The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
request for adminship that was never really put forward, as the user had gone inactive. Please do not modify it.
Ed Poor (
talk·contribs) – Exceptional contributor and a good admin. He was stripped of his sysop abilities due to a poorly handled dispute that didn't even go to RFC but was incorrectly placed at RFA as the first step by the troll who initiated the dispute. Ed Poor should be reinstated ASAP as this poorly handled situation has temporarily driven him from the project.
Gateman199704:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Benjamin Gatti05:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I'll support Uncle Ed. Even where we disagree, Ed makes WP a more pleasant place. He is attentive as a moderator, original, and engaging, and apparently human.reply
Oppose regardless of one's view on his being desysopped, that was the consensus, and whilst (of course) he should be able to rerequest adminship, this is far to short a timescale and would render the desysop punishment pointless. └ UkPaolo/talk┐21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the same reason as he was desysopped. --22:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This still hasn't been listed on the RFA page, as of now voting is limited exclusivly to people who happen to have Ed's page bookmarked--
63.22.86.2121:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Probably because this has been highlighted on a lot of editor's talk pages. However, we shouldn't be voting before Ed accepts this, if he does
Dan100 (
Talk)
21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I'm going to link from that page to this RfA. To not have this listed on the main RfA page might make people think this is being done in secret (especially since there is such an emphatic statement above about how long the RfA will run for).--
Alabamaboy14:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Might I suggest that since he was involuntarily promoted to User, it is not unreasonable to proceed on the assumption that he accepts the proposed title? I suggest that the community can gift an Adminship without consent as a token of emphatic support; radicals notwithstanding.
Benjamin Gatti16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
As a matter of principle, I don't believe it's a good idea to nominate inactive users for adminship. If he comes back first, that is another matter entirely.
Morwen -
Talk18:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I agree. We shouldn't be voting on this at all, in my opinion. (Despite that, I've added the nominator's vote, for the sake of an accurate tally.) I'm not going to vote unless and until he comes back and accepts this. For the record, though, I'll say that I think he brought a lot of good to Wikipedia, and did some ill-advised, impulsive things. I was very sorry when he was desysopped.
AnnH(talk)19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Big Comment He was involuntarily desysopped by people with more authority than anyone on this page, how can a normal RfA process possibly continue under these circumstances? Wouldn't he have to appeal to a so called higher power if he wants any of his former powers back, whether it's adminship, or developer's rights, wouldn't he have to appeal to the people who origionally punished him for abusing all of these positions? after all, they could de-whateverhim just as easily as they did in the first place--
63.22.86.2121:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
request for adminship that was never really put forward, as the user had gone inactive. Please do not modify it.
Ed Poor (
talk·contribs) – Exceptional contributor and a good admin. He was stripped of his sysop abilities due to a poorly handled dispute that didn't even go to RFC but was incorrectly placed at RFA as the first step by the troll who initiated the dispute. Ed Poor should be reinstated ASAP as this poorly handled situation has temporarily driven him from the project.
Gateman199704:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Benjamin Gatti05:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I'll support Uncle Ed. Even where we disagree, Ed makes WP a more pleasant place. He is attentive as a moderator, original, and engaging, and apparently human.reply
Oppose regardless of one's view on his being desysopped, that was the consensus, and whilst (of course) he should be able to rerequest adminship, this is far to short a timescale and would render the desysop punishment pointless. └ UkPaolo/talk┐21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the same reason as he was desysopped. --22:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This still hasn't been listed on the RFA page, as of now voting is limited exclusivly to people who happen to have Ed's page bookmarked--
63.22.86.2121:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Probably because this has been highlighted on a lot of editor's talk pages. However, we shouldn't be voting before Ed accepts this, if he does
Dan100 (
Talk)
21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I'm going to link from that page to this RfA. To not have this listed on the main RfA page might make people think this is being done in secret (especially since there is such an emphatic statement above about how long the RfA will run for).--
Alabamaboy14:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Might I suggest that since he was involuntarily promoted to User, it is not unreasonable to proceed on the assumption that he accepts the proposed title? I suggest that the community can gift an Adminship without consent as a token of emphatic support; radicals notwithstanding.
Benjamin Gatti16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
As a matter of principle, I don't believe it's a good idea to nominate inactive users for adminship. If he comes back first, that is another matter entirely.
Morwen -
Talk18:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I agree. We shouldn't be voting on this at all, in my opinion. (Despite that, I've added the nominator's vote, for the sake of an accurate tally.) I'm not going to vote unless and until he comes back and accepts this. For the record, though, I'll say that I think he brought a lot of good to Wikipedia, and did some ill-advised, impulsive things. I was very sorry when he was desysopped.
AnnH(talk)19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Big Comment He was involuntarily desysopped by people with more authority than anyone on this page, how can a normal RfA process possibly continue under these circumstances? Wouldn't he have to appeal to a so called higher power if he wants any of his former powers back, whether it's adminship, or developer's rights, wouldn't he have to appeal to the people who origionally punished him for abusing all of these positions? after all, they could de-whateverhim just as easily as they did in the first place--
63.22.86.2121:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.