User talk:Ec5618/Adminship

I'm done. My Request for Adminship was denied.

The community has elected to voice a vote of no-confidence, which has rather upset my confidence in the community. I really wish it hadn't. I don't think I was asking for much, really, and the suggestion that I should not be considered trustworthy enough to be given tools, is painful.

I'm not sure what to make of all this. I actually lost a support vote, because I opposed discrimination. This is distressing.

In a few days, I hope to be able to find the words to properly thank some of the people who voted. For now, please look at the pretty flowers. -- Ec5618 20:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship

I have recently requested adminship. If you are reading this, it suggests you have had dealings with me. Please consider voting, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ec5618. Thank you. -- Ec5618 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look promising, although you can still hope. Let this stuff die down a bit, and think a bit more carefully about the wording of your nom and comments, as William said. The bit about editing protected pages was a bad pick, especially given the fact that there was so little else there.

Your comments on William's page about people who know you versus not knowing you are very valid. The two bits of evidence against you that Splash dug up look bad to people who have never seen you before. Getting things done is very much about who you know and how people perceive you. Voting on RFA (and doing it with good humour) is actually very useful, because the page is full of RFA-addicts. Given the fact that newbies and specialists crowd the page, it's important to get a good start - if you had the support votes on board before the oppose ones you might not have gotten the pile-on oppose votes. In that regard, having a nominator, preferably a well-known nominator, is essential. If this fails, wait a couple months and let me or KC nominate you (or someone else without too many negatives attached to them). Be careful what you say in the run-up, be careful who you oppose. It is a big deal to some people, and it's becoming a bigger deal. Since the process is dominated by newer people, your years of good work are likely to be overlooked. But you have to play to the gallery. Out of curiosity - are you the same person who signs "Ec" on wikien-l?

Regarding talk pages, the only discussion I know about it takes place here. Poke around the page a bit, there's a lot of discussion about altering talk pages. Guettarda 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is also part of the problem, of course. Guettarda 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the vote of confidence. As for the RfA, I honestly had not expected this sort of response. It seems that several people voted against me for other reason than that I worded my statement poorly, and several seem to have refused to reconsider their vote.

Ironically, it was partly the block that convinced me to submit an RfA. The sillyness of it all convinced me to be more serious. The only 'no' votes that seem founded refer to my recent 3RR block, which I can respect.

I am still hoping that the bureaucrat who will eventually evaluate my request, will show mercy, and will notice that most opposing votes are somewhat petty.

And no, I don't subscribe to wikien-l, and would sign Ec5618 if I did. -- Ec5618 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ec5618, Jumping into your conversation: Bureaucrats tend not to second guess the voters below about 65% unless there is clear sockpuppetry at work, so I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. Most regular voters will make a decision on the information in the RFA itself: the perceived trustworthiness of the nominator, responses to questions, an attitude that shows respect for process and the opinions of voters (this follows from the fact that RFA is a process and RFA habitues are invested in that process), edit count and edit spread across different spaces, statements and comments by voters and reaction of the nominee to criticism. And then there is the dreaded pile-on, where someone who isn't sure will repeat someone else's oppose. There is obviously something a bit messed up about this, but debates over process swallow good editors whole. Guettarda is wise in the ways of the RFA and I would follow his advice if you're still interested afterwards. Cheers, Banyan Tree 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ec5618

I'm sorry, but I'd prefer it if you would take the time to personally look into my case, instead of simply copying another user. I believe the edits to which Durin refers are taken out of context, which I have tried to explain.

I had edited [1] a user's talk page in response to his completely blanking the page, in what I percieved to be an attempt to hide his past (and criticism therof). It was a minor matter at the time, and although Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines suggest I should have sought dispute resolution, I didn't think such was necessary.

If this threatens my Adminship, I apologise. From my point of view, I posted on a Talk page in good faith. I never lied, I never tried to offend. I merely defended myself. Thank you.-- Ec5618 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once moved another users edits on a talk page to a different section. Unfortunately, he didn't see the move and thought I deleted his comments. He left a message on my talk page and I replied in this edit. Problem solved, right? Nope. The user, since he didn't want others to see that he had been involved in a dispute, blanked his talk page. Hence, I left this message for him. It seemed to work. I didn't add a link to an archive, or revert his talk page after he once again blanked it. I just informed him of Wikipedia etiquette and then, after seeing his obstinance, just gave up and focused on more pressing matters. I believe that, if you're going to get into a heated debate or possibly violate a rule (such as WP:3RR), do whatever you can to avoid the situation and compromise without negative consequences.

Granted, I shouldn't have just followed Durin's lead so quickly, but I did take a look at the edits myself before voting in opposition to your RfA. I will make an analogy, but, since you live in the Netherlands, you'll just have to imagine you're in the US for the time being. In 2004, US elections were held between Republican Bush and Democrat Kerry. You probably know who won - Bush (although, technically, he should have lost both in 2000 and 2004 if not for errors in the vote-counting process - as you can tell, I'm a staunch Democrat). The reason why so many citizens voted for Bush in 2004 after he made so many blunders in his first time is because of Bush's campaign strategy - Kerry was, by far, superior. In the debates, Bush always criticized Kerry, yet Kerry praised himself. People, in general, are quicker to prey on one flaw than they are to praise one strength. That is, even though Kerry was better, Bush's critism of him made him look bad and, if Kerry had instead chosen to criticize Bush back, probably would have won.

Now, back to your RfA, I know you are a superior candidate for sysop rights. You have about 3650 edits with almost 400 in the WP namespace, etc, etc, etc. However, Durin pointing out one weak spot, unfortunately, hurt your position more than pointing out five strengths would have helped. It's just human nature. Finally, you said I understand that Adminship is 'no big deal'. I disagree with that statement. Sure, adminship is not a trophy or sherrif's badge, but it is to be taken seriously. If it was "no big deal," anyone would be allowed to edit the main page or revert vandalism without an edit summary (which, surprisingly, is a source of big debate recently). So, to compensate for my human nature, I'll make a deal with you, just like I did recently with another RfA candidate. Your RfA ends on Feb 6. If, sometime before then, you point out five of your strengths and notify me on my talk page, I'll vote in support. Just five, and I'm sure you have more than that - I've already named a few above! You can reply to my talk page with the list, and I'll vote in support. I don't want you to lose just because humans are naturally impulsive and greedy... okay? --M @th wiz 2020 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely thank you for reconsidering. While my current RfA may be lost to misunderstanding, I would appreciate your vote of confidence. First things first: "Adminship is no big deal". I stand by that, in a way. I was inspired by the top of the Wikipedia:Administrators page, which quotes Jimbo as having said the exact same thing. I don't see the issue with allowing an editor to have Admin rights, when it should be obvious that there is little chance of abuse of power. While I have been involved in controversy (most of it a direct consequence of my involvement with the intelligent design related articles), I have never vandalised and have never tried to offend anyone. Does anyone have the impression that I will go rogue?

Still, I realise that Adminship should not be taken lightly,and that my comment may have appeared callous or indifferent.

As for your requested five points, please know that I don't like to toot my own horn or brag in any way. I have a personal rule to remain strictly professional; a rule I might add I am breaking by telling you that. Nevertheless:

I have a reasonable command of the English language, and have, in my opinion, a decent writing style.
A pet peeve of mine is the use of the word 'reason' in conbination with the word 'why'. Don't take this the wrong way, but when you wrote "The reason why so many citizens voted for Bush ..", the word why was redundant.
I am dedicated to the project, and am proud to be a part of it. I see its faults, yes, but I am willing to work at fixing those.
I am versatile. I do not mind copyediting poetry pages one day, and discussing reorganising the reference desk another. If something should be done, it might as well be done.
I will continue to patrol the articles surrounding creationism, but other than that, I'm mostly a free agent.
I am ever present. When I have little time, I will still check my watchlist for vandalism.
I forgive. I will give people an unspecified number of chances. If an obstinate editor appears to have a point, I will call on other editors to listen.

Thank you. -- Ec5618 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expedient response! I'm sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner, but I was sick yesterday and slept through the afternoon and evening, when I normally edit Wikipedia. Your reasons are flawless so... I'll change my vote in just a minute! Thank you for asking me so kindly, too - it just emphasizes your fifth point. I'm sure you'll make a great admin - so good luck on your RfA! --M @th wiz 2020 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Hi Ec, I'm responding to your appeal for reconsideration (I notice that I wasn't the only one).

My decision to oppose your candidacy was not done in haste or without due consideration. I'm not a regular voter at RFA but I do watch it regularly. I don't believe in voting based solely on anyone else's assessment and depend on my own gut-feel more than anything else and it is through my own interactions with a candidate that I develop that gut-feel.

My feelings about your current candidacy have to do with your somewhat contentious history contrasted with my respect for your intelligence and vigorous defense of your position. I do believe that you are admin material and I will most likely support your candidacy at some future time (months, not years). My feeling is that this RFA will be a learning experience for you and hey, what doesn't kill ya will make you stronger. I spoke of your immaturity and your appeal shows some aspect of that. My decision was not frivolous nor was it not well thought out but your request for reconsideration based on our recent concurrence at the RD makes me wonder if that was just pandering on your part (geesh, I hope not).

In your past and future lifetime at WP, this is just a blip and my vote one way or the other is unlikely to change the outcome. I'd much rather you be promoted with a no-doubt majority consensus than to have squeaked through by one vote. You know that I hold no animus towards you or I wouldn't have bothered to add so many words at the RFA or here. I truly look forward to your next RFA whereby you will have established your credentials not only as a fair arbiter but a mature and levelheaded editor as well. I wish nothing less than a bountiful experience for you here and in your real life. :-) hydnjo talk 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words.

Firstly, let me stress that I'm quite confortable with the progress we seem to have made at the Reference Desk. When I saw your vote, I assumed it was in reponse to my comments there. I don't think I changed my mind in response to your vote, so I don't think I was pandering. I did realise that some of the frustration on some of the more controversial pages I frequent may be avoided, as it seems that the tone of any initial comment can radically change one's perception of the discussion as a whole. I'm hoping to put my first hand experience to good use.

Secondly, I was rather hoping to scrape by 'on a single vote', as opposed to running again. I have received advice from different directions, all of which seems to indicate that had I approached my RfA a little differently, I would have passed, easily. There would have been people voting favourably for no other reason than that they trust my nominator, and I would be sure to get a number of pre-arranged support votes, which would very likely result in a number of pile-on votes. My point is that it seems that in many ways, RfA is a popularity contest. I was rather hoping to get by on merit.

I can understand your reluctance to vote favourably, but I still hold hope that you might remove your opposing vote. It seems I have craftily managed to avoid being showered with pile-on votes, but as a consequence, my position is rather shaky at 64% approval.

Finally, as you assume I have a real life, I'll return the favour when I wish you the best as well. Thank you. -- Ec5618 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ec, I appreciate that you appreciate that my RFA vote was based on nothing other than my overall judgment of your merit at this time (and yet you keep pressing!). I feel that your anxiety in this matter does not provide forward progress. If you were my kid (whew, what a thought that is!) I'd advise you to lay back, read all of the Support comments and then really read all of the Oppose comments. You'll be back here at RFA with more credentials than you can imagine (if, that is, you need to come back at all). Please don't fret over this whole matter by trying to gain an abstention (neutral) or a reversal (I've seen one so far) at the risk of those appeals being brought up against you on a future RFA. Those appeals will not be looked on kindly if someone has it "in for you". Regarding your comment that this as a "popularity" contest well, perhaps but I prefer to see it as a congeniality examination. I am sure that you can do better in the future than you have in the past. Our best wishes are with you, in the long run. hydnjo talk 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add this comment. If you find accomplishment in becoming an admin by a single vote in your favor then we should talk again. It's not so much as to gaining adminship barely but rather gaining adminship with authority. Your "one vote scraping by" will always be a footnote to your adminship and will erode your influence. Once you're an admin you can't go back and gain a greater support field no, it is best done on confirmation and whatever the show of confidence, it will be there, always. You want to win bigtime! hydnjo talk 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading my comment above, I apologise for asking you to remove your vote. It was wrong of me to appeal to you in this way. Pity votes are not what I'm after either, and I can see what you mean when you say that I 'keep pressing'.

Believe me, I have read the commentary on both sides. I can certainly understand that people may object to my rather recent 3RR block, which by itself accounts for five opposing votes. I'm not sure what to make of, for example, Avriette's vote. I'm afraid that Wade A. Tisthammer is mostly trying to put pressure on me, as noted by the comments below the vote.

I certainly respect Durin, Dr Debug and yourself for taking the time to actually look into my past, and have read each of your comments with great interest.

As for your additional comment, perhaps I have a naive view of Adminship, but I would certainly hope never to need more authority that would rightfully be mine by the strength of my arguments. Neverthess, in this practical, physical world we inhabit, I'm grudgingly inclined to agree with you. -- Ec5618 00:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, your margin of victory is indeed a measure of your relevance. We'll see you at the RFA in the springtime. Meanwhile let's both of us go about fixing what we can and bypassing the contention-bait. Don't know if I can do that but hey, I don't want to be an admin. ;-) hydnjo talk 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of support

I'm not sure what you want me to add. I thought Carnildo's blocks were outrageous, you defended them, I withdrew support for granting you a block button of your own. It seems a logical sequence. But I'll try to elaborate, if only to save both of us the back-and-forth that I foresee of your saying you didn't actually support them, me saying that maybe not, but in a sense you did, etc. Two things:

Hate speech. Carnildo blocked three highly respectable users for "hate speech and inciting attacks on other users". Looking at what the three actually said, I think he, and by extension you, are cheapening the idea of hate speech. I don't mean that your view is unreasonable or indefensible. But I feel strongly about hate speech, perhaps from living in a country where it's actually illegal, and being appalled to discover that it wasn't even reckoned a blocking reason on Wikipedia. There are registered users here who compile lists of the Jewish Mafia on Wikipedia and remark on what a lot of Jewish arbitrators we have, and there are respected adminstrators who insist on their right to do that. I want Wikipedia to deal much more firmly with such real hate speech, and it seems to me that using the term the way Carnildo and you did is making it ever less likely to happen.

The blocks. I do note that there's now a second comment from you in the same thread where you say "I'm not saying Carnildo was right in blocking these people... ". You're still rather conspicuously (to me) not saying he was wrong in doing it, and coming after your original remark "In Carnildo's defense, I... ", well it just doesn't satisfy me. You're totally entitled to these views and these expressions of them, but I'm also entitled to feel differently about supporting you. (I'm not opposing you.)

It's 3:30 AM here and I'm going to bed, so it'll be a while before I can be engaged in any more dialogue, should you wish to. Bishonen | talk 02:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, but it seems your withdrawal of support was rather impulsive, in response to your shock over the blocks. Certainly, I am allowed my own opinion. It seemed that the conversation was moving away from the actual issue of discrimination, and was moving towards a communal bashing of a single user. This shouldn't be about Carnildo. "I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to discriminate against anyone."

As for 'hate speech', I oppose all such activity, but I have a special place in my heart for socially accepted hate speech (as in, "I hate pedophiles, but everyone hates them, so it's no big deal"). -- Ec5618 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

It is with regret that I have to inform you that your request for adminship was unsuccessful on this occasion. The consensus at rfa for promotion to adminship is currently about 75-80% support. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to seeing an adminship nomination with your name on it at some point in the future. -- Francs 2000 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]