Lanka because less people speak English there. This shows through in the many articles that need to be created of, say, Chinese towns.
Optional question from User:Dank55
5. In light of Ryan's oppose: which tools do you want? You say in Q1, "I plan to use the mop when I need to when responding to 'please help' requests", but you haven't told us what kind of requests you think you'd be good with. Please give us some reading material so we can come to a decision that you'll be good with the tools you want to use now. (This is kind of a separate question from the main reason I would support you, if I support.)
A: I'm sorry - I should have clarified this in my answer above. With the tools, I think that I would help with requests for page protections on days when I am bored with content building. Also, every once in awhile we get requests at WT:MILHIST asking for input becuase there is an edit war currently going on at ____. Please help! I would be willing to help these editors out, whether through being a mediator or through protecting the page and inviting more commenters so that consensus could be reached.
As for other adminly tools, I doubt that I would be blocking many IP's or users simply because I am not the biggest fan of drama. With CSD, I would only get involved if I read more about the policies; through my knowledge that I haven't given that more than a passing glance and as evidenced by Ryan's oppose, I don't know all of the policies there.
Optional followup question: describe a situation where you think full-protection would be likely to lead to a better result than having one or more users blocked, and a case where it wouldn't. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Often, assuming that I am not going to be working near high-profile articles. For examples, a full protection on Lexington-class battlecruiser would be preferable to blocking a user because blocking would hinder discussion and possibly stifle (an) opposing viewpoint(s). OTOH, full-protecting Barack Obama is a big no...there, I guess that a 1 hour block, if anything, would be in order.
Um, rereading this, and what I meant by "full protection .. would be preferable to blocking a user" was that in an edit-war or content dispute on a low-profile article, a short full protection (hours, not days) in place of a short block could help promote discussion of the change(s) on the talk page - for obvious reasons, it is rather difficult for a blocked user to contribute to a discussion on an article's talk page. Still haven't studied WP:PPOL, but hopefully this clarifies my view a bit. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dank55
6. Pick your favorite policy discussion, and tell us what you said in support or opposition.
A: Well, this would be it. While that was the only comment I made, I did follow that from afar when the RfC was open. An interesting, if (very) long, read.

Questions from GlassCobra

7. This is normally Xenocidic's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A. The simple answer is that I wouldn't. I blocked the IP - shouldn't someone neutral come around to review me? Isn't that what the {{unblock}} system is for?
Now, if you pretend that someone else blocked the IP, then we have something. For that, I think that I would AGF and unblock - a simple stalking of the IP's next few contribs would tell us (a) if he/she is telling the truth and (b) if he/she is actually here to write an encyclopedia. Assuming that this is true, and the IP starts adding content, I would give them an Uncle Sam welcome template, encouraging them to get an account; if they did this, a quick follow-up with Wikipedia's referencing requirement would be needed.
Lastly, if the IP was working in something that I am interested in (i.e. maritime history), and they are willing to get an account, I might decide to offer to adopt them.
8. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
A. Hopefully, I won't even have to dream about this...but I would willingly run for re-confirmation if I think that the community has lost their trust in me.
9. Please give a precise explanation of what you believe WP:BLP means. When should one ignore the policy?
A. Without looking, no unreferenced controversial information should be residing in an article about a living person.
(Part II) Um, never? This isn't WikiNews; we don't do original investigations into something - a third-party source must report it. Plus, I doubt that any good-faith editor here wants to see Wikimedia sued over false, libelous information contained within someone's biography.
10. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What would you do?
A. I would bring it up on the other admin's talk page first before anything. One of us may be able to sway the other without drama AN/I. However, if I still vehemently disagree with this other admin's block but cannot sway him to undo his own block, then I would have to go to AN/I.

Question from Mr. IP

11. Do you think the community should make changes to counteract declining public participation at Wikipedia? If so, what policies should we change?
A. Well, hopefully I don't sound stupid here, but how would changing out policies help? The public knows nothing about our policies :) IMHO, the decline is a natural consequence of Wikipedia not being 'new' anymore...I think that it'll level off at some point (it better! =/).

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The ed17 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Re: Support #6, Darth Panda. Yep, I knew that Myspacing was going to come up sometime... :) Well, my reply is that I guess I would like to have a small amount of fun while I am here. To me, a few laughs prior to or during a re-write of an article allow me to get my mind off of the article and see the problems with it when I come back. If many people oppose on this rationale, so be it; I'm not here to become an sysop, I'm here to have a few laughs while building an encyclopedia. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something for people to remember: an admin needn't be active in every area that requires admin tools. I've been an admin for almost a year now, and have only closed 1 or 2 XfDs and haven't yet protected a page through the RFPP process. It's also difficult to say what areas of admin work you'll be doing if you aren't already involved in those areas. For example, I expected myself to be involved in RFPP, AN, and AN/I, but the two areas I'm most frequently active are WP:RM and WP:MDP (areas with which I had little to no experience before the mop). So, while concerns over a lack of experience are valid, I think it's more important to remember that level-headed editors can usually pick up the process pretty quickly in any of these areas. And if a newly-minted admin needs help with something, that's what the more experienced among us are for, right? Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with not focusing on the details of pushing buttons; if I support, it will be because he's talented at supporting the contributions of others, at helping Wikipedians succeed with content creation ... I see some evidence of that, so my instinct is to support. But if pushing buttons were trivial, RFA would be easier, for all of us. I'm not the expert on RFA, but I believe we've been pretty consistent about asking candidates which tools they want and why we should trust them with those tools. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Anyone else have a problem with GlassCobra's questions? Specifically, the number and difficulty of them. Maybe the optional word "optional" would help? The issue is whether the questions are more likely to inform us about the candidate, or will function (unintentionally, of course) as a distraction from other important issues that have been raised, or at worst as a form of hazing. Just my two cents, but those are exceptionally difficult questions, and really proper answers would require someone to know quite a lot of wiki-history. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says above that all RfA questions are optional and are intended to help participants get a better idea of the candidate and his experience and ideas; to put an extra "Optional" is redundant. With all due respect, I think my questions are just fine, and I've used them on many RfAs in the past. The candidate is not required to answer them, but I'd like him to so that I can get a better sense of whether or not I should be supporting. These are all important issues (AGF/vandal reform, recall, BLP, courtesy/wheel warring) that admins deal with on a regular basis. GlassCobra 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from GlassCobra's talk page) Just to be clear (with you and for anyone interested): I have no bad experiences with you and no evidence at all that you lack clue. I made a guess that those questions for that candidate at that time might have a net negative effect on the RFA process ... but that's not at all clear, and whether it's true is a multi-part question of its own. I felt the best thing to do was just register quick disapproval during the RFA. After it's over, I'll run a few ideas by you and see where we agree. What's right and wrong with RFA always seems to be guesswork in the dark. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from Dank55's talk page) Indeed, I've had no bad experiences with you either -- which is why I was surprised, to say the least, to see you register such vocal disappointment right on the RfA rather than coming to discuss with me first. I do not feel that four questions is necessarily hard nor an excess amount, and certainly not that they were particularly hard questions. Surely we would like our admins to have a basic understanding of BLP? And I certainly would like to know potential admins' stances on recall, and whether they'll give vandals a second chance. GlassCobra 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst they may not number a great many, can I ask why there is a surge of user's being nominated because of their work to MILHIST? This isn't a pre-requisite nor a requirement for admin candidate's to be evaluated against. Caulde 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it's merely a coincidence. MILHIST is one of the biggest Wikiprojects, so it makes statistical sense that you're going to see a higher number of editors who participate there than say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic League. Also, MILHIST as a whole is probably more active than many other projects (how many FAs are military-related, after all?) so that's another factor to consider. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to sound angry here....but can anyone bring up any additional uncivil remarks that I have made? I try to always stay civil, no matter what has been said, and I would like to know where else I have been uncivil so that (a) I can avoid it in the future and (b) so that more opposes like Ottava's don't start appearing (i.e. with the use of plurals - "civility issues"?) I'm just frustrated, I guess; I never thought that a problem with any RfA of mine would be my incivility. Of course, having said that, if more diffs can be found, than obviously I am wrong in my self-assessment. :) Thanks everyone, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I have a low thresh hold for using terms like "dumb". I don't think its fair to use characterizations like that, especially if you are the hold a position of power. The diff was from within a month, so I feel as if it is a recent occurrence. I don't think many hold my high standards in such regards so I doubt many people will care about my oppose, especially when it is only a minor oppose. I mostly opposed to ensure that you know that such a thing would be inappropriate in the future and that if you ever came into a situation that you would feel compelled to use such terminology, then chances are you should probably back away and calm down before typing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment, questions 4, 6 and 11 don't really seem suitable for a RfA - The Ed is seeking to be an admin, not a member of the ArbCom or Wikimedia foundation! Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nom Like I said, he will make a good admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nom -MBK004 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. EC-almost-beat-the-co-nom-Support - Ed is a great editor, has experience building an article up to FA-class, and has experience in another position of authority—a coordinator at WP:MILHIST. Giving Ed the mop will be a benefit to the community. Parsecboy (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support. No contributions issues, and I've yet to see an editor so constantly polite. Ironholds (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC) moved to Oppose Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (e/c, what is that?!?) Almost beat-the-nom strongest support possible - Excellent user, with commendable mindset. Ed is always patient with new users, and for the months I've known him, I have never seen a severe outbreak or tantrum from his part. Ed has had an account for several years now, so there is no doubt about his experience. Throughout the time I have known him, he has been committed to keeping the project intact pacifically, and he has done an outstanding job as coordinator of WP:MILHIST. Above all, he has immense levels of clue and absolutely knows how to keep cool against all odds, even when I myself might have lost temper. In short, one very promising candidate; I am immeasurably proud to offer my support and hope the community is wise enough to agree. :) —La Pianista (T•C) 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support. Most of the things I've looked at check out. Unfortunately, I have a single complaint. Your talk page and your posts to other users talk pages seem very very MySpacy. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, I feel you are slightly lacking in professionalism. However, your good work in article creation and the lack of severely negative traits basically force me to support. Best of luck to you! DARTH PANDAduel 04:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to neutral. DARTH PANDAduel 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I share Darth_Panda's concerns, though it's not like you don't do any article work. I think you'll do just fine. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support: The contributions look fine, and the honestly about not specifically desiring adminship is what I find to be refreshing. The talk page is of zero concern to me, as the user is simply responding to chatter, which I find is a good way to alleviate the stoicism that can be associated with taking part in this project. Good luck! Law shoot! 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support The ed17 is a great editor and coordinator and I'm sure that he'll use the admin tools responsibly Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tentative support - Likely net positive, if a little 'myspacey'. — neuro(talk) 07:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose. — neuro(talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Looks like we're getting a lot of MILHIST noms lately. This editor should do very well as an admin. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, why not. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Changed to oppose.[reply]
  9. Strong Support I've had nothing but good interactions with this candidate. I also thought the candidate was a bit MySpacey, until I discovered how much useful stuff he does and how helpful he has been - to me as well as others. ϢereSpielChequers 10:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hello, I'm Luke Skywalker and I need help picking out a Father's Day gift...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a highly qualified editor. May the Force be with you! <Cue John Williams' music> Ecoleetage (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support--Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We need more administrators committed to content. --Jmundo (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support: Excellent contributor. My primary resource for advice on article building and sometimes, policy ;) Has a good understanding of how things work around here, enjoys helping out people... all in all, has the qualities that should be in an admin. Chamal talk 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support Experienced editor, very good article builder, a coordinator of WikiPrject Military History, adopter, has clue, and stays cool. I am confident he will be a great admin. LittleMountain5 15:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support I agree with a lot of Ryan's oppose, but in fairness the candidate has made it clear from his Q1 he's not going to go rushing off to AIV or CSD the moment he gets the bit, if this RFA passes. Clearly commited and if he just uses the tools occasionaly that's still all to the good. I would have prefered more project space experience, but I think the concerns are out-weighed by the benefits. Pedro :  Chat  15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    if he is not going to go use them, what's the point of having them? Another userbox? The tools are for working. We already have more than enough inactive admins. DGG (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support – not convinced by the opposition; with other editors who have no deleted contributions or Wikipedia mainspace edits at all (outside of MILHIST and associated pages) and who are currently running at 99% on RfA, it seems to me it's one rule for one person and one for another. Caulde 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak support. On the positive side, candidate has contributed to good and featured articles and has made good arguments in three of the four AfDs we both participated in. On the negative side, there are the two blocks that did not result in an unblock (to me an unblock cancels out a block). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong SupportPositive contribs, great editor. Major net positive. Andy (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support — will surely be a boon to the project, and trustworthy with the tools. More like this, please. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, ah yes, a very good article writer. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support. A great guy and someone who voluntarily stepped in to adopt me back in September when all the users I wrote to weren't available. Since then he's taught me all about Wikipedia- he's even persuaded me to start writing substantial articles, something I never thought I would do before. I do have to be slightly critical in that I think Ed could do with frequenting the main areas that administrators work in more, but I know through his mentoring that he is knowledgeable in all these areas anyway. He is also a very nice guy in general, his manner etc and he doesn't lose his temper. This is getting way too long so I'll cut it here. He'll be a great admin. I have no doubt! Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak support. Good MILHIST contributions. Why weak (a) excessive use of FU images in one of the articles you regularly edit (b) please change the typeface of your signature. Not everyone has perfect eyesight to decipher minuscule script you use. NVO (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support - Although I am a little leary about the myspacey issue, I think you'll be a net positive. VX!~~~ 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I trust this user. Sam Blab 22:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Iamawesome800 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak Support - I have talked with Ed and followed his contributions for a while. I have found him to be a very civil, very talented article-writer and user in general with the ability to make serious, major contributions and retain a sense of humor. He is always willing to help new users. I myself implied doubt when it came to his experience in admin-areas. I honestly wasn't expecting his RfA to go live so soon, and I honestly would have suggested he wait a couple more months. But I trust him, and I hope he'll be sensible with the tools. Icy // ♫ 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak Support per Pedro's guideline. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Nothing wrong with him that I can see.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. A great contributor with very positive impact in the areas he frequents. I hesitated a bit based on some of the opposes, as I would like to see more experience in admin related areas. However, a review of your history shows good sense, so I'm satisfied that you will educate yourself as needed before taking any admin actions and not run off half cocked.--Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. With, admittedly, some reservations. This would be an oppose if not for your response to Dank55 below. I would have liked to see more familiarity with admin-type stuff, but I will trust you to seek out sage advice before using any of the tools. Not really concerned by response to Koji; it wasn't really that snarky, it was sort of provoked, and going thru RFA is enough of a hell that I can cut people a bit of slack. Haven't seen you that snarky with anyone anywhere before, so I'm assuming it's a one off. OK, Wehwalt's diff is #2, but I'm assuming it's a two off. --barneca (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak support Dan's oppose gives me some strong reservations. Some of the other opposes are less compelling. I have faith that this editor will not screw up many admin actions through sheer ignorance of underlying policies and I hope that s/he will learn swiftly from mistakes that do crop up. I have the utmost confidence that this editor will not be pigheaded in the face of criticism regarding those mistakes (an important precondition for learning on the job). Protonk (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak support with respect to valid opposes, I still think this candidate will be a net positive to the project, even if he does not want to use the tools very often. Regards SoWhy 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support good editor, quick student, helpful, humorous, committed. No red flags. Kingturtle (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak Support Ryan makes several interesting points, but I am not worried. Good luck! America69 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support because the user has much experience reviewing fine articles, which is something I do and I consider it important. He can learn how to do admin functions on the job. I was not swayed by oppose number 1 ("Don't be dumb" in context is not uncivil) or the response to Koji (it wasn't uncivil either, again in context). Keep in mind, he has two years experience, and an FA of his own. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Ryan makes a good point, but support because I can. Wizardman 01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I've interacted with The ed17 on the Novels Project. Perfectly good candidate for an admin. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. support. Does good article work. Posts way too much to my talk page, but who doesn't. As I said elsewhere: Editor doesn't suck. Civil and helpful, everything else fails to trump those qualities. Keeper | 76 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support The examples of "incivility" below are weak-sauce. Coarse language can be found in good-hearted and undamaging comments, and the most vicious comments can be cloaked with polite language and a smile. ed17's controvertial comments fall into the former category. AfD hero (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Looks good, on the balance. Meets my standards. I am less concerned about the graphic design disaster on this person's User Pages, than communication of ideas respectfully. Otherwise this is a perfectly good candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Myspacy feeling notwithstanding. Good responses to questions. (Quentin X (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  44. Support WP:WTHN Leujohn (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Being an admin is as easy as hell. Writing articles is tough. Since he has the latter down pat, I doubt he'll have much trouble with the former. J.delanoygabsadds 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support The only thing that matters to me is this person likely to misuse the admin tools? He comes across as a careful editor who is unlikely to jump into unfamiliar areas of adminship without preparation. I see his having admin tools as extremely unlikely to cause harm to the project. Whether or not he actively uses them or not and what areas he chooses to get involved in are irrelevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk • contribs)
  47. Support Personal experiences. SpencerT♦C 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Fit to be an admin ♣PrincessClown♥ 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I know this user fairly well, and completely trust him with admin tools. JonCatalán(Talk) 07:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support He probably will make a good administrator. Reliable Forevertalk 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I have never seen an editor so polite. This editor has all of the qualities to make a perfect admin. ₰imonKSK 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support No evidence to suggest the candidate will abuse the tools. This cult of "experience" is a nonsense. Being an administrator is not particle physics. Common sense and an even temperament will go a long way. The response to Koji is a little concerning but it was a reaction to severe provocation and I am confident it will not be an ongoing issue. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. WeakStrong oppose Based mostly on this (my response follows Sandy's, here. I don't think calling another editor "dumb" is an essential qualification in an admin. This is a civility issue, less than a month ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)With all due respect to you Wehwalt, I think you're taking that a little too personally. How would you feel if you were told you would have to wait another year to see the article that you lovingly researched, expanded, referenced, brought through FAC be showcased on the Main Page (especially when the requested date is one of the most relevant date-connections we've ever had for a TFA, Pearl Harbor day for a battleship that was bombed by the Japanese)? I personally wouldn't have had the restraint that Ed showed there plus calling an editor dumb in that situation isn't even a minor civility problem in my book. -MBK004 05:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion in question had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. It was whether to run Lazare Ponticelli on December 24, and the article had nothing to do with The ed. Would you still have lacked the same restraint, in Ed's shoes? Would you have focused on the edit, not the editor?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Oops, major mistake there on my part, I really should be going to bed instead of editing while sleepy. I still don't see this as a major issue and still believe that you are taking this a little too personally. As for restraint, that is why I tend to stay away from TFA, I don't have the heart to tell somebody to wait a year, but can block a vandal indef, go figure? -MBK004 05:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess there's a problem with communication. We never tell anyone "wait a year" at TFA/R. Almost always, there are multiple relevant dates, and really, anyone is free to nominate for any date. I should note that there are in excess of a thousand FAs that have not yet made main page, and some of those will wait considerably more than a year, sad to say. I hope I'm not being uncivil by mentioning that. I don't take things personally; I simply don't feel that Ed's jumping into a discussion throwing around comments like "dumb" to editors augurs well for a happy career as admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem with communication, a problem with my comprehension since I'm so tired. I really should have looked over that more closely before replying. That being said, I'm going to bed before I embarrass myself anymore. -MBK004 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's cool, wish everyone acted like that when they went into a discussion a little too fast. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not commenting on the oppose (I really don't want to get opposes on something as stupid as opposing opposes =]), but I did have a last reply to Wehwalt here. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not nice to put in quotation marks what I did not say, as per the first diff. And your final diff still shows you hadn't bothered to take in what I actually did say, which I had immediately made clear to you in my response here. It seems a bit hotheaded of you, and rather careless.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever it was that happened here, does anyone know of other similar incidents? I'm having a hard time interpreting this one. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - sorry, you're a great article writer but you have no contributions to show that you understand the Wikipedia administration. Looking over your Wikipedia space contributions, I see one report to AIV and participation in two MfD's - you've got no experience in AfD's or any other admin area such as WP:RFPP, WP:UAA or WP:AN. You've tagged a few pages for speedy deletion, yet you haven't even bothered to notify the original creator of the article - Beautifulstrangertv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Beautiful stranger.tv and you tagged it, but you didn't notify him. Also, that username should really have been reported to WP:UAA as a promotional account, but that didn't happen either or any attempt to discuss the username with him. This failure to notify also happened with Knackerisation (created by Chrispyknight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and One Ninty Seven (created by Brentoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), along with others that can be found by looking in his deleted contributions. What I see is no evidence that The ed17 understands or has experience in admin related areas, and the areas that he has a little experience in show that he doesn't understand the procedures well enough to fulfill them fully. Whilst I appreciate the article work that he does, I don't believe that he's ready for adminship. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, per Ryan Postlethwaite, I'd like to see more experience demonstrating broader knowledge of policies in both admin-related areas and in content writing, and maturity with respect to Wehwalt's concerns. I would be likely to Support The ed17 after he has more experience, but not yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Crap. I really want to support, and I want you (The Ed17) to know that I strongly support the net effect you have on Wikipedia. You're friendly, you're genuinely interested in other people's contributions, and you help them get where they're going. You're almost my ideal admin candidate, but ... you're currently only interested in one button, and your answer to my question indicates to me that you might hit that button at the wrong time. You've got a lot of supporters, and if you pass, I doubt that any harm will come to Wikipedia, but I'll be looking to work with you on page protection issues. If you fail, please come back to RFA soon, but at least spend a few hours studying up on the areas you're interested in first. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that this is the kindest oppose vote I have ever read in an RfA. :) No, I did not study WP:PPOL (I guess that this is obvious by the fact that you are opposing), but becuase of your concerns here, I will definitely seek out, if not you, an experienced admin to assist me with page protection if I become an admin. Thank you for your comments - if this passes, this "regretful" oppose will help me more than any support vote. With cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose You're telling me you've requested the tools for adminship only planning to use one, and you don't even understand the policy behind that one (nor did you show any intrest in studying it before the RfA)? Is this for the lulz?--Koji† 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to you, why would I take time out of my day to read WP:PPOL before I am an admin when "I'm not here to become a sysop, I'm here to have a few laughs while building an encyclopedia"? If I become an admin, then I will read it while seeking help from experienced admins like my two nominators, Dan above, Roger, or Julian.
    With regards to the "lulz" comment: No, this is not for "the lulz"...but having said that, I really don't care if this passes; in September-ish, I made the decision to stay here because I had found my love of maritime military history once more, and I wanted to improve those articles on this here encyclopedia. I guess that I am trying to say that 90–95% of my contribs won't change if I become a sysop - my love of Wikipedia is in content-building and reading, and so being a sysop would be a side job. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paragraph was a really stupid thing to say. I've slashed it and am going to read the policy now. Just how stupid did that sound? (I'm not sure if I want to know...to me, it sounded like I was a 3-year-old throwing a tantrum.) With apologies, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I am looking for a positive approach towards the use of admin tools not as something to do when you are bored. Since you specified page protection as an area where you would use the tools I would expect an understanding of protection policy at this stage. TerriersFan (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose - I really wanted to support, but some of the civility issues killed it for me. I do not like the idea of administrators characterizing other users in a negative fashion, as such basic lack of respect tends to lead to further problems later on. You are one of the better candidates that I have seen lately, so take that to heart and improve this one area (if you pass or not). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Response to Koji makes me wary. — neuro(talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose per response to Koji. Tan | 39 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. per Ryan. per Neuro. I believe one should understand the use(s) of the tool(s) in question before making a request. I would suggest trying again in 6 months, after gaining as much experience in as many areas as possible. Though I support specialist admins, you never know when you might want/need to take action outside your comfort zone/usual haunts. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Perhaps for the first time I find myself in agreement with Tan (no disrespect intended Tan).</joke> RfA is like a job interview. If you can't conduct yourself appropriately for a few days, then what chance you'd do so if promoted? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Per Ryan - issues pointed out cannot be ignored at this point in time. Perhaps sometime in the foreseeable future. Also, per Tan. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose changed to Neutral - am happy to discount the uncivil ("incivil"? "discivil"?) comment as its the only example anyone's been able to find and I'm sure the candidate has taken the message to heart after reading this RfA and won't do it again. I also don't care about the look of the userpage - seems fine to me. I am concerned about the lack of experience highlighted by Ryan Postlethwaite, and the admission that he (the candidate) didn't read to read WP:PPOL despite nominating this as a preferred area. The article contributions are impressive, the general, approach to helping others is excellent but the wikispace work is a bit lacking and in some cases incorrect. If this RFA fails and you return in a couple of months with more experience in admin-related areas and confirmation of a thorough reading of PPOL, I'd be happy to support. Euryalus (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. The answers he has given to questions worries me. While most of those are about areas he does not plan to work in, we are still giving him tools he has the potential to use in those areas. A driver may plan to stay within London but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be taught how to drive on motorways before you give him his license. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Not enough admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. A significant amount learning to be an administrator might come after you have become one and you might become proficient in various areas of adminship once you've passed this. But the problem is you can't expect to get a driver's license even if you don't know what an accelerator does (I see this is the second driving analogy). You are obviously an editor of great standing and editing experience. But I feel you should learn the work before you start the job. LeaveSleaves 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose "why would I take time out of my day to read WP:PPOL before I am an admin when "I'm not here to become a sysop, I'm here to have a few laughs while building an encyclopedia"? If I become an admin, then I will read it" What kind of an attitude is that? Nick mallory (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A: A terrible one. I should probably strike that and rewrite it... Struck. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Wehwalt. Don't like Wehwalt, but he's right. Seen too many admins resort to name-calling around here. Don't need another. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, doesn't seem to have a serious use for the admin tools and some of the answers and replies above (esp. to Koji) are frivolous. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Not much I can say that hasn't already been said. I just don't think you're mature enough when you need to be, such as here. Plus the rather telling indicator that I can't read your signature. Garden. 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with his signature? Tan | 39 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently script is an indicator of immaturity. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I partly understand your grounds for oppose, but does choice of typeface really matter that much? I can understand a loud, attention-drawing signature, but I don't find much of a problem with his. —La Pianista (T•C) 20:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, his signature means absolutely nothing to my oppose. I just use it as an indicator of maturity. But this does not constitute my oppose; it's 99.99% because of other concerns. Garden. 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough - it's trivial. But I must ask then, why did you mention it if it's of such little importance? Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not getting it. Don't see the candidate as immature. Don't see the sig as hard to read, even without cleaning my glasses. Dlohcierekim 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Is my signature hard to read- and do certain fonts really indicate immaturity? I don't think so. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There: struck. Happy? I mean, that was my opinion, everyone has one. But whatever. Garden. 23:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What? There wasn't anything wrong with Garden's !vote, except Wisdom89's comment... —macyes: bot 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak oppose I think you have done a lot of great work, and you will have the tools someday, but the maturity issues are the major reason I'm opposing. Although, I don't think six months is the appropriate time here. If you can start acting more mature, and work in more admin areas, three months would work just fine. iMatthew // talk // 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Prospective user, but too many major mistakes mentioned above. From personal experience, I think you can be an admin someday. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - Too little experience in admin areas. —macyes: bot 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per the reply to Koji. Sorry. Rami R 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Substantial contributions began less than a year ago (March 2008). Good contributions to MILHIST articles, but very little administrative work. This editor is very green, as the answers to questions reveal (e.g. to Dank). On the other hand, has anyone given a decent answer to Xenocidic's RfA question? The two I've seen in current RfAs were uninspiring to say the least. More seriously, I don't see in these answers any evidence that The ed17 will be able to restrict his use of the admin tools to the few areas where he currently expresses an interest in contributing. Geometry guy 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen good answers to Xeno's question before, and I thought that Ed's response was a decent one. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I answered the "would you block/unblock this dude..." questions becuase I thought that I had to - my choice was to answer them and have an oppose like yours (no offense intended there) or not answer them, and just say that "I don't have to answer these becuase I only want to protect pages". How would that have sounded? :) Thank you for your comments, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Oppose per macy and others citing small civility/maturity concerns. Answer to Q9 isn't great, either. GlassCobra 21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose.--intraining Jack In 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just per every opposer there's been so far, I assume? Icy // ♫ 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I should have been more clear.--intraining Jack In 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per questions and non-demonstration of policy knowledge. While the positive intent and content building are clearly there, it's not obvious to me that you are familiar enough with the relevant policies such as protection, blocking, etc. If you really don't feel you'll use the mop much, keep working on content building and let other people clean the floor. Oren0 (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We have long pointed out here that no one "needs" the admin tools, so why is this suddenly a factor in your opposition? Simply because Ed does not think he will use the mop much should not be grounds to with hold the mop from him; we have plenty of people who are "content first, housework second"-minded and still put the tools to good use when they need to. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. There's definitely a lack of policy knowledge, as pointed out by Ryan. DiverseMentality 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Unfortunately, I have the feeling that he is likely either to be inactive, or need to learn everything on the job. Admin candidates need to show some actual activity in admin-type things, so we can evaluate their judgment. DGG (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral The Myspace-y talk page issue wouldn't be a biggie on its own, but now there's the related "because I can" attitude reflected in the candidate's related comment in the Discussion section. Not the right attitude given this is a collaborative project. Townlake (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Ed and I had a productive conversation about the above on my Talk page; I am impressed with his desire to understand criticisms and indeed become an ever-better collaborator. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with the response to Koji above. If anything, Koji put up bait with the "lulz" snark and Ed deflected it nicely. Townlake (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, my oppose above is in no way a defense of Koji, whom I vehemently disagree with 99% of the time. My oppose is also not for any incivility shown in the response, although it could have been handled better. My oppose is because the candidate essentially admits he does not have admin-related experience, does not know policy like I expect an admin candidate to know, and will only learn on an ad hoc basis. I don't feel the need to justify this further and I cast no judgment on other !votes - my point with this post is to clarify what, exactly, I meant by "per response to Koji". Tan | 39 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Solid contributions in article building, but as Ryan Postlethwaite pointed out, very little work in areas where the tools are used most often. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Ryan Postlethwaite. I took a while to decide how I felt to this one, you have a solid contribution history and have done a great job of content creation. However, RfA is not about whether or not you have been a solid content creator, but rather whether or not the tools would help you contribute. Having said that, your lack of edits in the areas where I feel admins are most needed (WP:AIV, C:CSD, WP:RPP to name a few) you have not had much experience in. Though I see you as a great contributor to the project, I do not feel that you need the tools at this time. --Terrillja talk 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I wanted to support this nomination, ed17 is a good editor, but Ryan's oppose is very convincing. — Realist2 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral You need a little more expierence in admin related areas, per Ryan Postlethwaite's oppose above. Also, you could do with avoiding calling other editors "dumb" as per Wehwait's above diff. But this is less of an issue than the issues brought up by Ryan. Neutral because you have a lot of good edits, and I don't feel comfortable opposing. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I don't see an obvious major negative in your becoming an admin. That would normally mean I'd support, but arguments above (particularly Ryan Postlethwaite's) sway me away from that. //roux   22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I have the same feeling as most of these neutrals. iMatthew // talk // 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Solid Neutral leaning toward support-but I am SOLID!- Edits mentioned by User:Wehwalt and User:Ryan Postlethwaite have destroyed my support but I like the user myself... I'm going to stay right here. K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral – I've seen you around doing some very nice article work, but the opposition from Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) is very convincing. You do need more experience in admin and policy-related areas to prove that you understand those areas you will be dealing with as an administrator. You'll be a mess without it. Chin up, and work at it. — RyanCross (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per User:Wehwalt. One incident of incivility is too many in my book, but this one was on the more minor end of the scale, so opposing just over that would seem excessive. No other real problems, so I encourage the user to come back in a few months time if this nom is not successful. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  10. Neutral - I don't know where to bounce back! One part of me says to support per La Pianista, Chamal N, and OllieFury, while the other part of me says to oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. Sorry Ed; I respect you, and I really expected to support when I first saw this RfA, but Ryan's oppose whacked the crud out of a lot of my support. --Dylan620 (Contribs · Sign!) 11:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral The candidate does have a small content building effort in resume so I should support the candidate but it seems the candidate is not much inclined to use mop frequently and has to learn when to use. I would support when the candidate appears ready. I would also suggest that the candidate try nominating stuff to sections which need admin approvals - example: WP:ITN, more DYKs and little more AfDs. This will help the candidate in further understanding where admin action is needed. --GPPande 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. Response to Koji, while understandable, is not what I'd like to see in an admin. The fact that you understood your mistake is positive, but I can no longer support. Sorry! DARTH PANDAduel 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral I can't vote support or oppose. Alio The Fool 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, thanks for that enlightening explanation of what "neutral" means. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon now, was that snide remark really necessary? Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think it would have been useful for Alio to provide a rationale for his !vote. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is true, it's not an excuse to badger him with sarcastic remarks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, people, let's try to keep the drama down low. —La Pianista (T•C) 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither is it an excuse for you to abuse the English language by claiming that a simple observation, sarcastic or otherwise, is "badgering". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. True Neutral - I can't make a decision either way. Ed has good contributions and has received good feedback (amongst some of the not-so-good feedback). My only critique is the lack of participation in the "behind-the-scenes" aspect of WP as also pointed out by Ryan Postlethwaite and Dank55. If this RfA fails (which I doubt) I would definitely support Ed in a future RfA. Good luck! —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I thought I would support when coming to this RfA, but I was disappointed to see what has come up here. My suggestion would be to work as hard as you can for the next few months, improve your demeanor and attitude, and try again. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral. As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer supporting any candidates with more than 3500 edits. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as a "support" if this RfA enters the discretionary range. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 16:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RfAs are stressful enough at the best of times, without being turned into platforms for protest. That's inconsiderate, and unfair to the candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral - Originally a weak oppose per the PPOL comment and the points Ryan made about correct application of policy and lack of experience in some areas. But afetr thinking about it for a couple of days I'm confident the candidate would address these issues pretty fast, either this time or in time for a subsequent RfA within a month or two. I'm also impressed with the attitude displayed on their user talk page as this RfA has progressed. Changing to neutral isn't likely to affect the result, but if this fails and there's some attention to XfD and the like in the next month or so, I'll happily support. Euryalus (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_ed17&oldid=1147975766"