Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/The C of E 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Application withdrawn. ~ Ningauble 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The C of E (talk · contributions)

End date: 6.8.09 I would like to become an admin to help others around Wikiquote as well as using the powers to try and help make this site better as well as dealing with disruptive editors and vandlisers.

I would also like to help some of the newer users find their feet and I feel that with the admin tools I can do that better than what I can without them. The C of E 15:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept The C of E 15:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

• Strong Oppose Really, I don't feel like I need to do anything but mention this diff. I'm extremely hesitant to give the sysop bit to someone that sees no problem in disrupting VfDs and has shown no indication that he's aware of Wikiquote's policies and standards. He only has 248 edits here; while I'm willing to support candidates that are experienced on other Wikimedia projects, sulutil:The C of E shows that he's got less than 1200 edits on enwiki, which isn't enough for me to ignore a dearth of contributions here. There's also the fact that nothing C of E is mentioning he'd like to do (specifically, "help some of the newer users find their feet") requires the admin tools; one can "make this site better" just by cutting some of our lengthier pages down so they aren't copyright concerns any longer, which requires nothing but the ability to edit.
  As an aside, the fact that he asked Jimbo of all people if he could be on ArbCom[1] is incredibly offsetting, as is this constant push for the sysop bit (see also wp:RfA/The C of E and wq:RfA/The C of E). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I will say I didn't qute know what Arbcom was, but I do now and if offered I will decline it. And I will also say I do apoligise for that edit, it was just a stressful day for me and I felt I had to vent my anger on something. But that was 6 months ago and I have matured more than then. 6 Months I feel is long enough for me to have learnt my lesson and it won't ever happen again, of that you have my word. The C of E 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to believe you, and am equally willing to agree that issues in the past can become non-issues given enough time. However, that wasn't my only concern; you still have far, far too little experience in my estimation, and the recent "power grab" moves (the WP RfA was barely more than a month ago) are still somewhat of a concern (ironic, given the fact that people have expressed concerns for my own "power grabs", but still). You just need more experience, and I need to see more evidence that the stressful day was an exception, not a rule. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for believing me The C of E 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for all the reasons EVula mentions above. This user is just not experienced enough, has a history of disruptive and antagonistic behavior, and doesn't really need to be an admin to do what he says he wants to do. I don't see the value in having him as an admin. ~ UDScott 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • About that antagonistic behavior you say I have expressed, I will accept and admit that I was closed minded when I had first joined and antagonistic but that was several months ago and I have now promised to myself and God that I will listen more and try to be more helpful to everyone The C of E 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Be that as it may, I still oppose based on the other factors I mentioned above. ~ UDScott 17:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose due to lack of experience and unfamiliarity with community standards. Since withdrawing his previous application, The C of E has only made about 125 mainspace edits, has had almost no participation in community affairs other than his own RfA, and has evinced no interest in the types of activity for which admin tools are useful. As I said at his previous RfA, I think it takes about 1,000 edits in a variety of types of article and project pages to learn the written and unwritten rules of the community and to demonstrate responsibility. Signs that The C of E is still learning his way around the wiki world include: the above mentioned memo to Jimbo, needing assistance figuring out how to post an RfA, and many edits disregarding WQ:LOQ. Besides the history of antagonism, I have to question the judgment of one whose requests here and at Wikipedia seem impetuous. ~ Ningauble 16:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the RfA instructions sucked; C of E's difficulties are what prompted me to overhaul the instructions.[2][3] Now, that said, an experienced editor could have looked at their first RfA, figured out the relevant bits, then looked at the RfA page's history for how previous RfAs have been handled (and the naming scheme for second RfAs), and done it themselves. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I am all for making things easier. However, sysops are called upon to deal with the hard cases, and need to be relatively adept at investigating what is going on with content, layout, and markup. ~ Ningauble 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I totally agree with you, which is what the "that said" part was for, albeit in a rather roundabout way. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, Ninguable last time you said it takes around 500 edits not 1000 for firm consideration The C of E 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
          • If you are going to contradict someone on a matter of record get your facts right. In point of fact, I said 1,000. It was UDScott who said 500 earlier, and I was giving my opinion in contrast. A Wikiquotian should know the difference between a quote and a misattribution, and an administrator, in order to use the tools responsibly, should be scrupulous in ascertaining who did what. ~ Ningauble 12:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Concerns about the candidate's temperament and experience. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Well as I said last time, I can see i'm not going to get it this time but I'll be back! (6 months possibly) The C of E 09:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't aim for a set period of time; some people can learn the ins and outs in six months time that others only learn in nine. Experience is what is needed, not more days on a calendar between your first edit and your RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.