Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3

Edit count
run at Wed Jan 14 22:43:49 2009 GMT

Category: 1 Mainspace 4607 MediaWiki talk: 5 Talk: 349 Template talk: 314 Template: 11 User talk: 3843 User: 686 Wikipedia talk: 100 Wikipedia: 2827 avg edits per page 2.10 earliest 17:26, 10 August 2005 number of unique pages 6075 total 12743 2005/8 2   2005/9  0   2005/10  0   2005/11  0   2005/12  0   2006/1  2   2006/2  0   2006/3  0   2006/4  0   2006/5  2   2006/6  1   2006/7  0   2006/8  0   2006/9  0   2006/10  3   2006/11  0   2006/12  0   2007/1  5   2007/2  7   2007/3  8   2007/4  17   2007/5  0   2007/6  4   2007/7  4   2007/8  0   2007/9  0   2007/10  4   2007/11  6   2007/12  4   2008/1  69   2008/2  40   2008/3  25   2008/4  602   2008/5  1240   2008/6  2171   2008/7  1888   2008/8  1295   2008/9  855   2008/10  1479   2008/11  1123   2008/12  1321   2009/1  566

Mainspace 42 Pontius Pilate's wife 31 List of unusual deaths 27 Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust 15 Victor DelCampo 15 Vienna Fingers 14 Dair Mar Elia 13 Rogers Orchards 13 Robert La Tourneaux 12 Zombie! vs. Mardi Gras 12 John Koethe 12 John Stewart Socha 12 List of lost films 12 Roujin Z 12 Richard the Second 12 2008 University of Central Arkansas shootings Talk: 44 Pontius Pilate's wife 26 Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust 12 Vienna Fingers 4 Refik Halili 3 CherryPal 3 Goodbye, 20th Century! 3 Man Without a Gun 3 Paul DeSimone 3 Danielle Fountain 3 The Reverb Syndicate 3 Ryan Lesser 2 Rogers Orchards 2 Mike Tompkins 2 Richard the Second 2 Great Divide Brewing Company MediaWiki talk: 5 Spam-whitelist Template: 4 OrsonWelles 2 WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles newly tagged as LGBT Template talk: 314 Did you know User: 512 Ecoleetage 65 GlassCobra/Editor for deletion 23 Ecoleetage/CSD tags 15 Ecoleetage/Richard Sumner 7 RMHED/Sandbox2 3 Narutolovehinata5/Page nursery/No.2 3 Garden/WikiCup/Contestants 3 Ecoleetage/Archive2 3 RMHED/Sandbox 3 Ecoleetage/monobook.js 2 Diligent Terrier/Users against Basketball110 retiring 2 PaulCurleyBostonCollege User talk: 332 Ecoleetage 135 Master of Puppets 117 Keeper76 64 Pastordavid 60 Tanthalas39 45 Ironholds 45 Doug 42 S. Dean Jameson 40 Bobamnertiopsis 39 Editorofthewiki 37 Dr. Blofeld 37 Star Mississippi 35 Basketball110/Alternate page 34 Narutolovehinata5 32 Adamfinmo Wikipedia: 226 Usernames for administrator attention 147 List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs 55 Administrator intervention against vandalism 41 WikiProject Films/Spotlight 40 Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 2 27 Wikiquette alerts 25 Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3 24 Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 3 24 WikiProject Agriculture 16 WikiProject Bodybuilding 16 WikiProject African diaspora 14 Articles for deletion/Bruce McAbee 13 Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 25 12 Requests for adminship/Eastlaw 11 Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19 Wikipedia talk: 33 WikiProject Films/Coordinators 19 Requests for adminship 8 WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group 4 WikiProject Spam 4 Requests for adminship/Karanacs 3 WikiProject LGBT studies 3 Did you know 3 Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 3 Meetup/NYC/August 2008 2 Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Proposed decision 2 WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador 2 WikiProject Freemasonry 2 User talk page 2 WikiProject Agriculture 2 WikiProject Films

Edit Count retrieved using Wannabe Kate's editcounter by RMHED

Scrolling boxes

 * I think I remember seeing somewhere that those scrolling box things cause WP:ACCESS problems. I just hate them 'cause they look so very Geocities. Rmv them? Just a thought. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The guideline is at MOS:SCROLL. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, guideline fits here. I decided to be bold and change it to hide/show boxes. Regards  So Why  22:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit stats
Not yet posted. ??? --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

's oppose

 * 1) Very Strong Oppose This user is definitely a dedicated fellow, and an experienced contributor who is able to provide some of the best work on Wikipedia. Sadly, he is also a dedicated wikistalker, and an experienced double-crosser who is able to provide some of the best crocodile tears on Wikipedia. I used to support this user in the past, but only when I've started to witness some of his actions did I start to have doubts on his character. Those doubts soon became certainties, even with Eco's remarkable manipulation skills, which enable him to control or revert the opinion that others may have on him. Eco appears to be an incredibly friendly user. However, that can change very fast. Disagreeing with Eco is guaranteed to result in confrontation and tireless chasing/bashing (this of course happens before Eco realises that such behavior may prevent a successful RfA and then suddenly issues a dramatic apology, shows regret and vows sincere wishes to be friends with his foe). His appraisal hunger and power hunger is like I've never seen before, with an almost obsessive desire for adminship. To meet this objective, Eco will try to melt your heart with a complete lack of sincerity. Yes, I used to support this user before, but luckily I've seen enough from him and I'm just not a fool anymore. Trust and character are the topmost requirements for adminship, and when it comes to Eco, I have no doubts where he stands in terms of these two. Hús  ö  nd  19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch. — Realist  2  19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely there must be a long line of diffs to support such a stance that borders on a personal attack. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes there is. I may take a few hours this week to scavenge all of the material. There's plenty of it, and there's still plenty of time. Hús  ö  nd  20:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from Eco See Q7 above in regard to my last on-Wiki encounter with Husond. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That answer was heartfelt. Such description of own compassion, it almost made me cry. Hús  ö  nd  20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is bordering very, very close to a full-blown personal attack. Without any diffs to back this up, and with the obvious sarcasm, vituperation, and spite on display, I think this should be struck. Tan   &#124;   39  20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it shouldn't. Last time I checked, censorship still did not exist on Wikipedia. Hús  ö  nd  20:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure it does - of course, that depends on what you consider censorship. We remove vandalism. We remove BLP violations. We remove unsourced claims. And, more to the point, we routinely remove personal attacks, especially those with no evidence. Tan   &#124;   39  20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a very significant difference between there being no evidence, and there being no evidence yet provided. Diffs have been asked for, and if they're not forthcoming, then is the time to call for censorship. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting view. But I can't recall any policy stating that diffs decide censorship. Nor can I see any vandalism or BLP around. Hús  ö  nd  20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I review the comments made in this RfA and at your failed RfB and feel that WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL act as guidelines for self-censorship. As you yourself might be back at RfB, showing civility and patience with any with whom you may have had disageements in the past would be widely seen positively as personal improvement for the betterment of the project as a whole. This is not an attack of any sort... merely an observation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, claims of this magnitude should not be simply shouted out, then the diffs left to come later. I could oppose, "user has had multiple socks, all used for vandalism" - and state an intent to provide diffs. Then, after the RfA is derailed (which can happen very, very quickly), it doesn't matter if I provide diffs or not. Extraordinary claims require exraordinary proof. Despite my support here, I'm not getting on Husond's back simply because I don't want to see opposes. I just want Ecoleetage to get a fair trial here. (edit conflict) And, of course, the "thats an interesting view" is simply a continuation of Husond's sarcasm. Tan   &#124;   39  20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was sarcasm, although not all sarcasm is supposed to be offensive, often (like in this case) it is just mild irony used to show disagreement (and that kind of sarcasm is all but forbidden on Wikipedia). Now, I also want Eco to have a fair trial here. But I will delay providing evidence for two reasons: 1- I have lack of time and only next Saturday I should be free to carry out a dreadful search; 2- I am hoping that other victims of Eco's dishonesty will drop by; and due to their own experiences with this user, corroborate with my position. Most of this user's misdeeds occur off-wiki; other users reporting off-wiki stalking would send a clear message that something is definitely not right with him. Hús  ö  nd  20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And let us hope that these others parties arrive here at their own volition, and not from the coaxing of a disgruntled user.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So your response to comments that diffs should be provided because RfAs can get derailed quickly regardless of evidence, and such diffs would help show whether your point should be struck, you're going to leave it till saturday and you say you 'also want Eco to have a fair trial here'? Ironholds (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the oppose should be struck. If Husond wants to come back Saturday and make his case with diffs, fine.  If he does not, he should be sanctioned for a personal attack.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For courtesy sake, it should probably wb struck - but that's really up to the opposer. Nobody else should touch it. I think that the closing crat would have no problem disqualifying the !vote per lack of evidence..it's their discretion.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just for courtesy sake, that's another interesting and unusual suggestion of a worrisome application of censorship on Wikipedia, especially coming from an admin. We don't strike opposes just like that on Wikipedia yet. Or at least I would be very surprised if we did now. As for the "disgruntled", I'm afraid you're mistaken, Wisdom. Hús  ö  nd  22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing's for sure. Your statement in opposition (note that I also opposed, but for different reasons), is little short of a character assassination. For you to refuse to provide any supporting evidence for your claims reflects a good deal more on you than it does on the candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm simply saying that if there is a reason to strike it, it should probably be for politeness. I'm in no way suggesting that it is mandatory or even really expected. Secondly, and minorly, I am not an administrator. However, even if I was, my opinion would not hold more or less weight in regards to this point.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've heard that before, much thanks to the candidate's efforts. I did not refuse to provide evidence, I just said that not just now, as it takes time which atm I simply do not have. I shall be able to provide actual evidence in the next few days. Until then, you must understand that I, just anyone else, am allowed to present my opposition without having to be coerced to provide prompt evidence to every single thing I claim. Hús  ö  nd  22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but it makes you look like a jerk when you don't, and it certainly wouldn't be fair if it was done to you, either. It's not a race.  David  Shankbone  22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I disagree. However, I feel an absolute peace of mind, probably because my conscience tells me that in the end, I'm not being unfair at all. Hús  ö  nd  23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's problematic you think you're the only one that matters. Regardless of how you feel about Eco, we are all humans behind these screen names with feelings, and I don't have a very good opinion of the human behind yours right now if that's your attitude. David  Shankbone  00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously that I am the only one that matters when it comes to my position in regards to this particular user. Because I was able to witness what he is capable of and you probably could not. And because I hold information demonstrating his lack of scruples and you probably don't. I cannot disclose that information to so it's fair enough that you find me problematic, however for my !vote I couldn't be mistaken as I've seen far enough beyond Eco's screen. You do with your !vote whatever you please. Hús  ö  nd  00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Husond - with full respect for your right to oppose, and no desire to censor, I will make the same request as I did in your RfB: "...I'm not the least bit interested in the content or tone of any off-wiki communication with any user, and I respectfully request that such not be provided here or anywhere, in whole or in part." I note that (at least as far as I am aware) you honored that request back then, and appeal to your civility in requesting that you do so again. Frank  |  talk  23:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and I shall say what I should have said then, as you obviously seem to have the notion that your opinion has some kind of natural and undisputed supremacy over others': I'm not the least bit interested in your lack of the least bit interest. I did not honor any request, which wasn't a request at all, I actually just ignored the position of someone who was apparently either trying to look bossy or just patronizing me for no apparent reason. If I did not provide the off-wiki evidence it was certainly not because of your words, but someone else's. We're all volunteers here and we should listen to friendly advice, not instructions tainted with contempt. Hús  ö  nd  23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am frankly astonished at this childish and petulant display from a serving administrator. It does you, or more importantly your role, no credit whatsoever. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm familiar with this kind of bashing as well, and the rule that anything I say can be used against me (and that this rule naturally applies to me only). I won't further waste my time with useless exchanges of accusations. I have said what I had to say, so please stop throwing stones at the opposer because I don't even have to defend myself, simply to voice my opinion. Hús  ö  nd  00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you open to recall? David  Shankbone  00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think? The recall process has become a sick joke anyway, so what's the difference. Husond is behaving like a petulant child, sees nothing wrong in that, end of story. Husond is an administrator; whatever he or she decides to do is fine. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of sarcasm, I too find that the best method of calling someone out on their "personal attacks" is to attack them yourself! Class acts, all around. John Reaves 07:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is a difference. Husond's oppose is a personal attack because it is widespread and personal criticism attacking Eco's character without any actual evidence. The replies by Malleus and similar accusing him of acting like a child are slightly different; there is evidence that he is acting in an imature way. Ironholds (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The vague point I am vaguely alluding to here is that fighting fire with fire is a bad strategy and takes from the credibility of the opposers of the oppose. John Reaves 08:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree John. It is only with his increasingly petulant, 'I don't care, I know I'm right. Nyeh!  I'm hungry!' obstinate refusal to address the request "If you are going to character assassinate, please provide the diffs" that people started to call a spade a spade more forcefully, and if you haven't noticed, there is only one person defending Husond's behavior on this page-  Husond.  Perhaps your time would be better spent advising Husond on how to act like an admin, instead of rapping the knuckles of everyone else who is doing so, to no avail?  -- David  Shankbone  08:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see your point there. I'm not sure if it will make a difference, but my advice to Husond is that he not respond here again until he either has links or an apology.  I can see this discussion wayyyy out of hand if one of those doesn't happen. John Reaves 09:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. Well, it's galling that someone of his caliber feels comfortable judging anyone for adminship.  But it's cathartic to point it out.  -- David  Shankbone  00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is here: User:Husond/recall. RMHED (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let the wriggling commence. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, I'm going to get rid of the recall page. Recall is meant to be about prevention of misuse of the admin tools, not a mechanism to provide entertainment for an opposer bashing squad. Hús  ö  nd  00:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (outdent) I bet he would have deleted it "for technical reasons" had five people signed up anyway. At least true colors now show, so all is good.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The wriggling started sooner than even I had expected, thus proving once again that being open to recall is an empty promise. Do you labour under the delusion that you're setting any kind of standard for what can be considered to be acceptable behaviour from an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You claim to "not have time" to find the diffs in question, yet you're spending an inordinate amount of time defending your actions. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Coz I could go to market, take the garbage out, make supper AND have supper while dropping by to write comments. Searching for diffs means no supper, and that cannot be as starvation is not allowed on Wikipedia. And now I'm going to bed as tomorrow I have to get up early for work, so no more comments from me for a while. Go bash someone else in the mean time. Hús  ö  nd  01:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're beginning to make me wonder whether clear signs of insanity in an administrator shouldn't be a prima facie reason to desysop. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I need to see some diffs. And maybe Husond needs to check out: WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK, WP:DICK, need I say more?--  Iamawesome800   Talk  01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Big hint, Husond: When everyone else is the problem, maybe it's you.  And if you haven't noticed, some of your fellow opposers are taking issue with you.  Your behavior is pretty awful.  -- David  Shankbone  01:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that Husond took the garbage out? Seems to me there is prima facie evidence to the contrary ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * O.o - o.0 - O.O → Seems the discussion has developed since my original comment of "Ouch". Let me just repeat it...Ouch. — Realist  2  03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Section Break
Do we need more eyes on what is unfolding here? Foxy Loxy Pounce! 04:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an ANI incident, although an RFC/U might be warranted. The main problem is his obstinacy in the face of overwhelming disapproval.  It's like, dude, just get a clue.  -- David  Shankbone  05:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it (and take that for what its worth), I think three things are readily apparent:
 * . Husond needs to back up his very strong oppose with DIFFs. If you have enough time to post such an oppose, you'd better clear your social calendar to deal with the fallout from such. I like Husond, but solid DIFFs are going to be the only defense against a personal attack complaint.
 * . Frankly, its stupid to think that this might not affect the voting process. Husond, should redact his post until he can back it up. Just last week, another admin put together a beautifully-arranged argument (either in a RfB/RfA or ArbCom) against an editor that correctly applied negative connotations to behavior fully-backed up by Diffs and background. Husond doesn't have that yet; its all about putting your money where your mouth is.
 * . RfA seems cocked up on a number of levels. How does the average user even know when someone is requesting adminship or crat-ship? Currently, RfAs are the equivalent of the secret rave of Wikipedia that only the cool kids get to attend. Why not a banner with an update of info, or sth on the featured space? Not everyone plays in the Wiki-workings end of the pool, but have to suffer the consequences when an ass-clown of an admin gets selected in a peyote-inspired fevre,
 * But that's just my opinion. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points. Add in:
 * The behavior Husond has shown and his comments defending it are inappropriate for someone in his position and disturbingly childish. When you are the only one flogging the dead horse it is time to drop the stick.
 * and I'm in. Ironholds (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Should Husond's comment be removed, but his oppose kept?
If I read this page right, by my count, the following editors have a problem with the unsubstantiated character assassination on Eco by Husond: That's 15 editors who are taking part in this discussion and having an issue with assertions by Husond that he refuses to back up, thus most likely violating WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and, of course, WP:DICK. Until Husond is able to back up his assertions, they remain attacks and should be removed, whilst keeping the oppose. Just because it's an RfA doesn't mean attack and run is okay. -- David  Shankbone  16:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * me
 * Ironholds
 * Wehwalt
 * Malleus
 * RMHED
 * Arcayne
 * Realist
 * John Reaves
 * Frank
 *  Wisdom89 
 * Tan
 * Foxy Loxy
 *  Iamawesome800   Talk 
 * Tool2Die4
 *  Schmidt, 
 * Tony (16th) Tony   (talk)  14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The kinds of statements he's making go to the character of the candidate, and they sound like the kinds of things that would require many diffs to establish a pattern of behavior. He's entitled to his opinions, and yes, he should back them up as best he can.   I guess one man's "character assassination" is another man's "Here are the impressions I've gotten over the course of several interactions with this editor".  Opinions, even (gasp!) negative ones, are allowed.  RFA is for evaluating the candidate.  Let's not get our panties in a bunch over it. Friday (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel the "RfA is for evaluating the candidate" is used too often to allow unsubstantiated attacks. If someone is going to trash someone else's character, they sure better back it up.  That's all.  Not only is that fair, it is ethically just.  We're all humans behind these screen names, and that goes for Eco as well as Husond.  We shouldn't be treating each other this way. -- David  Shankbone  16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should take a 'put up or shut up' attitude. If this is a serious enough issue for Husond to come up with a paragraph of personal attacks he should have been prepared to provide diffs. Since he hasn't (and 'I have real life stuff to do' isn't really an excuse. He is an admin who spends time around RfA, he should know what is expected and the kind of fallout that comes when things don't go to plan) I'm assuming it is unsubstantiated bullshit. Until he can show otherwise it should be removed. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but lots of opposes are unsubstantiated. When I initially called for this to be struck, I was hoping Husond would realize that it was only fair and do it himself. I don't approve of forceably removing this oppose - it is what it is; hopefully other editors (and the 'crats) will see this conversation and weigh it accordingly. Is Husond being incredibly unfair here? Yes. Are sanctions necessary? No, I think the 14 people censuring him above will take care of any warning. Is there any admin tool abuse that might cost him his bit? No, no, no. Tan   &#124;   39  16:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A few of the things he's saying ring true to my ear. But, I suppose to those who don't see it this way, the whole statement is far more objectionable.  There's a problem with supporting diffs- let's say diffs are provided to illustrate the crocodile tears and dramatic apologies.  Those who find them compelling won't be swayed by the diffs- they'll just say "Wow, what a beautiful, heartfelt apology.  This guy is swell!"  I think the only thing that can be done with this is to chalk it up to "different people have different opinions" and leave it at that.  RFA asks us to form an impression of the qualities of the candidate- this is, by nature, a judgement call.  People will sometimes observe the same things and form vastly different opinions. Friday (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (outdent) My suggestion is 'give it a rest'. This sort of crusading against Husond (a dutiful janitor and administrator - albeit with his share of mistakes) is as unseemly as was his oppose against ecoleetage. The discussion is gone from the page, the text of Husond's (IMO inappropriate) oppose is there for any editor to see and draw his or her own conclusions, and there is nothing to gain by removing the oppose because censorship of any sort will only taint the Rfa itself. If Husond comes up with compelling diffs, good. If he doesn't, show your faith in the common sense of wikipedia editors to draw their own conclusions. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Frank  |  talk  16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But see, there's a difference. If someone wrote "Strong oppose I just don't like him" then that's fine.  If someone wrote "Strong oppose we had a run in awhile back over the Dildo Key article" that would be fine.  To give broad, sweeping generalizations about another person's (not user name - person) character that you have more than enough time to write and then argue about, then you should provide some diffs.  Even MichaelQSchmidt was able to give a diff for Husond ("I review the comments made in this RfA and at your failed RfB").  Surely if Husond's problems with Eco are as drastic as he states, it shouldn't be hard for him to remember where the event happened, and at least provide one diff while his burger was cooking. We all have personality conflicts; that's different than judging another person's character.  -- David  Shankbone  17:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We checked, and neither party in question has ever edited the Dildo Key article. So, it would appear that, in fact, teh diffs you are seeking do not exist.
 * talk 23:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.18.96 (talk)


 * Re: to RegentsPark: As for faith in commons sense of the RfA community, I do not have much, and I'm not the only one.  These RfA's have become a circus of attacks and overly-judgmental opposes. -- David  Shankbone  17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, what? "I just don't like him" is fine?  What utter nonsense.  I think I see the problem now.  Anyone who thinks "I like him" or "I don't like him" are useful opinions at RFA needs to stay the hell away from RFA.  We're judging the candidate's competence, not whether or not they're a nice guy.  You want popularity contests, myspace is down the hall.  Friday (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, because WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK apply in this case, and not in the "I don't like him" case. Those are strong guidelines and policies that far outweight WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you are going to smear, put the diffs in the clear.  It's that simple. -- David  Shankbone  17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, let's just wait a litle bit and see. We are arguing about what to do if something else happens. Let's wait to see what happens; Husond brings the diffs, and they'll be evaluated as to how they are connected to the arguments he made. He doesn't bring the diffs, and he's in hot water. No need to seek out a good lobster pot just yet. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I don't like how Husond said what he said. I think he could have been far more diplomatic and much less aggressive. However, I can understand why he said these things. I've experienced the goodness and the badness of Eco. I've had wonderful encounters with him on- and off-line. But I've also had some really rough encounters with him on- and off-line. I'm (for now) staying neutral on this one, but I can't abide threatening to remove Husond's comments, when I've had some similar encounters with Eco, mainly in off-line chat. I don't like how Husond expressed his concerns, but they are valid, and should not simply be removed. For his own state of mind, I hope Eco passes this RfA, but valid concerns deserve to stay. SDJ 19:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For his own state of mind, you hope he passes? What, are you expecting some dramatic meltdown if he doesn't?  And you apparently know him well?  This alone is a good reason to oppose him.   We don't hand out the buttons because the candidate will feel bad otherwise- we hand them out to whoever will use them competently.  Maybe I've misunderstood you, but I find your comment here quite worrying.  Friday (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eco's very emotional, for a lot of reasons. He's my friend and I worry about him, that's all. When I opposed his last RfA, I experienced some of that emotion. That's all I mean. SDJ 19:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've seen the kind of harm that is caused by overly emotional admins, I presume? If someone has a drama-prone personality, this is probably the single best reason to oppose an RFA.  Don't you think the project is better served by you honestly evaluating the candidate that it is by you treating your friend with kid gloves because you fear a dramatic reaction?  How many other people are voting out of friendship rather than actually evaluating the candidate?!?  Friday (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like Eco will use the tools in anger or emotion. However, if he did, I'd be the first person lining up to see them removed. Does my friendship with him, both on-wiki and off, cloud my view? Possibly. But I think the fact that I'm staying neutral on this one shows I'm not overly biased in this way, don't you? SDJ 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: SDJ and I know each other via e-mail, Instant Message and our postings here. We never met nor have we spoken by telephone. I appreciate that he considers me as a friend – the feeling is mutual. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that unless he provides diffs to these allegations, they should be removed because as David said multiple times the comment violates multiple policies.-- Iamawesome800  Talk   23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with "wait and see." It should be struck immediately, for the integrity of the RFA process. I have not participated in this RFA, and have no background with or opinion of Ecoleetage 3's suitability as an administrator. But Husond's personal attack is absolutely contrary to the kind of discourse we should have in RFA's. There is a line that should not be crossed. It is difficult to define, but RFA participants (especially administrators like Husond) should be exercising careful judgment. The problem is with the degree and intensity of Husond's attack. It would be one thing to say "I have had experiences that make me question the candidate's character, and am opposing on that basis." That would be OK. But to post an entire paragraph, with repeated insinuations and sarcasm sprinkled throughout, is inappropriate. If it had come with diffs that strongly support the position to begin with, that might be OK. But it didn't. It's a personal attack, and should be struck on that basis, immediately. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)The line between censorship and necessary policing is very thin. Best to err on the side of letting people say what they will. (if Husond's comments are removed, do we also remove all references to those comments in, for e.g., the votes by keeper 76, mattingbn, and glasscobra? Censorship, even for the right reasons, is a very slippery slope. It usually makes you feel good but the damage is long term.) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 00:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. We have a clear policy of no personal attacks, and just because it isn't traditionally supported in RFAs doesn't mean it shouldn't be. If there are other comments that make reference to it, (1) that illustrates why it's best to take immediate action, and (2) so what -- evaluate those comments on their own merits, if it seems worth the effort. This comment, however, is clearly in the realm of a personal attack, and should be dealt with as such. -Pete (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pete. This "policies don't apply in RfA" reasoning is bizarre.  First, they clearly do if you want to go by consensus, as it stands on this page.  Second, these RfAs are hurting people because of the fallacy that some think they can say whatever they want, about whomever they want, as long as it's when that editor is standing before the community in an effort to serve it at a higher level.  As for Husond the admin, who laughingly wanted to be a Bureaucrat, he recently wrote on my talk page he'll say what he wants and his supply diffs to support his personal attacks when and if he feels like it.  -- David  Shankbone  01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To David, and all: I've asked a couple of questions of Eco, that I hope will allow me to substantiate the basic nature of Husond's claims. While I really don't like the methods that Husond has used, his claims are not totally meritless. Once Eco answers my questions, I think you'll have a better understanding. Either way he answers, you'll know. SDJ 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SDJ, I've read your comments above, and appreciate the challenge of the position you're in. I don't think anybody's claiming that Husond's claims are baseless -- merely that they are delivered in a non-collegial fashion, and in a way that doesn't permit us to evaluate them on their own merits. I'm sure we'll all be interested to read any comments you have on the subject, as you clearly exhibit a balanced approach to the underlying issues. -Pete (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's strongly-worded criticism. But it's relevant to the subject at hand.  Disagree all you want, but removing it is not called for.  Friday (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting to a point of being an admin issue for WP:ATTACK and that he feels he can say what he wants and his supply diffs to support his personal attacks when and if he feels like it. Until someone points me to a guideline or policy saying the rules don't apply in an RfA, Husond is violating our standards. His defense of those violations make it egregious. -- David  Shankbone  02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect you only feel this strongly because you disagree with his opinion on the candidate. Disagreement is allowed.  I see no policy violation here.  What do you hope to accomplish by telling on him?  Friday (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me point out again (speaking for myself), I have no past experience with either of the involved parties, and no basis for an opinion on whether or not Eco should be granted admin tools. My complaint is not with the substance of what Husond said, but the manner in which it was said, which I believe is in clear violation of WP:NPA. I have filed a complaint at ANI: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Hopefully other non-involved admins can bring a fresh perspective and make a decision on this. -Pete (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good god! Prepare for drama... SDJ 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point of filing a complaint against an administrator to the administrators? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because nobody is above policy; did you really need to ask? There's nothing special about admins - they have a mop and bucket.  -- David  Shankbone  04:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And an ego - don't forget that all but the very best have a pretty large ego to clean up after. ;)
 * Seriously though, I am very concerned that Husond has let this matter go unattended for the past few days. I think its time to ask for a partial retraction (of the supplemental accusations) and simply note his opposition. While its clear that we should not remove it, it is equally clear that we cannot allow it to remain in the Oppose as is, like some smelly turd or whatnot. Already, two people have opposed based simply upon these (still baseless) accusations. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a question, as I've read through this and am questioning both sides, if this comment had been paraphrased, or parsed in such a way that it was left on Eco's talk page, during a non-RFA period, would it warrant NPA and/or ANI? I seem to be split between not censoring RFA comments and whether or not RFA allows more leniency by its nature. Just food for my own thought. Perhaps others have opinions. Lawshoot! 05:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. I don't believe that it would, no. Certainly it wouldn't give me any cause for concern if stuff like that arrived on my talk page anyway. But RfA is different in its herd mentality. It only takes one spooked steer to start a stampede. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a good question, Law. I agree with Malleus that it wouldn't, and for the same reasons. The lasting effect the comment has in a user talk page is minimal - the user and whoever watches his page is usually the only ones to see it, and the user can remove it if its over the top. In RfA or other, high-traffic areas is where there is more opportunity for the words to be carried far and wide. It isn't just a matter of herd mentality, some of the folk will walk away with the misapprehension that the unsubstantiated claims are in fact accurate. I've been on the receiving end of that before, and its difficult to undo the damage quickly. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - if it's left on a user's talk page, that user has the ability to unilaterally remove it if they choose, which mitigates the impact. A RFA becomes a lasting account of the community's evaluation of a person, and in that way is different. Of course, we have already removed many comments from the RFA and put them on this talk page -- the comments that started this discussion. I don't propose removing the comment without a trace -- I think the best solution would be to just leave "oppose" on the main page, with a note like "controversial commentary moved to discussion page." As it stands, I think, is sort of the worst possible outcome: the offensive comment is there, but none of the criticism of the comment. -Pete (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While the nominee has dramatically taken his ball and gone home (retired), in light of possibly damaging info being evaluated by a crat, it would seem that this is a moot point. However, I think it isn't. Husond's behavior has served to highlight some problems with RfA (as well as the 'open to recall' feature of adminhood). Should this conversation be rebooted elsewhere? If so, where would be appropriate? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For me, one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole debacle was Husond's withdrawal from "open to recall". Many, myself included, have evaluated a candidate's willingness to be open to recall as a factor in supporting or opposing their nomination. Events such as the Archtransit fiasco and others obviously demonstrated that the promise was empty, but still. It's false pretences. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Shankbone's whining about this was really stupid. I wouldn't expect any reasonable person to consider that a valid reason for recall.  Friday (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't consider that Husond did anything that would warrant a recall either, but that wasn't my point. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't mine, either. I am arriving at the opinion that if you choose to be open to recall, and later choose to not be open to recall after you are an admin, you need to go through RfA again. For the reasons you described above, for a lot of folk, being open to recall (in case you go batshit insane or whatever) is the tipping point for a lot of votes; its says 'I am confident I am doing the right thing, and I am putting my money where my mouth is'. Reneging - and really that is truly what it is - means you defrauded those who voted for you. When that happens in the political process, the candidate who reneges usually doesn't the votes to remain in office. As admins do not serve terms (and that is something we might want to explore), we need a process to make them run on their merits, not some false flavor of the moment. At least, that's what I have been thinking. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To respond to Arcayne: I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't really think more talk will overcome this. We don't need new policies or consensus; we simply need to begin enforcing WP:NPA in the context of RFA proceedings. I've pointed this out before, and attempted to do so. There are always a few people who think it's somehow a subversion of the process, or a violation of free speech, to remove inappropriate comments. The thing is, it's incumbent on all of us to look after the quality of our community, whether we're setting a good example in our behavior, and whether certain comments are compatible with the collegial environment that we seek to maintain. These principles will sometimes come into conflict with the desire to give everyone a voice; and no adherence to a single principle will ever effectively take the place of solid judgment. In the future, I will continue to advocate for moving certain comments like Husond's to the talk page, or hiding them in HAT notes, or similar, in order to remove them or deprecate them from the permanent record that an RFA produces. I hope you will do the same. -Pete (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And its a damn shame that it won't come to anything; its like the American Electoral College in many ways.No one is debating whether Husond's comments were wildly inappropriate, but I think there is dissent as to whether it could be somewhat less so were we provided with DIFFS and not subsequent defensive statements. I tend to think calling a spade a spade is overkill, but remember that Wiki-culture (such as it is) admins despise walls of text, and polite brevity is almost always equated with correctness. Sometimes, you need to say Something Is Indeed Something so as to connect the dots for those admins who have too many pages on their watchlist or whatever excuse is la mode at the time.
 * Good behavior works both ways: good faith doesn't excuse bad behavior. In this case, Husond screwed up rather largely and if he isn't blocked for this, he almost certainly will be on a short leash. If there is a recurrence, he might want to pack a toothbrush. He'll be away for a while.
 * Maybe this admin open to recall stuff needs to be addressed in an admin noticeboard, but I am unsure which it would be initiated in. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch analysis

 * My apologies for possibly perpetuating this matter, but I do want to make my first comments about a sentence that PeteForsyth included in his latest message, and my comments are relevant, and not any counter-attack to PeteForsyth at all. He wrote: "We don't need new policies or consensus; we simply need to begin enforcing WP:NPA in the context of RFA proceedings." I think there is a fundamental problem with a too simple-minded application of this rule in the context of RFAs. One of the criteria that has been often stated in support or opposition of candidates is that they are trustworthy: i.e., that one believes the community or the individual has trust in the candidate not to misuse the tools or make too many serious mistakes. Being "trustworthy" and some of the other kinds of good qualities one hopes candidates have are actual qualities of the candidate themselves and not just their behaviour. So, in order to comment on their trustworthiness or other candidate qualities, one necessarily has to engage in ad hominem arguments, as they are directly relevant. Now, there is a distinction that is made in the technical literature about the logic of debate and argument that distinguishes between ad hominem arguments and ad hominem attacks, and the two are not often clearly distinguished enough in the guidelines on wikipedia or in the way editors and administrators sometimes interpret them: sometimes ad hominem arguments can be good arguments in certain contexts, and RFAs are one instance. However, an ad hominem argument necessarily requires immediate evidence to justify it, otherwise it becomes an ad hominem attack, and an ad homimen argument without any relevant evidence supporting it is an ad hominem attack. The difference may seem slight, but it is crucial, and, because there is uncertainty often about whether there will be agreement that offered evidence will be reasonable, it is a high risk argument to deploy. The problem with Husond's arguments is that no evidence was supplied, and it was the lack of evidence that converted what would otherwise be a possibly valid kind of ad hominem argument into an invalid ad hominem attack. We are all fallible, and so, the mere committing of this ad hominem attack can be retrieved somewhat if, after prompting, it is either suitably withdrawn, or, the evidence is supplied that makes it a strong candidate for an ad hominem argument, which would be a reasonable argument in this context. Now, of course, some ad hominem arguments may be so highly charged that, regardless of evidence, they will always be viewed as ad hominem attacks, but as I stated before, such arguments are high risk anyway, and one must weigh up the pros and cons of using them. Husond then refused to supply the evidence, and then withdrew from the Administrator Recall system. I agree with Malleus that it is this subsequent action by Husond that is most worrying, especially when, from my point of view, he refused to supply the necessary evidence to convert his ad hominem attack into an ad hominem argument. In conclusion, then, I would just like to state that one can disentangle a number of aspects of what happened, and that a simple-minded application of WP:NPA stands a chance of making RFAs fail to examine adequately in the view of a number of editors, some of the key requirements that administrators are actually supposed to have. Sorry for the length and technical nature of this comment.  DDStretch    (talk)  00:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most excellent points. Can you clarify the conclusion - it might just be me, but I keep reading that sentence over and over without understanding it - this part: "and that a simple-minded application..." Tan   &#124;   39  00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DD, this is an excellent articulation of the way I view the situation, and in light of what you've said, I would wholeheartedly endorse an effort to incorporate this into WP:NPA or a guideline specific to RFA. Thank you for the clear elucidation of this point. Well said. -Pete (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he means that a mechanistic or simple application of a rule barring "ad hominem" opposes bars reference to personal characteristics of the candidate, which are in fact important in an RfA. That is a reasonable conclusion, although I don't agree with the argument he built to support it. Husond's conclusion was correct, but his argument was weak and his phrasing inflammatory. That doesn't make what he wrote "invalid." Describing something as an attack is imprecise - an attack may be polite, and correct, and still be an attack. Anyway, I'm not sure the logical distinctions are really important. Simply put: Husond's oppose was ineffective, and also self-sabotaging assuming his goal was to diminish the chances that the request would succeed. Hopefully he's learned his lesson - being right doesn't matter if you aren't also convincing. Avruch  T 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Avruch summed up the final sentence well, and my apologies for being too tired and writing too late at night, my time, which may have contributed to its lack of clarity at that point. On the matter of Avruch's points about the argument I used to work towards the conclusion, I thank him for allowing me to correct some further lack of clarity brought about by me using standard terms as used in the technical literature about the logic of debate and argument, and informal logic without flagging them as being technical terms. true, false, valid, invalid, and attack and argument are all used in technical sense, and I suspect that the use of argument in a technical sense is better known than some of the others. I also could have made the matters more clear if I also used the more modern terms, "sound" and "unsound", in technical senses with respect to arguments. What now follows is a sketchy explanation of this, and can be skipped if people desire. So, we have: premises and conclusions are true or false; argument forms are valid or invalid, and arguments are sound or unsound In the case of Husond's comments, the argument he offered remains unsound as insufficient evidence was offered to support it: technically, yet informally, an argument is sound if (i) the argument form is valid, and (ii) the premises and the conclusions are true. If either or both of (i) and (ii) do not hold, then the argument can be taken to be unsound (I originally said "invalid"), even in cases when the conclusion is true'. If no evidence for a particular premise is offered, as in the case of Husond's contributions, then we cannot say it is true (and we also cannot say that it is false) so we can view the argument of which it is a part as being unsound, because we cannot say that the conditions for a sound argument apply. There are cases of enthymemes that may be treated differently, because we assume that certain premises are unstated but assumed to be true (which is different), but in the case of ad hominem arguments and attacks, pragmatically, it is reasonable to adopt a strict interpretation of the stated, yet unsupported, premises as I have done, because of the nature of the kinds of arguments in the kinds of discussions they are often deployed. Note that the supply of extra information (evidence) can in these cases convert an unsound argument into a sound one. In other words, at the point at which Husond deployed his argument, many of us had no way of knowing whether the particular premises he used were true or false. Given the context in which this argument was deployed, at that point, the entire argument was unsound, even though, later, and in retrospect, the conclusion could be accepted as being true. Only if the evidence was offered and found to be reasonable, would it convert the relevant premises into true ones and, given a valid argument form, convert the argument into a sound one (corresponding points about the premises being seen to be false, a valid argument form being used, and the argument remaining unsound can also be made.) As for the argument being inflammatory: I did say it was a high risk argument, and inflaming matters, regardless of the soundness or unsoundness of the argument, comes into play ("There are things which can be thought, but which probably should not be stated" and suchlike.) I hope that clarifies that matter, raised, I am sure, because I was not clear enough as stated, above. The second point from Avruch's message concerns the issue of "an attack may be polite, and correct, and still be an attack", which can be the case, but it is in danger of being quite close to committing the fallacy of equivocation, and I contributed to this. The reason is that there are two meanings to "attack" of relevance here: one used in ordinary language, and one used in the technical language when analysing and modelling and otherwise studying the logic of debate and argument. I was using the word "attack" in a technical sense, and in this sense, polite arguments could also be attacks, because of the logic of their structure and their support and the type of dialogue in which they are deployed. Thus what in everyday language would be viewed as an attack might well not be in technical language when used in a particular type of dialogue (in particular, the ones typically called Eristic Dialogues by researchers such a Douglas Walton and his school, which would correspond more closely to what in ordinary language we would also call squabbles, fights, bickering, personal attacks, and so on) I apologise for not making clear that I was using words in a technical sense, and that will have caused some problems of interpretation if they were taken to be being used according to "ordinary language". I also hope that clarifies the other issue. Sorry for the length, I wanted to reply, and I feel I could not spare the time to make my reply shorter.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Avruch  T 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate's retirement
I'm afraid I'm not surprised by Ecoleetage's decision to close his account when his RfA received negative feedback, but I can't imagine why he doesn't want to let people post "goodbye" messages on his talk page. I do hope he returns as a contributor. --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is who he really is. This is really quite frightening. SDJ 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's about the most shocking thing I've ever seen here on wikpedia. I hope it gives some people food for thought. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't really know about that, but I am thinking that the user will eventually be back. They'll take some time off, so that the DIFFs (if they in fact exist) get ever more dusty, and the conversation Jameson alluded to gets deleted or pulled from wherever the discussion was held. Point is, this person will be back. Maybe under another account. I can almost guarantee that this person tromping off isn't permanent. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Arcayne, you realize that he's threatening me in real life now, right? SDJ 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever dealings you had/have with him off-wiki is a matter for you and your lawyers and he and his, as he may have legal cause for his actions... or he may not. I am not a litigator, nor a judge. I do not have access to whatever evidences caused him to feel threatened enpough contact your real-world employer, nor access to whatever communications between he and you that made him feel that was his only option for self-prreservation... or if his actions were simply spiteful and intended to damage you. He may himself feel as threatened by you as you are of him. On-wiki he should have been evaluated for his on-wiki contibutions. This entire fiasco is a crying shame.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried listening to yourself? This was a RfA, no big deal apparently. The fiasco is that he managed to dupe so many for so long. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I listened to myself. The long and short is that all we have to look at and judge is on-wiki activity. Anything off-wiki is not (currrently) available to view. And I am disappointed and saddened in what has resulted. My own support at RfA was because of what I saw online. I have no personal knowledge of what happened offline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the failing here was that so many people kept supporting his RFA, when it should have been apparent that he had these dramatic tendencies. Do people even read the oppose section before supporting? Friday (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do. If the concerns are not concerning, I support. Of course, if this RFA were open, I'd be strongly opposing now.  Majorly  talk  22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I would have had to regretfully withdraw support as well.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope everyone who was railing and gnashing their teeth against Husond apologizes to him right now, because he has now clearly been vindicated. Mike H. Fierce! 22:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did Madoff keep getting investors? Some people are damn good at pulling the wool over people's eyes. Unless people had direct experiences with Eco's manipulations and wrath, there was never any evidence shown - and I still don't really care about off-wiki behavior - except when actions are taken off-wiki because of someone being pissed off at another editor. That all said, I was played for a fool, here. I put my credentials on the line to keep defending someone who, in the end, wasn't anywhere near the mature administrator I thought was potentially there. Now I look like the asshole, and I'm pretty angry and ashamed about that. There's a difference between off-wiki behavior and straight-up vindictiveness, immaturity, and anger-control issues. I wash my hands of Ecoleetage. While I still very much disapprove at the witch-hunt atmosphere in which this RfA was conducted, the ends really do justify the means here. I apologize to those who weren't as blind as I. Tan   &#124;   39  22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you recognize your mistake, and I'm not trying to harass anybody, but there was ample on-wiki evidence of dramatic tendencies from his editor. Friday (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Husond was clearly wrong, in that he refused to provide evidence in support of his claims. He also proved himself to be dishonest, by withdrawing from administrators open to recall. It is he who ought to be apologising. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you want, Friday, everyone to acknowledge your "I told you so"? There were over 100 supports. Clearly there were several angles to this. In the end, the drama far outweighed the others - but I think it took this RfA to show that. If it makes you feel better, you were right, I was wrong. Tan   &#124;   39  22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, look past my attitude here. I'm just pretty fucking pissed that this happened. Tan   &#124;   39  22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, people were fooled because they weren't paying attention. It looked like the RfA was going to succeed with the support of a lot of well respected people, so I didn't find it worth adding an oppose so I could be attacked. But while I wouldn't have phrased any comments in quite the way Husond did, my own observations (entirely on-wiki) bore out the substance of his oppose. You don't really need much more than the RfA history. But people on Wikipedia like to forgive and move on (witness the other RfAs running right now). Avruch  T 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to another currently running RfA, then I don't think the comparison is fair. What is certainly true though is that it takes a little bit of courage to be the first oppose against an evidently popular candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't trying to directly compare the situations - they're quite different, you're right. But the Geni and PeterSymonds RfAs demonstrate the principle that after some time has passed, we're eager to move on and forgive past transgressions. It's an admirable quality, really, but one that presents a number of risks. Avruch  T 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It only presents risks when the candidates have clearly not been entirely honest about past transgressions, or insincere in their apologies for them. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're off on a tangent here, surely, but I disagree. While sincere repentance might prevent repeating an error, if the underlying problem is one of character or judgment... Even a completely heartfelt apology and determination to improve won't necessarily prevent a different serious error. So the risk, then, is that we forgive a misjudgment by choosing to view it as a singular event and at the same time make the 'pedia more vulnerable than average to further misjudgments. That won't necessarily happen, and in the case of Geni and PeterSymonds I don't think it will. But it's the risk, and nearly what happened with this RfA. Avruch  T 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is "character" to be judged? Surely only by how one behaves. Sincere repentance is of no interest to me, anyone can offer up empty apologies. What I look for is honesty about why the indiscretion occured, and I just didn't see it in this case. What I saw instead was lots of wikifriends looking the other way. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that really does seem to be the case. And I am included in that group. Tan   &#124;   39  23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't beat yourself up Tan, you know how much I love you. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you two get a room... the way you're behaving now that you've duked it out on Wisdom's talk page... sheesh. I feel like I'm watching General Hospital.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 00:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike H. Fierce, in response to your preposterous claim that Husond was vindicated -- I'm not happy about any of this, but recent developments only underscore the points I made earlier. If there was a legitimate concern about Eco's integrity, Husond's approach only undercut his own credibility in getting to the root of the matter. Husond's comment was out of bounds, provided as they were with no evidence, few facts, and much insinuation. Eco's actions have no bearing on that basic point. -Pete (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it telling when people can't swallow their own pride and own up to when they were wrong about a person. Husond was never wrong. Just because he didn't back up his words to your satisfaction doesn't mean he was any less correct about the situation. I personally feel for Husond if this is the kind of atmosphere that abounds; "I'm not REALLY sorry because x y and z." It's all very telling and as an observer, I find a lot of this behavior very disappointing. Mike H. Fierce! 00:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who was wrong about whom? I never made any claims (or !votes) about Eco, so I couldn't have been wrong about him. I also never made any claims about Husond as a person. I argued that his comment was inappropriate for RFA. And I stand by that completely. If you're unclear on my position, please see DDStretch's excellent articulation of the general principle behind it, above. That may help clarify. -Pete (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. When all we have to go on is what's displayed on Wikipedia, it's a case of who to believe. Yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but equally AGF and all that implies means we need evidence for claims of extraordinary off-wiki actions. (To make a rather pointed example, in Husond's own RFA the nominator was a certain User:Runcorn, who was also the subject of allegations that turned out to be true but wasn't – yet – blocked.) Obviously I was wrong, but I don't regret supporting Ecoleetage on the basis of what I saw of him – his actions on Wikipedia looked to be someone who used to be annoying, but had got his act together and was now behaving himself. Anyone who remembers 2008 presumably remembers what happened last time we based a decision on secret evidence and off-wiki concerns. I don't say this as a cheerleader for Eco, but as someone who opposed last time but thought that this time he'd resolved his problems. –  iride scent  00:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You really think someone's fundamental personality will change in a few months? I think this line of thinking is part of the problem.  I've seen cases of candidates with demonstrably immature behavior in their edit histories, and a bunch of supporters saying "I think he's changed" for no apparent reason.  If we already know someone has a problematic personality for an admin, a couple months of good behavior shouldn't magically cancel this.  Friday (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the particular case of my oppose in his earlier RFA and later change to support, yes I think it was valid. My concern before was that he was too keen on the "Viva Esperanza!" side of Wikipedia, and was focusing on chatting and social networking (his comments on "those who clearly more interested in tearing people down than building a community" were the hot-button for me). It appeared to me that he'd learned from that RFA and was concentrating more on improvement to mainspace and although he still had a lot of talk posts, those posts were increasingly relating to article discussion rather than chat-for-the-sake-of-it. (I don't see "high number of talk posts" as an automatic Bad Thing – hell, I have 25,000 user talk edits.) People do change, otherwise we'd never have WP:RFA/Foo 2 passing when the first one failed. –  iride scent  01:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my belief that most productive Wikipedians first arrive at the site wanting to do something that is against WP policy -- advance a point of view, cover something that doesn't meet the notability guideline, etc. We also often bring baggage from other Internet sites where the social norms or policies permit different kinds of behavior -- social networking activity, attacks, canvassing, what have you.
 * None of this makes us bad people, just people who have not yet fully absorbed the Wikipedia ethos. Innumerable editors grow past this in a short period of time. Others take a little longer, and may need an event like an RFA or RFC or other point of contention to get them to "wake up" and pay attention to something that may not have come to their attention.
 * I would say it's highly likely that a second RFA would succeed where the first failed, if the editor paid any attention to the RFA. Surely there are cases where a certain underlying, and tough-to-kick, character trait is incompatible with being Wikipedia administrator, but I believe that is the exception more than the rule; and I certainly wouldn't question the ability of an editor to learn quickly, as a matter of general principle. -Pete (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself of course, I'd say that you're quite wrong. I came to correct errors in articles that I'd stumbled across. A pity that so few of us now remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an ego trip. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how I arrived too. Sitting in Regent's Park and I just had to correct the kyat dollar conversion rate. My usual monikers were taken - hence RegentsPark. With not the foggiest about wikipedia policy (or even, for that matter, that there were policies!). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? You two may have been pure as snow when you were newbies, but I was recruited as a meatpuppet to defend a non-notable constructed language. I think Peteforsyth has the character of newbies right on. There has to be something that gets you to register, and that thing may not necessarily be in line with WP policies, but it has basically no bearing on whether you become a good editor. (Tangent: for this reason, it's dumb to try to punish people for being recruited as meatpuppets. You just got a bunch of people to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Welcome the new users, make sure they don't swing the vote, and go on.) rspεεr (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What you describe may be more true for college students (a large percentage of the community, I suspect). I personally don't know anyone who edits wikipedia, have tried to (desultorily!) recruit a few but they get bored and go away (even though, or perhaps because, they see that the articles in their areas of expertise are abysmally written). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 12:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for everyone, only for myself. Just as you can't speak for "most newbies". --Malleus Fatuorum 10:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am by and large baffled that he withdrew, retired, etc., because I think had he not done so, he might have actually succeeded in becoming an admin. The opposes at the time were being resoundingly criticized.  I just don't understand what suddenly caused the withdrawal, retirement, etc.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will untuck my tail from between my legs for a moment to agree - becoming a kamikaze when he was winning this "war" was interesting, and thank goodness he did. -- David  Shankbone  17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have rather he did not retire, not withdraw, and not contact the other user's boss. All three things should not have happened.  It all just seems so unnecessary and all for the worst.  Ecoleetage has done good article work.  He has worthwhile contributions.  I always hate to lose those who do help rescue articles.  We should not have had to lose him as an editor just as contacting the principal was unnecessary and unconstructive.  None of these unfortunate things needed to happen.  This whole situation is about a senseless as I have seen here, and perhaps as disheartening.  No one "wins" here.  It is like the ending of Rome and Juliet: "All are punished."  I feel demoralized.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate's retirement section break
Well, if there is any good in this, it is in that a temperamentally unsuited candidate withdrew. Had he succeeded and then had to be desyssoped, it would have been needless drama and disruption. Those starry-eyed idealists such as myself who were willing to give Eco the benefit of the doubt were wrong. The sad thing about the Husond oppose, apart from the razzing he took, was that he did not provide dif's that might have persuaded us that we were making a mistake. The opposers apparently had Eco pegged, and it may be that the tide was running out on his RFA-- toward no consensus to promote. If that were the case, despite Eco's successful politicking and disarming charm, the process was working. While there are many problems with RFA, especially the vitriolic and caustic-- nonconstructive but brutal nature of some opposes, this is an instance of RFA working in that he withdrew in the face of mounting opposition. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Err, no. The user's self-implosion is not "RfA working". Had it not been for the user getting himself banned, there was still enough support that it'd probably have passed, especially given the vitriol directed at those who opposed. Nothing has been learned from this so far except that getting well-known amongst the DYK crowd is apparently a bulletproof way of generating 100+ supports for a candidate regardless of suitability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, RFA failed here because despite this candidate having a history of drama, over a hundred supporters still rolled in. If there are lessons learned here, it should be 1) RFA participants should recuse themselves when someone they consider a "friend" is a candidate- these "he's my friend" supports clearly cannot be trusted.  2) Crats should discount any "he's my friend" support if voters are still foolish enough to vote that way.  We get all kinds of people handwringing over how "RFA is broken because people are so mean".  Well, that's just pure lunacy.  The purpose of RFA is to weed out unsuitable candidates.  Yet, anyone who actually tries to do that job opens themselves up to  getting bitched at from all corners.  The broken results we get are entirely our own fault.  Maybe it's time to have some qualifications for who can vote.  The majority of the participants here are clearly incompetent for that job.   Wake up, people.  Friday (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of the opposers, I was not that surprised to see Eco get so much support - he'd been throwing enough barnstars at kids and DYK congrats messages to ensure that - but I was certainly amazed to see many experienced Wikipedians rolling up to support Eco, and support him vehemently, despite his very dodgy track record. Sufficient numbers to ensure that it would have passed. Thank God it all unravelled so quickly. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Friday is clearly right here. What is so disturbing is that a number of people clearly had very negative interactions with him, but had decided that because he had made nice that all was forgiven. RfA is broken, but not because it's to brutal. I had some rather nasty things thrown at me during mine, but wasn't bothered one bit. I think being able to handle the nasty is actually the sign of a good administrator. Regardless, the community really screwed up here, and a number of editors should think about how and why they participate in RfA. -- AniMate  talk  20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Best Wishes
I asked a question, and then proceeded to go out. I had no intent of violating my own essay and apologize for my leaving to pursue an urgent family matter. Nobody can predict the behavior of an animal trapped in a corner. Snakes (not a direct comparison) can be docile in such situations, and even allow genuine contact. Other times, they can react with full force. In this case, it is the latter. I only know Eco from WP, and from the friendship we have forged. Human behavior is widely unpredictable. I'll refrain from any amateur-diagnosis, and just simply hope that the damage done can be mended, and that he finds peace. That's pretty much it. Basically, this all sucks and I don't know how else to put it. I'm a bit devastated; if there are varying degrees to such an emotion. Lawshoot! 12:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Human behaviour is very predictable, as is the behaviour of snakes. What is rather less predictable is the detailed behaviour of individual humans, or individual snakes. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah MF, I have heard of your presence. I admire you, sans the use of the superfluous 'u' in some grammar. A snake is a very unpredictable creature. They can be deadly, yet very malleable. You can generally pet a snake, regardless of their proclivity. Interesting creatures as they have a very high tolerance to putting up with shit. The same cannot be said of an alligator. I simply wish Eco well. Obviously something is not quite healthy about his behavior. I hope he gets help and is able to be as productive in life as he was here. I wish him godspeed. I think a lot of people do. Lawshoot! 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)