Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 2

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

Ecoleetage

FINAL (87/18/4); withdrawn 02:38, 3 September 2008 by candidate

Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) - I've worked with Eco on a number of things across the project since he and I first encountered one another earlier in the (Northern hemisphere) summer. While I can't precisely recall how we first "met", I formed a good opinion of him and knew he was an asset. While he may have made some errors in quick nominations for AfD early on, he was always willing to acknowledge a mistake and learn from it, which I think is what being a solid editor is all about. He really wants to understand how he can make better choices and I think the last three months have shown that he's put suggestions from me and other editors into play, some of which you can clearly see in his answer to Question 2 (below) as well as in his other contributions. He took under consideration the suggestions made in his editor review, which has also made him a stronger editor. What I appreciate the most from him is his true interest in many levels of the project. He'll frequently ask editors, "Anything you're working on that I can help with?" because he has an all-around interest in improving the project (as you can see in his contributions, including a number of DYKs and other article work). He also sees projects that he'd like to help revive, including his current work on the agriculture project. Yes, he's only been highly active since April 2008 but in those five months, he's shown an ability and willingness to improve his article writing skills and understanding of the project as a whole, as well as a dedication to the project. I firmly believe in the idea of quality > quantity, and this is an excellent example of such related to the quality of his contributions v. number of months. In summary, Eco is already an asset to the project as an active editor who seeks to improve Wikipedia's coverage of a wide range of topics, and I believe he'd continue to be an asset to the project as an admin with the added tools that will allow him to be an even more productive editor. TravellingCari 14:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Ironholds I ran into Ecoleetage, as Cari did, earlier in the summer while he was looking through the new pages and ran into a couple of fauna articles i'd written. He immediately left a message on my talkpage saying he'd seen them and that he found them interesting. It wasn't a one-off thing; Ecoleetage is as a rule courteous, friendly and one of the nicest users i've run into during my two years editing. His contributions speak for themselves; over 50 DYK's and some excellent long article work (see the Good Article status of Pontius Pilate's wife) and in response to his work more 'stars than the London night sky. I've also seen him around AfD, and his work there is also exemplary; arguments are always based on policy and common sense rather than the "I like it/I don't like it" comments you sometimes get, and despite issues up to and including (false) sockpuppetry accusations Ecoleetage always keeps a cool head. My contributions in RfA discussions are normally limited to oppose votes for people I feel would be detrimental to the project as an admin, with a support vote being a rarity nevermind a co-nomination; this hopefully speaks of how highly I think of this candidate. In short I believe Ecoleetage would be as excellent an administrator as he is a user, and giving him access to the tools can do nothing but good for the project. Ironho lds 20:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:~~I am grateful for this opportunity and I would like to thank Cari and Ironholds for having faith in my abilities to serve this project. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn In view of the increasing level of hostility and personal attacks, I have decided to terminate this RfA, effective immediately. I would like to give my thanks for those who came out in support of my effort and who gave praise for my contributions to this projects. For the haters, I have nothing positive to say and thus will say nothing. Thank you and good night. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I've participated in the AFD, CSD, DYK forums and I’ve reporting odd happenings to AIV and UAA. As an admin, I would continue to provide input there. I will also happily grant rollback rights and work with editors who request the return of deleted articles (not just to return the articles, but help rewrite them so they don’t get deleted again).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Okay, grab something to drink or snack on, because you're in for a long haul:

1) Content creation – the crux of this project is content, and I have worked hard to bring forth a diverse mix of new entries (145 to date) covering a wide variety of subjects. Some of thes entries are lengthy articles, some are stubs, and all are designed to fill voids within Wikipedia's coverage. (As a note – I am interested in creating content for the Net surfing world to access, not in chasing awards for myself, which is why I have been absent from the GA and FA processes.)

2) Restoring deleted articles by rewriting proper new versions – many of the entries that I have created were based on subjects that, for a number of reasons, were originally deleted. Bringing them back has been very satisfying. Here are some articles that were recreated from scratch, and all won DYK notice: Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, David Zolotarev, Potting soil, Cupid's Mistake, Dollis Hill Synagogue (twice deleted, no less), and Duty to God Award. The most dramatic rescue, I think, was Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda) – this is the story behind that story: [1].

3) Article expansion – I've done extensive editing on existing stubs, but since I do my writing/editing offline and then import the text to Wikipedia, it would appear in a cursory glance of my history that I am doing very little editing. That is incorrect, and I would ask that you look at these examples: Goodbye, 20th Century!, Yared, To Be Alive! and Sandakan No. 8 (all DYK honourees).

4) Welcoming Committee – Dlohcierekim pointed me in this direction and I am glad he did. I love doing this because I want the first point of contact for new editors to be a positive and inclusive message.

5) New Page Patrol – I genuinely enjoy reading the new articles, and I often commend the writers for their input. Where required, I add WikiProject templates and category listings to the articles in order to spread the word on the new entries and appropriate tags to get the articles’ creators to add a little more data.

6) Speedy Delete – unfortunately, not all new articles deserve a pat on the back. The majority of my CSD tags have been processed without any problems. When an admin removes a tag, however, I make an effort to inquiry why, in order to understand where my judgment was wobbly (you can't learn without asking questions).

7) AfD – I am all over the place there: nominating articles, participating in discussions, and doing non-admin closures. I have to say I enjoy the non-admin closures the best – it is great to see an article saved. And I have no problems withdrawing AfD nominations if it is clear my call was wrong – and I congratulate those who saved the article. (Because, really, everyone wins.) But my favourite AfD achievement was rallying to save an article about a young Polish girl who perished in the Holocaust: [2]. I paid to access a newspaper web site to find the source material to clinch notability, and I am thankful that others in the community shared my concern about erasing this story from our pages.

8) Anti-vandal/anti-spamming reporting – This is not my primary focus, admittedly, but in my Welcoming Committee and New Page Patrol work, I come across dubious editing, suspicious user names, spamming and other "Huh?"-raising activity. I've issued Level 1 and Level 2 warnings where applicable, and for the more serious problems I've alerted the appropriate admin boards for their attention.

9) WikiProjects – I am involved in nine WikiProjects: three covering religion and efforts focusing on film, agriculture, business, opera, bodybuilding and Mozambique. And don't say it – I know, I don't see the connection, either!

10) Random acts of encouragement – While not an official channel or recognised endeavour, I just enjoy being supportive. I like to tell people how much I admire their writing, editing and commentary. I have a quote on my User Page from Sartre that says "Hell is other people." But doesn't have to be the case – and if I can do anything to prove that notion wrong, then I can turn off my computer at day's end and say: "Eco, you did well."

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I will give you an answer that no one (I think) has ever provided: on occasions, I have caused stress to some editors. And I am not going to offer flimsy excuses for what transpired – I was in the wrong for my occasional flares of indelicate language and I accept full responsibility for not doing the right thing. I know that some people don’t like me because they think I am a rude person, and it grieves me because I have gone out of my way to apologise for my actions and have tried to make amends for stepping on toes. I am citing this because I am fully aware that it is too easy to get upset online, and as an admin I would not rush to block people who may have blown off some steam without genuinely realising the possible consequences of an inappropriate word.

Additional questions from Travellingcari

4. You've only been highly active as an editor since April 2008. Please explain how these five months have allowed you to gain the necessary experience that you believe required to be an administrator.

A:It is all a question of time management and dedication. In this period of time, I’ve been able to determine where I can make a positive contribution to the project and concentrated on those areas. I wish I could be everywhere, but I can only do X amount of work in X amount of time. Within the X amount of time, I’ve subdivided my efforts to achieve a proper balance of input without getting scorched by burnout. I believe content creation is a primary goal for this project, so I’ve challenged myself to create at least one new entry per day. Sometimes I wind up with three or four new entries – they can be full articles or stubs (hey, stubs grow up!). On issues and protocol where I have been in doubt, I’ve made an effort to ask questions. The results, I would hope, have been beneficial to the project, and I hope they will be measured in terms of depth and scope rather than calendar pages.

Additional questions from Stifle

5. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a person who is still alive be used on Wikipedia?

A. WP:NONFREE states: “Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content.” Examples for living people would include cover art, stamps and currency, promotional material, film and TV shots, works of visual art and “images with iconic status or historical importance.”

6. What's your opinion of generic non-free rationale templates like {{logo fur}}?

A.I don't have an opinion, per se. It exists, and I never gave it any critical consideration.

Optional questions from Asenine

7. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: In that nutshell: verifiability. Out of the nutshell: I would make sure the newbie doesn’t get soured by this experience.

8. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Well, I hope Sam doesn’t mind my sharing this example, but...back in June, I came in contact with User:Shapiros10. He is a young man who was undergoing a bit of a confidence shake due to his concerns about earlier problems here on Wikipedia and how people perceive him. I saw he was unhappy via his Talk Page contributions and I took it upon myself to inject a mega-dose of confidence into his talk page: [3]. Of all the advice I gave Sam in that exchange, this was my favourite item: "Smart people will see the full spectrum of what you have done and will isolate aberrations for being mere hiccups. The idiots will hold every error against you. Don't worry about the idiots -- I'll have your back on whatever you are doing here." (Message to Sam: those words are still true – you are a great guy and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!)

9. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: Well, the non-admin closures would be dropped. And I would not be filing reports of articles for speedy delete consideration, would-be spammers, wonky user names, etc. -- I would be acting in response to those reports. But I have no intention to stop creating new content, because that is of primary importance to the viability of the project. My other activities will remain in place -- it is very important for me to be part of the Welcoming Committee (I want new editors to have a positive and inclusive message when they arrive), New Page Patrol, the WikiProjects, and so forth.

Optional question from xenocidic

10. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: I believe a one-week block is justifiable in view of the texture of the vandalism that was put online and in view of the editor's previous disrputions. However, I would be open to hearing from other admins who may feel my decision was inappropriate. And as an aside: for someone supposedly interested in dentistry, the blocked editor appears to be fixated on the wrong part of the body!

Optional question from Tombomp

11. Somebody reports the username "BambIslam" to WP:UAA, saying they think it's offensive. What do you do?

A:The first thing I would do is look it up – I am not certain if the name is BAMBISLAM or BAMBLSLAM. The fifth letter is unclear – is it a lower case L or an upper case I? I just did a check on Google and found a British music group called The Bambi Slam – so if the user plans to be an SPA writing articles about The Bambi Slam, there are obvious WP:COI issues to address in the very near future. But if the user name was supposed to be “Bomb Islam,” then the misspelling saved it from being blocked as an inappropriate user name -- you cannot block someone for being a poor speller. However, I would keep a very sharp eye on this user to ensure everything is on the up-and-up. There is obviously no place on Wikipedia for religious intolerance – though I just checked and it appears we could use an article on The Bambi Slam.

Upper case I, and I was thinking of the music group. Good answer. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Balloonman

12: About a month ago, somebody else brought you to my talk page about creating an RfA. I gave the reasons why I couldn't support there at the time, but said that I might be able to in 1-2 months. What have you done since then to address the concerns I raised?

A: Well, you told me to wait until September before approaching this opportunity, because you thought early August was too soon. At the time, I was not entertaining the notion of an RfA -- someone was trying to prod me into it. However, I used the period between our initial conversation in early August and this endeavour to speak with as many people as I could to see if they felt I was qualified to be an admin. An overwhelming majority of people I contacted were very supportive. Thus, your advice to hold off for a month was excellent, and I thank you for that.

General comments

See Ecoleetage's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Ecoleetage: Ecoleetage (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ecoleetage before commenting.

Discussion

I'm having minor issues with getting his stats to show up transcluded on the talk page. Please do not hold the nominator's shakiness with Wikipedia tech stuff against Eco. TravellingCari 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, Mathbot will automatically create the stats in the talk page after an hour or two after transclusion. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought that was the case, but then reading Once they have accepted, add {{subst:RfA talk|USERNAME|EDIT STATS}} to the discussion page, and add their edit stats here made me think otherwise. Thanks for helping. TravellingCari 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's reiteration out of respect foe neutrals and opposes who have the rights to their own opinions, though I may not agree, I'm not going to address/refute/question each !vote. I just want to reiterate my support for Ecoleetage and belief that he'll be a good admin. We're all human, no one's perfect and I have not seen anything that would make me question my support and nom. If there are severe issues I'd like to see them (with diffs please) or if you think it's serious enough, take it to a 'crat. I don't expect anything to come up, but if it does, I am listening. TravellingCari 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of Eco removing criticism from his talkpage without archiving it. My concern was not addressed in off-wiki communication, but was removed as if it had been. This archiving issue (well, the lack of doing it) is a big concern to me. Also, he became angry at me a few days ago, when I wouldn't simply wipe out a section of my talkpage that he felt portrayed him in a bad light. Eveb after I moved it to my archive, he was still angry, and edited my archive to "strike" his comments in the conversation. There are some serious temperament issues that need to be addressed here before I could ever support this candidacy. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Not commenting on archiving, which has been addressed below. Is that the right diff? That's a comment from CycloneNim, who seems to indicate he received an e-mail from Eco. I don't see how that concerns you. Am I missing something? TravellingCari 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Cari, as usual, this is a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't game that is going on here. In this case, Dean injected himself into the middle of a larger message where his input was not requested nor required. But, really, look at the games that are going on here. If I answer an e-mail, I am wrong. If I don't send a message, I am wrong. And if I dare to defend myself against ridiculous charges, then I'm the nut. Loaded language like "angry" and "temperament" and "removing criticism" is just being used to tear me down and to sabotage an effort that Dean first proposed in early August. None of this has anything to do with administrative duties or even my editor history -- which, you may notice, is being conspicuously ignored in these increasingly melodramatic statements. This kind of rubbish is why so many talented and intelligent people have walked away from Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will let the tenor of my posts, and the tenor of yours, stand as it is. I have every right to post wherever I wish to, Eco, even if you haven't "requested or required" it. You also have the right to remove my comments from your talkpage. And I have every right to comment on what your doing so might indicate. You know very well what happened the other day, when I only requested that you find a main nominator, when I was still willing to co-nominate you. Your behavior, both on- and off-wiki, since that time has convinced me that even that position was mistaken. I greatly respect the writing you have done. I do not respect how you have treated me and DT these last couple of weeks. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 01:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - SDJ, fair enough. Missed your comment in the middle. I don't know what happened between the three of you off-Wiki. I'm going to continue to let Eco's on-wiki contribs speak for themselves (since his article contributions don't appear to be in question). I can't speak to off-wiki behavior that I was not party to, nor do I want forwarded private communication. Like I said, everyone has their right to oppose for any reason they choose. TravellingCari 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cari, I respect that it is not considered appropriate to post off-wiki communication without the consent of all parties. Perhaps Ecoleetage would consider permitting me to post excerpts from our IMs or emails to illustrate some of my points, but I realise I cannot insist. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - Hello? I'm definitely in the right queue. In front, even. I like his work, style and attitude. Can't think of a reason not to support. ~~SIS~~ 01:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After taking a random sampling, I like his work at UAA and AFD. Has fixed his problem with edit summary usage. He's only been editing for five months, but I see his name here and there and think he's sufficiently experienced. Good mainspace work, knows policy, communicates, and is civil. I think he'll be a net positive. Even though he only has 2 edits this month (oh, wait, I only have six). However, I do suggest you start archiving your talk page. Useight (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the sort of prolific, hard-working and genuine editor we want to have the tools. Great work at AfD. He writes most of the articles I wish I did. Eco and I had a few arguments in the beginning, but those can be chalked up to misunderstandings and asshattery on my part. Now, I respect Eco as a top-notch editor and occasionally even try to emulate him. Hmm, a new adage - "what would Eco do?" Tan ǀ 39 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — Energetic, dedicated, fairhanded, high-spirited. And if a review of his contribs and a look through his answer to Q2 aren't enough for anyone, I don't know what they're looking for! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 02:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - How many DYKs is it now? (Also, you've helped me out. A lot.) Leonard^(Bloom) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as nom. TravellingCari 02:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Ecoleetage, without a doubt, is one of the most dedicated Wikipedians I know. He's friendly, intelligent, and contributes to a huge array of WikiProjects and articles. He's even reccomended that I apply for adminship once, but he's far more qualified. It's safe to say that Ecoleetage is an excellent, if not perfect, candidate for adminship. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
£337 $µpp0®7 - 3(0£337493 \/\/1££ Ð3ƒ1|\|173£¥ ß3 4 9®347 |-|3£p 70 7|-|3 p®0_|3(7 4$ 4|\| 4Ð|\/|1|\|. Seriously though, Ecoleetage will definitely be a great help to the project as an admin. X clamation point 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am new here -- can I vote? This editor welcomed me, and I read what he did with the Polish nun article. I hope he gets the job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple Tastes (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think your allowed mate. :-) — Realist² 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am having a dinner party tomorrow night and I wanted to buy some Soylent Green for the appetizers, and...oh, wrong queue. Support. —Animum · 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~No brainer for me. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Changed to oppose. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'm not the type of person who goes around supporting just anyone. Ecoleetage, has a couple of traits which has made Wikipedia a great project. First, he has made numerous well written contributions, which is the base of our encyclopedia. Second, he/she is a people person, someone who is level minded and has self-control. This is an asset when it comes to encouraging newcomers. I have spoken. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - their DYK work alone is enough for a support. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great editor and a nice guy. He made me feel welcomed when I just joined up. Jodykish (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 500 deleted contribs-- so has good experience there. Builds and rescues articles, so not likely delete article that should be kept. Far too inclusionist at AFD for my tastes, but you can't have everything. (As a side note, this may be the first candidate for me to support after giving a "not now" on the first RFA. Well done.) Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support most definitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nom. Ironho lds 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eco is fast, apologetic, kind, and helpful. I'm surprised he hasn't become an admin already. :)--Thecurran (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good editor and seems sensible enough, from what I've seen of him. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Ecoleetage is one of the best editors on Wikipedia. He is here to make Wikipedia better. I have talked with him before, and he is very civil. I am very glad to support one of the best human beings I have ever met in my life. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His mainspace work is good, and he shows experience and hard work in this area. This leads me to believe he'd also show dedication in administrative tasks. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down on the smilies tho. naerii 08:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came across Eco multiple times and almost always I thought "well, another admin doing his job". Then I looked at his userpage and was puzzled, that he was not in fact an admin, but just another user like me. And I wondered, why that is (and I wondered whether I could ever become an admin if someone like him didn't)...true story! So, to make it short: A great editor, who is civil, thoughtful and really active and will make a great admin I hope. Who cares that he only became active 5 months ago - what counts is what he did in this time! So Why 10:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Strong Support, you know, just the other day, I was shocked to learn that Ecoleetage was not an admin. I thought to myself, "I really should offer to nominate him", but I never got around to it. Thanks Cari and Ironholds, for making sure that this fine editor gets the chance to get the tools a lot earlier than they would have if he had to rely on me to nominate him! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I would have co-nominated but I'm not around consistently enough for that recently. Eco and I originally encountered when I responded to WQA. Eco has grown substantially in experience and ability since I first encountered him. He now regularly saves articles from AFD and then gets them a DYK! An awesome editor.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Net positive-Pedro, i hope you don't mind if i use this...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the nom statement. America69 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Duh. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - The problem with Doug is now irrelevant in light of what Doug has said, and what has happened after the incident. It shows well on a prospective administrator to be correcting any previous mistakes that they have made, and that is certainly what has happened in the case of Eco and Doug. From what I can tell by the answer to my second question, this user is friendly and welcoming to editors, and that is exactly what is needed from an RfA candidate. RfA is all about trust, and if I had not misread AniMate's comment about sockpuppets then he would have definitely got my vote the first time around, and not the second. Why the hell not, and all that, eh? Certainly. I do hope that you become an admin, and if you still don't understand how to archive a page please feel free to contact me on my talk page. :) Asenine 14:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I haven't interacted with this user enough to be able to have strong feelings either way, but the interactions I have had have been very positive, and were evidence of a good level of attention to detail. With regards to AFD - as precisionist, I probably have relatively strict notability criteria but am more than happy to support a relative inclusionist who I feel is unlikely to cause or become involved in conflict. Brilliantine (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, nearly missed this. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good editor who will make a fine admin. nancy ^(talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I welcome new users, I get a lot of questions from newbies. Q.8 above shows a really good interaction- calming down a disgruntled/bitten newbie and convincing them to keep trying. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly has the right attitude and the heart at the right spot, is honest, and seems quite dedicated. No red flags. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This editor went out of his way in the AfDs to save the articles on The Lost Patrol and Pyorrhoea from being deleted. We need more like him! Director33 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Back in May, Ecoleetage nominated this article for deletion. It turned out that the article was notable--and Ecoleetage, after reviewing the nomination's comments, withdrew it respectfully. I felt this demonstrated poise and the ability to learn from mistakes. And, I've gotta note my appreciation of the pun-filled AFD noms. They bring joy to my Wiki editing experience. Also, where are all of the "Hi, I'd like two tickets for Dolly Parton..." quips? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support–clearly a valuable presence on this encyclopedia--daniel folsom 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, finally made it to the Emerald City. Now if I can just locate that wizard so I can finally get a brain...oh, wait a sec; wrong place. I already have a brain - and it tells me to support Eco without reservation. Frank | talk 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support from neutral per no real reason not to. Switch to neutral. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no indicatins that this editor will cause any problems --T-rex 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dealt with Ecoleetage over Engkanto and found his attitude to be very good - he was happy to admit he made a mistake and was very polite about it all. I think the correct attitude is one of the most important things an administrator should have and Ecoleetage definitely has this. This incident was two and a half months ago and I'm sure they've learnt a lot since then so not worried about the slight policy mis-understanding. Have also seen him a lot on AfD where he is making productive comments. (This is my first ever RfA comment so should probably be taken with a pinch of salt). Dpmuk (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like someone I can trust. MBisanz ^talk 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. BTW, some users have an almost religious attitude toward automatic archiving of their own Talk pages. I, however, similar to Eco, decide by myself what stays, and for how long. Some entries have a shelf life of no more than five minutes, and that’s already a lot by my personal standards. --Poeticbent talk 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work in the WikiProject Bodybuilding articles, and on the Kevin Nee article. . Garrickdaft (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ability to admit and learn from one's mistakes is an important personal criteria for an admin to me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cameron * 18:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I am trying to quietly distance myself from Wikipedia and am strongly considering a username change or right to vanish request due to certain off-wiki concerns and although I have actually NOT agreed with this candidate in every AfD in which we both participated, I have found the candidate to be exceptionally nice (one of the nicest I have encountered on and off-wiki) and open-minded (seeks and is receptive of feedback). As such it is actually worth my logging back in today to support. And besides, I like to end on a positive note! So, enjoy the remainder of summer to everyone (although I am not really watching my talk page, I may check my Wikipedia emails here and there) and good luck to Ecoleetage and Everyking in their RfAs! Both are fine candidates who would serve Wikipedia well! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hello, I'm hosting a gathering of Wikipedians, and I need Eco, Blofeld... oops, wrong queue.~~ Support No seriously, Eco is the most civil user I have come across. You have impressed me with your constant stream of DYKs, which has even beat my own record and shows your dedication to creating content. You have impressed me with your excellant contributions to the world of AfD (aka sharing my view of extreme inclusionism). You have impressed me with lightening up a situation when it gets too hot to touch. You have impressed me with... ah, shut up Ed. In a nutshell, you will be very responsible with the extra buttons. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per the well-answered questions. Macy 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Realist² 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Acalamari 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. Umm....yes. Ecoleetage is communicative, helpful, smart and determined. I have no doubt that he can be trusted to handle the tools in an appropriate fashion. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A name I've seen around the place enough to know that this is an active, helpful user, and the extra tools would be used well, I'm sure. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyone who can write good articles about bad movies like "Zombie! Vs. Mardi Gras" and "Box Head Revolution" deserves praise. MikeWattHCP (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ecoleetage is an extraordinarily hard-working and extremely-fair editor. He is also very generous and congenial. He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor. I would say strong support except for my concern that I may be unable to come to him for advice and guidance if he is no longer "just" an editor and must take so much of his time away from editing to learn about and to deal with administrative functions and matters. Having said that, I would emphasize that a stronger desire for fairness and lack of personal interest in an administrator trumps my own more-personal wish to maintain an informal mentor/mentee relationship with a non-administrative Ecoleetage. I do hope that Eco will have time to maintain some of his so-needed editorial functions and relationships with the rest of us editorial contributors to Wikipedia content. Of course, I wish him luck with this new endeavor, as it appears that his nomination will be successful, given such support and strong support from so many others. (Please excuse any gaffes of protocol; this is the first time that I have commented in a RfA; E (as others do) tells me to be less wordy, but in this case I think that such words of praise are due him and may be helpful to others in the other sections below to see.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. Little Mountain 5 ^review! 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – iride scent 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Striking in light of [4]. Not an opposing matter, especially given the time elapsed, but it's the opposite to the attitude an admin should have. – iride scent 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, now changing to straight oppose. – iride scent 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good candidate. Johnfos (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insert some silly comment about being in the wrong queue here. —Giggy 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support A very large amount of DYKs. I remember assessing the guy about a month(maybe longer, i forgot) ago with two other editors and we had, at the time concluded he was not yet ready but since then he has improved vastly.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Switched to Oppose[reply]
Support - Wow, I remember you from about 4 months ago. And I've seen you many, many times at T:TDYK since I commonly work there. You are certainly dedicated in that area. I've noticed you in various other places too. I am happy to support you, Ecoleetage. :) Good luck, RyRy (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely. Malinaccier (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above (Everyking says it particularly well). Also great answers to the questions. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes. jj137 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thought you were an admin already! Good luck should the RfA succeed :) C L — 01:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support without hesitation. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 01:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per answers to questions. –BuickCentury Driver 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Wizardman 03:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ last month I had a few concerns, and while he didn't explicitly express how he addressed them in his answer to Q12, his actions/edits do indicate that he took them to heart.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Move to neutral---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- No brainer. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support'. Yup. I have an entire, barnstar and diff filled, lengthy support worked up in my mind about Ecoleetage. If I had noticed this RFA earlier (meaning if I'd been online in the last 72 hours), I would have put it either in the nominator's section, or as one of the first few supporters. Eco is one of our best editors. He should be an admin Yesterday. Keeper ǀ 76 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eu apoio Reúne e ultrapassa largamente todos os requisitos. Ademais, precisamos de mais administradores portugueses. ;-) Hús ö nd 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to oppose. Hús ö nd 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-conflicted Support Other than the image question (which is a non-issue to me because I don't see any evidence Eco intends to involve himself with images) I see nothing but good contribs from this user. (Also, + an LOL @ Husönd's support...)J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great taste in movies, sure to be a great administrator. Good luck! Mickeystern (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will make a good admin. Deli nk (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good contributions and good answers. Axl (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent wikipedian although I hope being an admin won't reduce his activity in the main space further. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is probably just piling on at this point, but Eco would make a great admin. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - love the answer to #7 (insofar as not being soured by the experience is part of consensus, imo), among other things :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have mainly (but I don't think entirely) interacted with Eco in regards to WP:UU where I have been impressed with his desire to increase content and with his desire for feedback from other users. He evidently has made some errors (see oppose section below), but seems willing to learn from them. I advise him to be cautious with deletions that may be contentious (e.g. take them to AfD if uncertain). Aleta ^Sing 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Adding to the pile -- always seems to be making positive contributions. His collaborative nature will be an asset as an admin. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The few mistakes that he has made in CSD which have been pointed out in the oppose section need to be viewed in context that this editor has a prolific amount of CSD nominations. Jon513 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I've known Eco for most of his Wiki-life, and he's been an excellent user to help learn the basics. Always polite, refreshingly honest, dedicated, thorough; I'll spare the thesaurus for everyone. Sure, he's made some mistakes, but he's improved on them tenfold and is an excellent candidate for adminship. Cheers, Eco! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong support. Ecoleetage has made a few mistakes, but nothing sufficient to warrant my opposing. Great answers to questions, and I don't think the opposers have brought up enough meaningful concerns. Admins can still tag articles as AfD, or even tag them as speedy deletion. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kind, bold and makes huge things seem like nothing. Good luck. --Lord ₪Sunday 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns, good luck. rootology (C)(T) 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't expect admins to be perfect but to simply try to do better and continually improve in attitude. Ecoleetage's work to improve the project is admirable and I think will help them view newby editors in a welcoming fashion. Banjeboi 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the fact that he's been selflessly building articles, and not just going out to earn "ribbons and medals." GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except he has been going around begging for ribbons and medals[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] A ni Mate 01:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, those appear to have all been within a week in May. Four months ago. Before he started the bulk of his article contribs. Personaly I don't hold that against him. When you're new, barnstars are fun. I love my ninja star. TravellingCari 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cari. I appreciate your mature response. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong oppose ~~Rather reluctantly.~~ There are some good, even great, contributions. However, his interactions with and support of User:Gp75motorsports and his welcoming of and interactions with User:G2.0 USA, Gp75motorsports' confirmed sockpuppet, make me very uncomfortable. A ni Mate 03:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I previously stated to AniMate when G2.0 USA's identity was revealed, I was unaware that G2.0 USA was a sockpuppet. I had no reason to suspect it was a sockpuppet -- he was one of many people I've greeted as part of my Welcoming Committee work (I always greet slates of 10 per day), and the sock's contributions appeared to be focused and vibrant -- very different from the Gp75 input that came before. My initial support of the pre-banned Gp75 was based on the belief that I could help reform someone who was a difficult member of our community. As they say in thoroughbred racing circles, I backed the wrong horse. But, then again, I paid US$10.50 to see "Mamma Mia!" with the hopes of seeing a great movie -- hey, we all make mistakes! :-) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~So welcoming and assuming good faith and trying to mentor are bad? How could he have known ahead of time something that required a checkuser to confirm? Dloh cierekim 04:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Struck my comment to avoid pileon. Dloh cierekim 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at that issue when looking at Eco's contribs prior to agreeing to nom here, and I saw a user assuming good faith trying to help a user get past his issues with editing in (GP75motorsports) and inadvertently welcoming the sock as a part of his welcoming work. I didn't and still don't see any evidence and have no reason to believe that Eco knew the latter was a sock. That said, you have your right to oppose and I respect it even if I don't agree. TravellingCari 04:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I like to keep track of people I greet in the Welcoming Committee. It is interesting what I have found. The majority never seem to do anything after they sign up. A few turn into vandals and get indefinitely blocked. A few turned out to be socks (this was not the only sock I encountered). But a couple turned into valued contributors to the community. The strangest response, however, was someone who blanked my welcoming message and left his talk page blank. I must have caught him on a bad day. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I should clarify something -- I did agree to speak with Gp75 offline (as clearly stated on his talk page) and we did communicate via e-mail...but we never discussed Wikipedia. Our e-mails were all about auto racing. He is an aspiring auto racer and I like to bet on NASCAR races. So he told me about his racing, I told him how I ran into Jeff Gordon in New York, he recommended the Nissan Altima over the VW Jetta for my next car purchase...and that was the extent of our offline communications. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I found your response unsatisfying and self-serving. In the interest of assuming good faith, I decided to let things go. However, you were in off-wiki contact with Gp75motorsports, and while I can understand you welcoming his sock as a coincidence, the award stretches my assuming abilities. Your were ebullient in your encouragement of GP, and lo and behold you conveniently manage to give high praise in the form of a barnstar to his sockpuppet. This reeks of bad faith on my part, but I just didn't believe you. If you'd made a habit of leaving outstanding newcomer barnstars, I might feel different. Sorry.

I also take issue with you not archiving your user talk page. Archiving makes old conversations easier to access. Making people sift through page histories is really, really irritating. A ni Mate 04:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suffer from Father Christmas Syndrome -- I love giving out barnstars and smiley icons and praise. Hey, it feels so good to say "Job well done!" -- people are almost always grateful that someone has something positive to say. As for my Talk Page -- everything is in the page history if you really want to read it. And I am not making anyone sift through the pages -- if anything, I would warn you: this is not very interesting, be forewarned! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you become an admin, people may need to reference conversations on your page, especially when trying to find records of your reasoning behind administrative actions. In order to do that, one would have to sift through your page history. It may be boring, but it should be easy to access. A ni Mate 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last word from Eco Well, I never set up a talk page archive before, so I will need a little help. I'll tell you what, AniMate -- if you feel that strongly about it, drop some instructions on my talk page about setting up a talk page archive and I will get to it in the morning (it is 1:34am ET here and I need to get my Zzzzzs). Deal? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not changing my position, but WP:ARCHIVE pretty much lays it out. A ni Mate 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco's first word after his last word Thanks, I will fiddle with that in the morning. And I have no problem with your standing by your convictions -- that is what leadership is all about! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment Would it be possible to change the wording slightly above to clarify whose sockpuppet it is? I know that it does say what it means, but if somebody is skim-reading, it is easy to misread in this instance. Brilliantine (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should've been done with <s></s> and <u></u> so the edits could be clearly seen.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - ~~Has a confirmed undeclared sockpuppet, and although this is old, it still rings bells. Asenine 11:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)~~ - Changed to support. Asenine 14:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it rang bells with me -- I realised after the fact that such language is not reflective of me and inappropriate for this setting. I have since apologised to User:Doug and we have collaborated on several projects, including the DYK-winning article Dair Mar Elia (Saint Elijah's Monastery) and the ongoing WikiProject Agriculture. As for the "confirmed" sockpuppet, that's news to me. The only socks I have are on my feet. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I strongly support Eco and would have gladly co-nominated if only I'd been able to be around at the right time. All of that is water under the bridge and I only hope that through that encounter I was somehow responsible for his development as an editor. I think you may have misunderstood the comment above about the sock, G20 USA is a confirmed sock of Gp75motorsports not Eco! --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know more about this confirmed undeclared sockpuppet. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes two of us! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note for Asenine to clarify with a diff or link to an SSP/RFCU report since he says this sock is "confirmed". While people are allowed to oppose for whatever reason(s) they wish, I think such a strong one with an-apparently unsubstantiated claim needs at least some back up. TravellingCari 14:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, I misread AniMate's comment. I usually would have checked it out for myself, but I am having some difficulties getting access to wikipedia at the moment, and it is taking me long enough to load pages as it is. In such circumstances I would not normally vote, but I know AniMate and trusted his judgment. It was a misread. Thanks for the clarification, and my deepest apologies for the misunderstanding. If not for the sock, I would have supported, so it is now being moved. Have a nice day to all involved. :) Asenine 14:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and glad to know it isn't just me having issues with Wikipedia today. I think it's telling us (or at least those of us with a public holiday in the US) to go out and play :) Thanks for the clarification. TravellingCari 14:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reluctantly due to the excellent contributions in many areas. Ecoleetage has shown an interest in being involved in CSD work, but unfortunately, I see a number of inappropriately applied speedy tags. During the last month alone, there has been the following declined speedies, most of which show very clear claims of notability or apparent lack of understanding of CSD criteria [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Tagging and obviously deleting articles can be very bitey to newcomers. Ecoleetage says that s/he learns from mistakes, but I would like to see a month or so with fewer errors before trusting this user with the delete button. Sorry.--Slp1 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back For the record, I apologised to the authors of Friends of Coal and John Brimhall for my CSD calls. I also rewrote the Friends of Coal article (as it was seriously lacking) and I added references to P18 (band) piece that were absent. I put editorial tags on the Robert Kiviat and John Brimhall articles, which other editors responded to. The Mashrafee bin mortuza article wound up being redirected to an existing article. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you did all of these things only after others had declined your tagging for deletion. From a prospective admin, with the ability to actually delete the articles, I would like to see better informed, policy-based decisions right from the start.Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spoken, and your point is well taken. If I should become an admin, I will strive to ensure that the aforementioned citations remain aberrations. You have my word on that. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to poor understanding of non-free content policy. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify? Diff's, examples, etc. Ironho lds 12:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume he is thinking of the answer to Q5. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, that's a fair enough oppose reason. Nonfree image rules for people are very clear; when there is the possibility of taking a free image of person X, nonfree images cannot be used. Ironho lds 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tombomp has it. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see Ecoleetage expand his answer to this question. I took it to mean that images of album covers, etc. could be used to illustrate thier subjects even if they contained living people not that we could stick those images in the articles of the people themselves, which seems to comport with common practice. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I note the great body of support for this candidate, but the opposers have some strong points.--Whipmaster (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that my only previous encounter with this editor was nominating one of his articles for AfD consideration [19] -- the article wound up being deleted. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose taggings within the past month of articles for A7 deletion, despite claims like "It claims a membership of over 50,000", and "He has produced 11 specials for 20th Century Fox Television, most notably "Alien Autopsy," one of the highest rated special in the history of television" (see above diffs) are just clearly not good CSD taggings, and I would expect any admin to realize this. At best this shows he tends to want to delete substandard articles (both articles were quite poor), which is understandable but misguided, at worst it shows he doesn't understand WP:CSD#A7. Unfortunately the latter seems possible, as he says as justification "claims in the article are not independently confirmed", which has never been a part of CSD policy. At any rate these nominations were so recent I must oppose. --Rividian (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged the first article because its claim that the organisation boasted "membership of over 50,000" seemed bogus. My hunch turned out to be correct -- the original article that I tagged, for Friends of Coal, did not properly identify this group, which is a PR/political advocacy arm for the West Virginia coal industry. There is no independent verification of the 50,000 membership number. As I previously stated, I rewrote the article, added sources, and informed both the admin who declined the speedy delete tag and the article's author of my updates. I have acknowledged the second tag was an error, although the claim of being "one of the highest rated special in the history of television" is a bit grand. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~You still don't understand WP:CSD#A7, from the sounds of your defence of the first tagging. 86.44.27.66 (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

And your efforts at some sort of petty and irrelevant self-justification in both cases are a bit worrying. Your actions are going to be open to criticism as an admin, don't respond like this. 86.44.27.66 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please log in. user:Everyme 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[20] 86.44.18.246 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken. Since Ecoleetage has acknowledged these were bad calls elsewhere, i'll just put this down to once-off RfA defensiveness/desire to explain. 86.44.18.246 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Came here intending to support, as my experiences with Eco have been uniformly positive. Unfortunately, Slp's citations strike at why I don't contribute content to the project - overzealous use of the Speedy Deletion process by a small number of editors who would rather slightly under-include than slightly over-include. ~~I imagine this RfA will pass, but please just be careful with these going forward - other than this, I think the candidate will make a great admin.~~ Townlake (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC) / Expanding my oppose per badgering of opposers (aiming strawmen at mine) and the weird email issue - apparently Eco mentioned his RFA in an email to two users, and ended up with a neutral and an oppose. I'm less confident about the candidate's judgment now. Townlake (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Townlake For the record, the vast majority of articles that I tag for Speedy Delete have been erased without issue. And please check my answer to Q2: I have gone out of my way to restore previously deleted articles and build them into DYK-winning pieces. I've also worked to locate sources and save articles that were put up for AfD. I have never identified myself as a deletionist; if anything, I've worked extra hard to build content. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the issues raised in my previous two comments 1 2, including but not limited to: Uncivilness, Not assuming good faith, begging for barnstars, canvassing this RfA and rudely pushing a user to nominate him, lying about past events, and a few notes I've received from the candidate via email. Most of these issues are discussed in my comments. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back Based on these hostile remarks, I have terminated Diligent Terrier's status as one of my co-adopters status, effective immediately. Even by RfA standards, these personal attacks are outlandish. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying DT is not a good adopter? He's given good reasons for his oppose, but this doesn't mean he's a bad adopter. It just means he doesn't think you're a good candidate for adminship. Remember, adoption is about becoming a good Wikipedian, not a good administrator. That's what admin coaching is for. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the comments that just came forth, I would prefer not to have any official association with DT. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Eco's angry (and disproportionate) replies to DT, along with this conversation I had with Eco, I must regretfully, but strongly, oppose. In the interests of full disclosure, I mentioned in early August that perhaps Eco should run for adminship. At that point, I had experienced nothing but positive interactions with Eco. That would soon change. In late August, Eco (after having told me that he didn't feel like he'd be ready for a run until 2009) approached me, asking me to write a nomination for him. I said I'd look into it, and he proceeded to accuse me of "breaking my word." I told him that administrators I respect had told me that a conom from me would be stronger than a single nomination from me, as a 3-month-old editor. He became quite angry, and took it off-line as well. I spent the majority of that evening reviewing his history, and having a couple of editors I trust and respect doing the same. The next day, when I declined to write the nomination, based upon some civility concerns he went "over the edge", you might say. He stayed mostly off-line with it, but it was one of the worst verbal batterings I've taken online. He made a ton of accusations against DT (none of them founded), and then, when it became clear that his frustration at me wasn't going to change my mind, he apologized to me for how he treated me, saying he hoped we could be friends. I said I'd work with him if there were a project we were both interested in, with the implication that I don't choose to be friends with people who treat me (and other editors as well) that way. I was going to simply abstain, but given his angry reply to DT, and his defensiveness regarding his errant CSD tagging, I felt I must temporarily end my wikibreak. I had planned it during this time specifically not to have to face his wrath, but I can't just stay silent about this. I feel Eco is a great editor, and -- for now, at least -- a poor candidate for adminship. Apologizing after the fact does not excuse the initial incivility. I admire the content contributions, but do not admire the way he deals with conflict. His temperament in the midst of heat doesn't bode well for how he might use the more controversial administrator tools. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left this note to him after he became very angry when Andyjsmith nominated Rogers Orchards for deletion. He was accusing the nominator of "bad faith", and becoming quite angry while doing so. That AfD was one of the primary causes of my rethinking my initial offer to nominate Eco for adminship. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Dean, please recall your slap at Andyjsmith at the tail end of that AfD: [21]. And bringing private off-Wiki conversations into this forum is very, very bad form. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning that you treated me very poorly in wiki-related email communication is not bad form in any way. I posted no private communications to the wiki, nor did I break any confidences. People deserve to know before the decision is made. And in fact, I was not even going to make a recommendation here, until you treated DT in such a poor manner. Given that, and the angry accusations you made against DT during our conversations, I could not stay silent. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per his reaction to Diligent Terrier's oppose above as well as the issues that user brought up. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Switched from Support above - I am no longer comfortable in supporting this candidate for adminship per the diffs provided in the oppose and neutral section. I don't like the temperament I'm seeing, nor do I want somebody who is inclined to expunge articles incorrectly. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Switched from "Strong Support". We have enough uncivil admins as it is. Also of concern are the diffs provided in the neutral and oppose sections. In addition his reaction to Diligent Terrier's oppose. I should also note when I and two other editors reviewed him some time ago(He got the results over email, I was forwarded the email) incivlity was cited as one reason that he was not yet ready to become an admin. Apparently, this has not changed. Completely unacceptable behavior.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful but firm Oppose, sorry (switched from support). After checking the diffs brought by Diligent Terrier, and especially after seeing your response to his oppose, I've realized that you should not be made an admin at this time. The barnstar begging sequence is particularly disturbing. The hostility, if not raw spite, directed at Diligent Terrier for his frank description of your standing as a candidate, and his honest concerns, is unacceptable. You are an excellent user indeed, but a lot more time shall be necessary for me to verify if you possess the character and maturity that I believe is essential for wielding the mop. Hús ö nd 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, poor answer to Stifle's question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. I had seen Eco at various AfDs and have been generally positively impressed. It is clear that that he has done a lot of excellent work on Wikipedia and is an asset to the project. But this RFA has raised too many red flags, starting with those CSD tags cited by Slp1 and getting worse from there. The interactions with Diligent Terrier and S. Dean Jameson are very off-puting and show definite problems with temper and judgement. The diffs provided in the oppose and neutral section also concern me a lot, particularly the ones where he is asking for barnstars in return for the ones that he had given himself. Sorry, but that alone is enough for me to oppose, even though those barnstar diffs are a bit old. Also, serious concerns about canvassing here as well. Not ready for adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose most of my concerns from a month ago were minor dealing largely with a lack of experience... but there were some surrounding CSD. While he has worked in this area, I am not completely comfortable with them. CSD is one of my pet areas where I expect near perfection. It is the area where an admin can do the most harm if done wrong.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've been mulling this over for a few days and have decided to oppose for several reasons. 1) Paradoxically, given his excellent DYK creations work, I get a sense that Ecoleetage is a bit more of a deletionist than I'd like and worry that he may be slightly heavy handed with the delete button based on the answer to Q9 and speedy tagging history; 2) I also get a sense that he's overly sensitive to his own articles being nom'd for deletion and may sometimes fail to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. This and this caught my eye; 3) Canvassing such as [22] where you say "if you feel I am correct, feel free to jump in" or in other words, "please come and support me", is frowned upon; 4) I find a candidate needing to respond to [nearly] every oppose vote very annoying and would likely oppose on that basis alone. Even if you disagree with a rationale, this is a time that you need to force yourself to step back and let the community discuss. On the positive side, Eco does excellent work at DYK and welcoming. He should be commended for defusing a miserable situation recently when offering to mentor a difficult user who was about to be be banned at AN/I. But, at this time is unsuited for adminship IMHO. Moondyne 02:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record – and, sorry, but I know I promised some people I would not comment here again, but:

1. The overwhelming majority of articles that I’ve tagged for Speedy Delete were erased without issue. Slp cited a handful out of isolated incidents. And people appear to ignore that where articles were not deleted, I went in to rewrite, tag and reference them, as well as make sure that my initial Speedy Delete call was not stressful. How many people in the CSD section have every apologised to an article’s author for a faulty speedy delete tag? Am I the only one? Please ID yourself if you have.

2. My interactions with Diligent Terrier and S. Dean Jameson took place in the belief that I was with trusted friends. Instead, my online comments have been taken wildly out of context, bits and pieces of off-Wiki confidential discussions are being put in public domain, and wild personal attacks are being dropped, with loaded language such as “angry” and “begging” and whatever else the thesaurus can spit up.

3. I never “begged” for anything in my life, let alone a barnstar.

4. Two benign Wikimails sent earlier this day do not represent “canvassing” or “spamming” or anything of that nature.

Yes, I am defending myself – because I am seeing my hard work trampled and my reputation tarnished. And I’ve seen too many highly qualified Wikipeople get Swift Boated in these RfAs by those who clearly more interested in tearing people down than building a community. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to do this, I do, but I'm going to have to oppose this request. If people are curious to know what the deal-breaker is among what I consider to be the other, imho comparatively minor concerns: It's this. While I personally don't care much for the precise momentary wording of any given policy, it's the spirit behind them that is non-negotiable and must be observed by each and all at any time and that can under no circumstances ever be ignored. Instantly removing another user's comment like that is unfortunately entirely incompatible with the spirit of WP:CIVIL, and it's a total deal-breaker for me personally, actually far worse in its self-righteousness and Eco's apparent belief that he did nothing wrong there than things like, say, throwing a curseword at a fellow user once or twice. Mind you that even though they may have pulled it together later, this is not as crucial here as the fact that Eco did it in the first place and may do it in the future, which would make him just another criticism-resistent admin, and the fact that he apparently sees nothing wrong with it, which -besides the obvious concern- also raises question of the level of his understanding of the fundamentals of this project. Neither has Eco done this only once.[23] I'm so appalled by the attitude and temperament such an edit betrays that I have serious doubts Eco can ever be trusted with the tools and a position of trust in this project. I may not oppose him in a future RfA, but I don't think I will ever be able to support unless he undergoes decicive behavioral adjustments and contemplates on the value and true meaning of the spirit of our policies and guidelines. I'm also underwhelmed by his response to DT's oppose. This may come as sort of a surprise to people who've seen me around and who know fucking well how uncivil --superficially, I maintain-- I have often been. But such instand removal of legitimate comments from one's user talk page, while officially allowed is not something an admin should ever do. Ever. user:Everyme 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Oppose in light of the comments above ("those who clearly more interested in tearing people down than building a community". No, we're not here to build a community, and it's one of the more thankless parts of the admin role enforcing that on those people who think we are. I don't want someone who'll turn a blind eye to (or encourage) the next Award Center or Esperanza-wannabe. Genuinely sorry about that as I did come here to support. – iride scent 02:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

~~Neutral, leaning support, need some time to think about it~~ - Great article builder, however only 5 months of solid experience. You don't really edit article in the contentious area. Therefore I have concerns about your ability to draw consensus and handle disputes. On the plus side, I would have put comfortable money on you already being an admin. I see you a lot, maybe that's just on RfA's or something. Anyway, maybe, see how things play out. — Realist ² 02:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I'm moving to Support. — Realist² 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ecoleetage has only 5 months of solid experience. But, you've to consider other thing also. He is one of the most trustworthy editors on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, just look at his contributions! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco has edited in contentious areas before, my first contact was one. More recently, Eco commonly takes articles that are at AFD and dives in to save them, often this does become contentious. Eco is civil and usually ends up on the winning side with a saved article headed for a DYK.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now, I've only had good interactions with this user but something makes me uneasy. Switched to support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ (switched to oppose) I don't plan on taking a position in this RfA since Eco is my adoptee, and because of some past experiences that may have changed my opinion of him but I wish him luck with this RfA. However, these diffs/discussions deserve attention.

Possible stalking (but I'm assuming good faith on this one) [24]
Uncivilness [25] [26]
Not assuming good faith [27] [28], [29] [30] - I replied on this last matter and said I was busy and missed the message
Begging for barnstars [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
Miscellaneous [39] [40].

Eco, I hope you don't take the above personally, but I just feel others have the right to know. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back Why should I take it personally? To respond in kind:

(11) - Tan apologised for a misunderstanding (as clearly stated in that link) and we get along quite well. He was supposed to be among the nominators on this RfA, but a real life situation required him being elsewhere.

(12)- I used the wrong phrase and told Toddst1 (the nominator for that AfD) that I goofed on my word choice. He expressed no bother over it.

(13)- Please see Doug's comments above. We work together on WikiProject Agriculture and, in his words, that is "water under the bridge."

(14), (15), (19-25)- Master of Puppets was my first adopter and he has been an invaluable guide to my Wikipedia adventures. We have subsequently become friends offline. He has never expressed any anger, frustration or anguish at me for the missteps that I made along the way, and I do not believe has appointed anyone to be his proxy in that area. I learned from him that it is easy to forgive lapses. As for Basketball110, he left one of the best messages I ever received (it is on my Talk Page -- and, yes, I will archive it) -- it is the one with the smiley emoticon telling me that I am appreciated here. And I appreciate B110 very, very much.

(18)- This was bad writing on my part, which I freely admitted. I never said I was a good writer.

(26)- S. Dean Jameson went on an extended WikiBreak today. The quote here is actually part of a much longer conversation. However, I will not speak poorly of SDJ during his absence.

(17)- For the record, I was already adopted when Diligent Terrier insisted that I have him as a co-adopter. I regret to say that I cannot recall any example of guidance or mentorship provided by this association. And people should also have a right to know that I first asked Diligent Terrier if he would consider nominating me for RfA, but he declined by stating that I would fail the RfA at this time. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent response Eco. Remember we all make mistakes so we should not be overly critical of each other. Keep your temper under control, have a thick skin, use common sense and you'll be fine. I wish you good luck with your RfA.:)--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So true, Xp, so true! And remember that old saying: when life hands you lemons, get out the vodka and tonic! Or something like that. I know you are supposed to do make some sort of drink with the lemons... ;-) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade Eco.:)--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco: although people affected may have accepted your apology, that still does not make your situation any different. I am very disappointed that you would lie and say that I insisted that you be my adoptee. The real situation was that Master of Puppets did not update the adoption userbox, so it looked like you were still seeking adoption. That was when I offered to adopt you. Following that, you told me that Master of Puppets had already adopted you, so I said that I'd co-adopt if you wanted, but that I didn't want to push you. In fact, you were seemingly excited about having a co-adopter, so I co-adopted. So your whole side of the story is a lie. At that point I did offer advice, and obviously you knew you could ask me questions whenever you wanted to; and every once in a while I would stop by and take a look at what you were up to and give you encouragement, and I know I did that at least several times. It is also worth noting that I also received a message hinting around at the fact that Eco was at RfA, followed by a "Your support would be welcome." Following my comment above, I received another which referred to my comment above as "poisonous" and said that I "should be ashamed of myself". Despite Eco's claims that I shouldn't be taking this personally, he definitely appears to be doing so. His belief that spamming a large amount of people for the sole purpose of advertising an RfA, shows that he is unfamilar with policy, and doesn't know about that events following Giggy's last RfA. Between the issues discussed in both of my comments and the other canvassing issues, I don't think he will make a good admin. So, I plan to change my support to oppose ... hope that doesn't sound confusing ;) « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back The only thing that is confusing is seeing RfA history rewritten, seeing private off-Wiki e-mail being tossed about out of context, accusing people of being liars...I am sorry, but this is too silly for words. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of you have any diffs to provide to back up your stances? I find canvassing a very, very important issue and it's one that will make me oppose should it turn out to be true. I call upon Diligent Terrier to provide diffs if possible, or contact a bureaucrat should they have been via email. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't recall ever interacting with Eco, yet~~ I received a non-personalized request to vote from him via wikimail. I don't consider it against a policy, but spam is slightly annoying. In any case, I vote neutral - one spam is not enough to make me vote against, but I have no reason to vote for, neither.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Boy, am I unmemorable! Piotrus and I were in touch recently over the effort to save the article on the Polish Catholic Holocaust victim Czeslawa Kwoka, which was up for deletion. Mercifully, the article was saved through a joint effort of several editors, including Piotrus, and I just found out it received a DYK honour (which I shared with NYScholar). Piotrus did weigh in on that effort twice on my Talk Page:[41] -- I guess he forgot, but that is okay because he is very busy here. Piotrus is actually a bit of a role model for me. Some people have asked me if I would stop writing new articles if I became an editor. I look at Piotrus as an example of an admin who continues to be an active content builder. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case: how many people have you sent similar emails to? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, I consulted WP:CANVASSING in advance to make sure I was within policy. This morning, I sent a Wikimail to Piotrus and to another editor who I've not seen online in a long time (which covered other matters besides this). Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK :) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I forgot about our (positive) interaction there. That said, it was a rather brief interaction, and I don't know Eco well enough to support or oppose. It does appear the community supports him, and I wish him good luck! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to support, but then I noticed that he responded to almost every oppose/neutral vote, and that struck me as being too defensive. TML (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Regretful Oppose~~ Changed to Neutral. I have a lot of respect for you Ecoleetage, and probably would have supported if I saw it when I was patrolling RFA (which suprisingly I haven't done in awhile...), but when I got the email from you asking me to weigh in here, serious concerns of canvassing has arose. I respect you a lot, just a little bit of poor judgement. :( After viewing what he said above, I think he just misunderstood the canvassing page. I still respsect you a lot and you are magnificient. I might change to support after thinking a little bit more. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Due to concerns about attitude towards.. well.. everything. Off-wiki emails have led me to believe that canvassing is not an issue here, but I just get an uneasy feeling from the defensive replies to opposes and neutrals. Best of luck. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.