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