Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ebikeguy


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Ebikeguy
'''Final (6/14/9); ended 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC) - Withdrawn by the candidate. - 28bytes (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Ebikeguy has been contributing to the project for almost 5 years, and through the interaction we have had for the last three years editing articles related to all kind of electric vehicles he always has shown knowledge of Wikipedia policies and above all, when facing conflicts he maintains a relaxed and non confrontational attitude, always trying to resolve conflict in a respectful manner and assuming good faith, and requesting mediation when necessary. Also notice at his edit count page that he does a very diverse work in the project, from creating content, removing vandalism, and participating in discussions, and always being quite polite when addressing editors in their talk pages. I believe Wikipedia does not have many veteran editors with such personal qualities.--Mariordo (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored that a Wikipedian of Mariordo's stature would nominate me for adminship, and I humbly accept the nomination. I do recognize that my edit count is somewhat lower than many other admin candidates, but I think that my years of editing have given me a good understanding of what is required and expected from an admin.  That said, if consensus indicates that I need more editing experience before I am qualified to be an admin, I will accept this judgment and work to gain experience in the areas indicated.  Ebikeguy (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WITHDRAWING Myself From Consideration: In light of the excellent feedback received through this RfA, I am withdrawing myself from consideration for adminship at this point. I will work to strengthen the areas pointed out as my current weaknesses, and if I am so inspired, I will request adminship again once my resume is up to snuff. Thanks for all the kind words expressed in the "Support," "Oppose" and "Neutral" areas. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I have been spending time participating in AfD discussions, so I would be inclined to close them when appropriate as as admin. A large percentage of my edits these days involve reverting vandalism, and I would use admin powers to block persistent spammers and other vandals.  I am also interested in the Speedy Deletion process.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I enjoyed my role in this RfC regarding the Chevrolet Vega page. I found the article through following the edits of a "virtual" friend, and saw a conflict brewing.  A passionate, highly-knowledgeable editor who had been the driving force behind most of the language and photos in the article had disagreements with others who wanted to edit the article such that it presented what they felt was a more balanced presentation of the car's history.  When an admin suggested that an RfC on the subject would be appropriate, I started one and monitored it throughout the process.  When an involved editor was blocked, I requested that the RfC be held open to allow him time to comment after his block ended.  Throughout the process, I put forth my best effort at being neutral, fair and relaxed throughout the ensuing discussions.  When things began to get heated, I tried to be a calming force.  Overall, I thought the process went very well.


 * I am also proud of the work I did on Plug-in hybrid which ultimately may have helped it become a featured article, as well as the vandalism protection I did on that article on its big day.


 * I do enjoy the work I do reverting vandalism. I think it is important work that makes Wikipedia the wonderful place it is.


 * Finally, I am proud of the work I do to rescue worthy articles, such as Blue Cruise and Kogswell Cycles.


 * 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: Yes, absolutely.  Abrasive, antagonistic editors make me mad, but I try to avoid allowing my anger to flow into the related talk page discussions.  My biggest Wikihero is Gogo Dodo.  He/she gets flamed ferociously on a regular basis, but he/she always remains calm, polite, helpful and informative.  I strive to emulate his/her editing style.  One way I achieve this goal is to ALWAYS take a break from a discussion when I get riled up.  These things can always wait until the next morning, and my points will inevitably be more persuasive if I wait until I am calm before writing them down.


 * Another pet peeve of mine is the "Tyranny of the Majority," when the opinion of the majority of editors gets published even when it is wrong. I have seen this happen on a few occasions when the "Automobile Crowd" faces of against the "Environmental Crowd" regarding articles on alternative vehicles.  Since there seem to be more editors interested in cars then there are editors interested in the environment, the gear heads tend to get their way in disagreements with the treehuggers.  I have been on the losing side of those battles, and it is frustrating, but one must ultimately take these defeats with grace.  Sometimes, good things come from such experiences, such as the formation of the Green vehicle task force which provides a means of uniting editors who are interested in alternative vehicles and giving them a forum in which to communicate their concerns.


 * Additional question from Salvio giuliano
 * 4. What would your reaction be if, while doing WP:NPP as an admin, you were to stumble upon the following articles:, , and ?
 * A:


 * Additional question from TCO
 * 5. Please name the article to which you did most content creation in the last half of 2010. Please also describe the aspects of what you did.  (I'm interested both in the content of your answer and in seeing how you think in terms of making a structured synthesized response to a question like this.)  Thanks in advance...even if I don't end up supporting.  Go Wiki!
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for Ebikeguy:
 * Edit summary usage for Ebikeguy can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Stats are on the talk page. Logan Talk Contributions 22:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As per my nomination.--Mariordo (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support While Logan makes a very convincing argument, candidate does participate in AFDs frequently. I dont see NAC closures as being required to show knowledge of deletion policy.  Also, I am impressed with how the candidate handled this RFC and his proposed closing rationale. Moving to neutral --v/r - TP 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * x2Support - Candidate seems pretty well qualified to me.  maucho  eagle   ( c ) 22:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Was this meant to be indented?    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 23:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, see this edit. I also changed "What" to "Was" in your question, I hope you don't mind.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't mind at all. That's what I get for not having my coffee yet.  :)     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 02:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd give moral support based on experiance. One word of advice, don't commit to thing you don't normally do if you wish to succeed in the future.  –BuickCenturyDriver 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Too hell with random edit countitis checkboxing opposes. Ebikeguy demonstrates a consistent and high level of clue throughout all his work here. No non-admin closures? OH NOES!.. NACs are absurdly easy, whats important is inteligent !voting which Ebikeguy clearly had a record for. jorgenev 03:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Good knowledge of Wikipedia policies, good conflict resolution skills, and diverse experience in the project. Johnfos (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm sure you'd do fine.  Swarm   X 09:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with Jorgenev, basically. I'd trust him over some of the admins I've run into and he makes good points about the tyranny of the majority, which is a real issue. Bottom line: this should be conditional on someone's intelligence, temperament, and judgment, not number of "non-admin closures" or other piddling statistics. Mistakes happen. If the person admits to them and tries to avoid making them in the future, what's the problem? I'm more interested in the spirit of the person than whether they've broken their spine trying to please the powers that be. That said, I understand concerns like commenting on a closed AfD, but that seems minor compared to the many good points. –  anna  12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose This editor seems very level-headed and good in disputes. However, I do not believe that he demonstrates his need for the administrator tools.  Looking at his answer to Question 1, he says that he wants to "close [AfD discussions] when appropriate as as admin," but I don't see any NAC closures in his contribution.  He also says that he "would use admin powers to block persistent spammers and other vandals;" he doesn't have rollback/has used Huggle to revert vandalism (only using Twinkle), and, according to his edit stats, he has made 4 or fewer edits to AIV.  I could not trust an administrator to block vandals if they have virtually no experience with rollback/AIV.  Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, he states that he is "also interested in the Speedy Deletion process."  The last CSD nominations I see in his contributions are from way back in the beginning of April, where, among them, he nominated a school for A7, which was quickly removed by an uninvolved editor since A7 does not apply to schools. Thus, I see a candidate who clearly wants to work in administrative areas but has virtually no experience in them as a non-admin.  I would recommend gaining more experience in administrator-related areas and coming back in six months with a better resumé, for the lack of a better word. Logan Talk Contributions 22:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems that Salvio literally just gave him rollback with the summary "Trusted user." Logan Talk Contributions 22:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not meant to undermine your oppose; if Ebikeguy had requested rollback on WP:PERM/R I would have granted it, because he seems to know what he does and could use it, since he's fighting vandalism; so, while I was checking his 'tribs to cast a !vote, I gave him this flag. The summary "trusted user" was automatically added, since I used a nifty tool. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I rarely use rollback and never use huggle... simply put, they're unnecessary for most counter-vandalism work. As for AIV, it's not exactly rocket science.  Catfish  Jim  (ex-soapdish)  11:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) See above, EBE123  talkContribs 22:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read this? Or do you just like increasing your edit count with votes that don't contribute anything new to this discussion? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read your suggestion (Fechcomms) and while I'm uninvolved, perhaps your language there was a bit too harsh. Maybe suggest to read it, and perhaps don't jump to conclusions, by assuming that he is participating in AfD just to show active activity. Thank you, General Rommel (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per Logan, except that I rarely oppose because of "bad" deletion requests, I figure that people will learn..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I am not comfortable with the candidate's lack of mainspace experience, along with the low level of activity over a sustained period of time.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 23:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per the fact that the candidate really doesn't have any use for sysop tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Sorry, but you don't seem to have a high level of experience in the areas you have stated a desire to work in. Your answer to Q1 was also too weak for my taste.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) There's simply no way that anyone can have the breadth of experience needed to be an effective and responsive administrator in only 2,000 edits. Not even 1,000 edits to the mainspace, and less than 200 to projectspace and projecttalkspace combined. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose User is not yet quite ready for adminship, may I suggest rollback? -posted using TwinkleJapanese Sysop! (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User has only five edits, including this one, and is currently blocked.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Simply not enough edits to demonstrate that they are ready for the mop IMHO. I also agree with Logan 100%. Not now but perhaps in the future ;)-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 03:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, would like to see some additional experience, both in breadth and in depth. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose While I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong based on the edit count, reviewing this editor's contributions there is just not enough activity in any of the admin areas where this candidate wants to work. Judging by the number of user talk page notices of CSD Tagging, they have only tagged in the low single digits, and without more, that really isn't enough to demonstrate competence. Likewise on the low number of AIV reports. As for AfD, there are more contributions, but even ignoring the NAC issue, I don't see enough there to really demonstrate an understanding of process, not to mention Articles_for_deletion/Linux_XP with a merge being added days after the close. Monty  845  05:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite surprised that no one reverted that edit, but that has now been fixed.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 06:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and low levels of activity. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose As per White Shadows.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  08:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - This is the ideal Mr  Nice Guy  who  should be the backbone of our corps of admins. Unfortunately the practical  experience is not broad enough  and not  numerically  suffficient  to  draw any  conclusions as to  how he would use the tools and re/act  when the going  gets hot. Just  doesn't match  all the metrics on  my checklist. When he does, he can be sure of my  support. Note that  no  candidate has succeeded with  less than 3,000 edits since 2009, and that  one had over one million  edits cross-Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose – very low edit count. I wouldn't mind of you edit 2,082 in two months, but, to rack up that many edits over 4 years is simply too dispersed. I value your contributions very much, but you need to raise your edit so we could better judge your character and commitment for the mop. I would like the nominator and the nominated to withdraw this RfA, to save from future opposes. Sp33dyphil  Vote! 12:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Seems I !voted early. I didn't think it was necessary to look at his edit count.  Generally ECs are higher than 2K on RFAs.  I dont see 2K edits as enough to oppose and my rationale is still true above in the support, but I simply don't think editor has enough experience yet to have community trust with the tools and it is enough to move me to neutral.--v/r - TP 22:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral While I can not support at this time, based on the emerging consensus, I also can not oppose, based on the strong and sensibly mature statement made upon acceptance, and your undeniably positive tenure within the community. My76Strat  talk  02:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Want to oppose due to lack of activity, but disagree entirely with Logan's oppose, as we should be discouraging NACs. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NACs are fine in uncontroversial situations. This user hasn't performed any, from what I can tell.  Logan Talk Contributions 07:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Maybe the answer to Q1 could have been a little better, but I cannot see any other real problems, so I'll stay neutral for now. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 06:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral While saying 'too soon' seems a bit odd for someone who's been here a bit longer than me, but getting a bit more breadth in the standard admin areas would be beneficial. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 07:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I agree with most points by both supporters and opposers, and I'm waiting on the candidate responses to the questions. Actually, if I may, I would like to see a couple of extra questions presented by the opposers, if anything to help the candidate have a clearer perspective of the matter for the future - frankie (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - You're on the right track, but you mention taking part in CSD and blocking vandals. However, you have 4 or fewer AIV reports, so I cannot really determine how you would use the block tool. An admin will hopefully review your CSD nominations. However, you also mentioned that your main activity will be AFD, so I am not as worried. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. This is someone I'm sure I will support at some point - I'm just not sure this is that point yet. What work I've seen looks great, but I just don't think I'm able to see enough of it and enough variety at the moment to be sure. But then, I really don't want to oppose on edit count - arrgh, this really is a "don't know" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral Support, but landing here due to the lack of contribs mentioned above. Just would like to see more activity before pushing the buttons on this. — Ched :  ?  12:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.