Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ec5618


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

Ec5618
Final (15/11/5) ending 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

– My first edit was near the end of 2003, and I have made many more since. I know the rules, I know some people. And I'd like to be able to edit protected pages/templates. Ec5618 18:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. I accept.

Support
 * 1) Support - I do not know this user, but I cannot think of any reason to oppose. Latinus 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ec5618 has been around here a long time. He or she is not likely to abuse privileges. --Mb1000 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support At least the guy's honest!!! BlueGoose 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support - my interactions with Ec have been excellent; he's a great guy. I have been impressed in his willingness to enter conversation with thoroughly unpleasant people and remain civil.  I've considered nominatin him for adminship before.  I see no reason to believe tht he would abuse the admin tools.  Guettarda 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support They just don't get any more neutral than Ec5618. He's certainly earned it. FeloniousMonk 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support The reversions are unusual and being taken out of context, IMHO. Ec is a great editor, with sense and respect for others. I concur absolutely with Guettarda about his ability to remain civil when faced with truly unpleasant, not to say obnoxious, people. They don't come any better than Ec. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support this guy knows what he's talking bout. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 08:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support EC has what it takes to be a good Admin. Jim62sch 09:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Yea you seem dedicated and a frequent "wiki". good luck User:Ncrown23334
 * 7) Support EC has appeared (mostly) cool and levelheaded in the midst of possibly infuriating encounters with people who edit with strongly held opinions, perseverance, and little/no appropriate references. Dan Watts 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I'd trust him as an admin.; I avoid controversial pages partly because I don't think that I'd behave as well as Ec5618. --Phronima 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support excellent credentials Mjal 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]
 * 10) Strong support! as per this discussion. -- M @  th  wiz  2020  22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I've seen Ec around on some of the most controversial pages and he manages to maintain NPOV; I trust him to use the admin tools fairly and responsibly.    &hArr;    | | &oplus; &perp; (t-c-e) 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Nominee has given what I feel to be well-thought out answers to the objections raised (in particular per Mathwiz2020 above), has an extensive talk page with good interactions and has been around a while in a lot of spaces.  He was good-humored and accepting of the block here.  From what I can tell, he spends a lot of time formatting and would like to do so in protected pages as well.  This is slightly unusual, as most "sole reason" nominees tend to imply that they want to salt the ground of deleted non-notable articles with the blood of vandals, but is a perfectly valid reason to desire adminship. - BanyanTree 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, very well-considered answers on this page. I don't know what one can do about the adminship paradox that integrity in standing up to POV warriors is just what an admin needs, but it will tend to garner a candidate more opposition than support ("more" in the sense that each Oppose "weighs" a lot more than each Support). Nothing, other than vote support in such cases, I guess. (And extra points for the selfnom!) Bishonen | talk 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC). OK, the user's defence of Carnildo's indefinite blocks has changed my opinion. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC).
 * 1) Support Would make a good editor. Athough he made a few mistakes in the past, this can easily be rectified. No one is a perfect user of Wikipedia! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  13:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - The nominee refers to the 3RR below. That's a concern, but the reverting isn't isolated. Nominee changed another user's talk page to contain links to an archive, was reverted by the user in question , and then reverted the user's talk page to contain the archive links again . Yes, you are "permitted to voice concerns" about another user, but you don't do it by getting into revert wars. I'm concerned about the combative attitude expressed in these revert episodes, and as yet no acceptance of any fault. Advice: modify your behavior, accept your role in these events, and try again in a few months. --Durin 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - the 3RR block is too recent for me, especially where one of the major motivations for seeking adminship is to be able to "edit protected pages". (ESkog)(Talk) 20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) *Please see below. -- Ec5618 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per ESkog. -- Nacon Kantari  e |t||c|m 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose. How can anyone put I'd like to be able to edit protected pages on their RFA!?! William M. Connolley 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC). Please see below. -- Ec5618 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC) OK, I'm prepared to believe that I've misinterpreted you; however (and please don't think that I'm making up a whole series of excuses) I find your edits to Bensaccount talk page unacceptable, as per Durin. I know no-one *owns* their own pages, but effectively they have special priviledges there: repeatedly re-inserting stuff is impolite. William M. Connolley 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC). Changing to Neutral. William M. Connolley 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 1) Oppose, recent 3RR block and bizarre approach to editing protected pages, per WMC. -Splash talk 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I apologize. This shouldn't be a joking matter.  BlueGoose 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on answers, nominee does not understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or the fact that we respect all dialects of English on Wikipedia. BlueGoose 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)  Moved vote to neutral.  BlueGoose 07:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see below. -- Ec5618 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I don't feel that one should request adminship to edit protected articles. Avriette 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why not? It's a fairly common request - people who want to make corrections to the front page or to DYK or things like that.  "Editing protected pages" doesn't mean "revert a page back to my preferred version after it has been locked because of an edit war".  It's actually a very legitimate request.  Guettarda 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I see an edit war which was childish and your behavior on that page where somebody complained about bullying is close to bullying. If a user is that distressed that he makes a poll then you shouldn't kick him when he is down, since it is not the kind of behavior you want see for an administrator. Dr Debug 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that the author of the petition in question has been blocked 4 times from contributing to Wikipedia for personal attacks alone . Ec5618 acted professionally and responsibly toward that editor in all instances. FeloniousMonk 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The contents of User:Benapgar/Bullying and the edit history is totally unacceptable behavior, because it shows you and Ec5618 ganging upon Benapar and the history of Ec5618 shows more aggression towards this user. I'm sorry but you two have played a major role in the role which lead to the petition and what drove him to get mad at the two of you.
 * From the page: "Perhaps you get bullied, because people don't like your attitude. Perhaps you get bullied, because people don't like your attitude. Note that I didn't attack you in my previous post" That's extreme verbal aggression from Ec5618 and the whole page is very aggresive. Dr Debug 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I sincerely question the level of awareness of the history of Benapgar, his behaviour on various sites, his abusive nature, and the motives behind his petition. It might be a good idea to look into said behaviour before casting aspersions at EC and others. Additionally, citing one purportedly negative instance, and ignoring the hundreds of positive instances of EC's involvement on Wikipedia seems just a tad unfair and antithetical to what one guesses is the spirit behind the umbrage taken at what has been (mis)perceived to be kicking "him when he is down".  In essense there is a seeming willingness to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Jim62sch 09:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't like what I saw on the page and it wasn't one-sided. Also he seems to have the habit of going around requesting everybody to change their opinion if they voted against him. Dr Debug 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What page and he who? Ambiguity bites. Jim62sch 01:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Page as listed above: User:Benapgar/Bullying. He as in EC. Then there are all the other opposes which are about a variety of recent subjects as well. Is there still something not clear about Opposing the RfA of your friend? Dr Debug 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose Ben can take heart that someone feels pity for him, but then I suppose everyone has at least one apologist. Jim62sch 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's not carry this on. Dr Debug has made up his mind, as is his right. Yes, Bensaccount is difficult, and his behaviour at least as uncivil as mine, but I should have let it go, or have sought arbitration. I know now that Bensaccount would never have become an Administrator, and that is a comforting though at least. -- Ec5618 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Ec meant Benapgar here, not Bensaccount. FeloniousMonk 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, at least for now. The editor reinserted uncited challenged material, despite the fact that the request for a citation regarding the challenged material was made over a month ago (after which the challenged material was removed for lack of a citation and a small revert war ensued) and that the issue has been through an RfC.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to talk FeloniousMonk 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To see the discussion, click here --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've seen Durin around RfA enough to learn to trust his comments, and I agree with him now completely. -- M @  th  wiz  2020  23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (changed to support)
 * Well I'd certainly trust someone who states that they will not work on "Any other "low hanging fruit" type of work; there are plenty of people to do this kind of work." There are the masters and there are the serfs?  Please. Jim62sch 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I oppose this candidacy for Adminship. An immature tendency towards escalation of conflict rather than a more mature approach of calming a dispute tells of a personality that very quickly becomes vested in his own point of view. Even on matters (as documented by Durin) in which he has no other purpose other than to have "his" POV prevail. C'mon back after a couple of months of demonstrated more mature behavior. You have much to contribute to this project and you should do so with a greater camaraderie with your fellow Wikipedians. I'm confident that you will become an Admin, (with my support) within the next several months if you deal with some of the criticism here in a constructive way. I commend your courage in self-nominating, always it seems a risky approach towards adminship. hydnjo talk 05:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Being blocked recently for 3RR violation is a very black mark.--Jusjih 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Good editor, but worried about how he handles disputes. Ashibaka tock 03:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Handling disputes is a very integral part of being an administrator. Unfortunately, we have seen in the past few weeks how administrators who get emotional in their enforcement roles can escalate the situation even further.  Thus, I must oppose.  BlueGoose 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Not sure yet. --M e rovingian { T C E } 06:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Switched from oppose; still considering William M. Connolley 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 3) Neutral. Good editor, but block too recent.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) 'Neutral Comments are strange. Pschemp | Talk 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Really want to support, as I think his intentions are good, but getting into edit wars is not clever.  I won't oppose, though, as I think he acted in good faith, but with poor judgement.  Proto t c 12:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Will move to support or oppose by the close of voting. BlueGoose 07:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * Perhaps I should clarify my position, as it seems a lot of my statement below is being taken out of context. I desire to be an Admin. I understand that Adminship is 'no big deal', so I didn't spend days preparing a written statement, and it seems I being penalised for that. I desire to be an admin, and part of that is the ability to edit protected pages. See for example Template:Protected, where I was forced to impose on another editor's time to make a simple formatting change. I do not desire to edit protected pages haphazardly, and firmly believe that all such edits must be discussed and easily reversible.
 * I did not mean to imply, below, that I find Wikipedia too large, or that I would like to standardise spelling. In fact, I find it boggles the mind, and I marvelled at the fact that standardised spelling was impossible (and undesirable, as this is an international project). However, at times, the sheer size of the project is frustrating, as it seems impossible to keep up with policy, software changes, new editors, vandalism, etc.
 * Yes, I was recently blocked. See User talk:Ec5618/Block where I have previously tried to explain the matter. The whole thing was silly, and quite a learning experience. As can be read below, I plan to block people who violate 3RR, as I find it one of the more reasonable rules.
 * The edits Durin refers to are true but one sidedly portrayed. I objected to a user's behaviour (and use of offensive language), at which point this user, Bensaccount, blanked his Talk page. Perhaps I was wrong to pursue the matter in this way, but I did not agree with him trying to give of the impression that he had no history. Honestly, I itched to block this person for incivility, though in retrospect I know I wouldn't have and shouldn't have.
 * Frankly, I am surprised by the way in which my comments are taken out of context by the majority of voters above. It seems that any of them could have asked for clarification before voting. Yes, my statement is a bit vague, but please assume good faith. This is not a joke, thank you. -- Ec5618 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 86% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See Ec5618's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.



Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * Mainly, I like to stroll, and help out where I can. I like to fix formatting, for example, which hardly requires Adminship. Still, I've recently begun to encounter issues in which Adminship would help me to solve problems directly, instead of having to continually ask others for help. Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is one example.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * None really come to mind. I've been active at intelligent design, and related articles, but my edits there are no such much impressive per see as they were repetitive. I like templates, and organising things. I've tried to clean up WP:BUG recently, for example, and am trying to make sense of the Reference Desk.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * Bensaccount and Benapgar were both editors of the intelligent design articles, and were quite unwilling to accept community consensus. The later has even taken the regular editors of that article to mock-court: User:Benapgar/Bullying, and it appears I've been mentioned on wikipediareview.
 * When I edited Template:User Aspie, I encountered firm resistance, and was eventually blocked for 3RR violation. See User talk:Ec5618/Block.
 * More recently I hit a wall with Philwelch, an Admin who edited a protected template, against the wishes of the other contributors to that template. He then simply refused to talk to me, asked me to never contact him again, and refused to revert his changes. I had to ask for help at the Administrators noticeboard.
 * Stress can get to me, and I probably respond to certain people when I shouldn't. Still, I don't like defamation at all, which seems to get me every time.


 * Addendum: I also greatly dislike editors who whitewash their past, for example by removing criticism from their Talk page. A user's Talk page is not strictly theirs, and should contain hints of a user's history -- Ec5618 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. When would you use &#123;{test3}}/&#123;{test4}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * To be honest, I can't imagine using any of these templates. While I wouldn't mind being alerted to vandalism, and would be willing to block an editor eventually, I imagine I'll always use a personalised message, detailing, perhaps, some obvious missteps. I will block a person for 3RR, as I find it to be a fair and elegant system. Any editor must be aware that ve is toeing a line when he reverts too often. In my book, any editor that reverts an article more than three times, especially when consensus is against ver, should be banned. The editor can cool down, and realise that the world can survive without this crucial edit.
 * 5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * If I were aware of the reversions as they happened, I would warn the editor, referring to 3RR. But if an editor specifically reverts 'as often as possible', I will block that person, even if strictly speaking no violation occurred.
 * 6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * In my experience, there are a lot of nonnotable people in this world. Nevertheless, I don't think there's any need for me to delete articles about such people, personally. I will delete a specific redirect I accidentally created a while ago when I mistyped.
 * 7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
 * When I first came to Wikipedia other editors could not discern my personal beliefs regarding creationism. I prided myself on NPOV, in everything. More recently, my personal feelings became more clear, when I became disgusted with what I still perceive to be blatant lies told by 'creation science' proponents and intelligent design proponents. Surprisingly, I have found that it is possible to maintain NPOV when others know your stance.
 * No editor that turns away from Wikipedia because ve feels ver voice is unheard, will help spread good word of mouth about Wikipedia. NPOV is the only way in which we can make sure the reputation of Wikipedia grows.
 * 8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
 * Its size. There are thousands of articles, categories, templates and users. To mentally build a clear picture of Wikipedia is impossible. Have you seen the list of lists related to the presidents of the U.S.?
 * Maintaining uniformity in templates, in wording, or in spelling is impossible.


 * 9. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)? H e rmione1980 00:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are any number of reasons for another Admin to revert my changes. I suppose it would depend on the issue. With admin powers comes the possibility that I might inadvertently break something. If I edit a template, even with consensus on the Talk page, it is possible that an unforeseen consequence must be rectified by another editor.
 * I don't imagine blocking people often, nor deleting content personally. I may consider (semi-)protecting articles and templates (though for one I can think of no instance in the past in which I had wanted to do so, and for another I oppose overprotection), but I would not object to another editor removing such protection. I imagine that an Admin who removes valid blocks is not doing verself a favour.
 * I mainly plan to continue editing in the same way I do now, and on occasion editing protected pages directly, instead of through proxy. If an editor were to revert such an edit, I would be extremely careful about reverting (it may be necessary when the original reversion breaks something related), and would Talk to the editor in question. -- Ec5618 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.