Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Boricuaeddie

Final: 25/16/3; Ended 16:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Boricuaeddie (talk · contribs) - Hello, fellow editors. After days of hard thinking, I've decided that I believe I would serve the community better if I had administrator buttons. Because of this I have decided to request adminship. I joined Wikipedia on March 7 and have accumulated over 4000 edits. I have been an active vandal-fighter and have served both the community and encyclopedia part of Wikipedia. I hope that the community will evaluate my contributions and make the correct decision. --Boricuaeddie 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm Boricuaeddie and I approve this message. I am obviously too immature and rude to be an administrator, so I withdraw my RfA. I have been harassed because of this RfA, and my privacy is in jeopardy, so I see no point in continuing this request. --Boricuaeddie 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are many things I would be willing to participate in if made administrator, so I'll just list them:
1.) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism- I have much experience in vandalism reversion, and I often see AIV backlogged, so I would be very active here. Although I only have made 17 reports to AIV, I believe I understand Wikipedia:Vandalism, as I have created a a whole page dedicated to fighting it. I also believe I understand the the blocking policy, as I have reported several IP’s and most have been blocked.
2.) Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention- I have partcicpated actively in this area and have reported many inappropriate usernames, so I think I understand the username policy. I admit that I have made several mistakes, but I do have a belly-button.
3.) Category:Candidates for speedy deletion- There is always a backlog here, so I believe I will be very active in this area. I have had over 200 pages speedily deleted, so I believe I understand the speedy deletion criteria.
4.) Wikipedia:Deletion debates- This will be my priority if granted administrator rights. I have participated in countless Afd’s and several MfD’s. I have also already closed many deletion discussions, and I believe I have closed all correctly. Some examples: debates I closed with a keep result: [1], [2]. With a delete result: [3], [4]. With a speedy delete result: [5], [6]. With a redirect result: [7], [8]. With a no consensus result: [9]. Please note: I'm sure some may find it surprising that I have closed AfD debates as delete, but please note that during the time I closed those discussions, this was the version of the deletion process guideline, which permitted non-admins to close AfD's as delete.
5.) Images- I have had several images deleted, and I would like to continue with images that need to be deleted. I also like to move images to the Wikimedia Commons, and I would like to delete images on Commons ready for deletion (list courtesy of MetsBot).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As a Catholic, I was taught to be humble, so I feel a little uncomfortable answering this question, but, for the sake of those not familiar with my work, I'll answer it. As a Metapedian, I believe that Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a community, and I work to make both better. Because of this, instead of creating articles myself, I work at WP:AFC, so that I help build an encyclopedia by creating articles and making sure inappropriate articles are not introduced, but I also serve the community part of Wikipedia by helping other users contribute to the encyclopedia. I also help counter systematic bias and my country by helping improve Wikipedia's coverage of it by helping out at WikiProject Puerto Rico, where I help other users get Puerto Ricans and other Latin Americans the coverage they deserve. I think that those are my best contributions.
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: Well, I have been in many conflicts, but not many of them have caused me stress, as I try to control myself when in a conflict. The last conflict that really caused me stress was the blocking of Rlest (talk · contribs), formerly known as User:Tellyaddict, User:The Sunshine Man, and User:Qst. Before the incident, he was one of the nicest persons around. He was a very productive and active editor. The problem is that he has a temper. Twice already, as both Qst and Rlest, he has suddenly lost control and started attacking users and calling them "fu**ing idiots" and such, and has said that he's leaving and has been blocked. The problem is that after he did that, he asked for forgiveness and said that he would come back. That caused me stress, because there was a discussion at ANI about whether to let him come back or to ban him for his constant anger outbursts. I did not know whether I wanted him to come back or to ban him, because there is no excuse for saying such horrible things about one's brothers, but he was a very productive user. In the end I decided to do what I do with every conflict; assume good faith, forgive and forget, and move on.
4. (Optional Supplementary Question) Can you explain the difference between a Community Ban and an Indefinate Block? Mike33 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, WP:BAN#Community_ban says that a user banned by the community is a user that has been indef blocked an no one is willing to unblock him/her or has objected to the block. An indef block is a way to enforce a ban, as stated at WP:BLOCK#Enforcing_bans.
5. (Optional Question) What's your interpretation of WP:BLP? Miranda 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: BLP is a policy that basically states that one must be careful when adding information about a living person. It also states that every piece of information added about a living person must be written from a neutral point of view and must be accompanied by verifiable and reliable sources. It also states that any material added that does not meet these requirements may be removed immediately.
6. Optional question from After Midnight 0001 I would like to see more detail than you expressed in your answer to question #3 above. Can you please give one of more examples of a conflict that you have actually been involved in and how you handled it. Preferably this would be an editing dispute rather than a situation that you observed within the community that caused you stress. I see nothing in the link that you provided to the Rlest discussion that indicates that you had any participation whatsoever in that matter. --After Midnight 0001 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think another example of a conflict I had is the one mentioned by A Train. On July 11, Cerejota accused me of uploading a copyvio image. I felt a little stressed, as I knew the user did not understand Wikipedia:Non-free content, but he refused to acknowledge it. I constantly repeated and provided proof to show him that the fair use policy permitted the use of that image, but he did not give up. In the end, Will manged to get the user to understand that the image was not a copyvio, and the problem was solved. I do appreciate Cerejota's actions, as I'm sure they were in good faith, and because they helped me show my understanding of the policies regarding images.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support only been here for a little while really, but I think user would make a good admin. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I've seen him around. He will be a fine admin. A Raider Like Indiana 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I have only run across him a few times outside of RfA. But the times I have seen him he has struck me as rational, civil and having the rare ability to make sense even when everyone around him is not. Trusilver 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - excellent editor, I've seen him around frequently. WaltonOne 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Seems like a good editor. Nat Tang ta | co | em 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Finally! RuneWiki777 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support - Well he is a fine user, he is very active on AIV and AFC and even though he bothers Phaedriel a lot, he is stiill a very good editor..top notch..he had problems recently but I don't think that is significant enough to oppose him on and well everyone has their ups and downs.. I hope he stays that energetic in times to come..Good Luck.--Cometstyles 17:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Hey! I only leave her the occasional poem and smile. She's never complained :-) --Boricuaeddie 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She doesn't complain because she is too nice..hehe..joke.. :)--Cometstyles 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support I have known Boricaeddie for a long time. I have seen his work. He is a great editor, who is always civil with other Wikipedians. I strongly believe he deserves the mop. As in the words of Runewiki777, "FINALLY"! Politics rule 17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - a fine editor with broad experience and good knowledge of policy. Will make a great admin - Alison ☺ 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I thought you were an admin already. Anyway, good editor, no reason to believe he'll abuse the tools. J-stan Talk 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support – an excellent contributor, with a top-notch track record and great participation in XfDs (always a good sign). I've every confidence that Boricuaeddie can both be trusted with the sysop tools, and has demonstrated that he'll use them. Best of luck! ~ Anthøny 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support He is very well fit for the job and he seems to be able to use the mop well. Marlith T/C 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Eddie knows what this project is all about and knows how to facilitate it. Will make a good sysop therefore. —« ANIMUM » 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support T Rex | talk 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Forgot to strike out my support. T Rex | talk 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User also opposed, below. Andre (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I like what I've seen from this editor, and I've seen his edits around. The concerns brought up by the opposition are enough to at least consider, and I think the candidate could use a little improvement in that field, but it's not enough to worry me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support despite some points of concern raised in the oppose section. The answer to Q1 and my familiarity with the candidate at XFD show sufficient maturity to handle admin work. Shalom Hello 19:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support with some comments. Eddie, I wish you had waited another month or so, in order to provide further depth to your contributions and thus head of oppose comments. Please also remember that expanded reasoning tends to sit better with other editors, as opposed to this. However substantial reporting to WP:UFA, excellent vandal reversion and WP:CSD work. I personally think you are just a bit to keen to get the buttons (remember - this doesn't pay, and adminship is not a trophy) but that takes away nothing from the fact that I believe you would use them wisely. At the end of the day, the issue is trust, and nothing from personal interaction or the contributions leads me to not trust Eddie with the tools. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I have watched Boricuaeddie really develop as a user. I'm quite impressed with what I have seen him contrib so far. In fact I was planning to nom him tomorrow, but I guess he went ahead and nommed himself. Anyway, best of luck Eddie. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. No reason not to, they meet all my criteria. A great user and candidate. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support My personal experience with this user revealed a very trustworthy, civil, friendly, versatile and hard working user. Has just enough experience to be given access to the tools. Can do no harm with them as he promptly acknowledges, fixes and learns from any mistake.--Húsönd 23:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose because you didn't let me nominate you :P Giggy UCP 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support all my interactions with this user have been positive. Acalamari 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - First impression tells me that he's a supportive fellow wikipedian. Going to be (or already is) an "older brother" in wiki-world. Dragonbite 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support. Firstly, Eddie deserves the tools. He has a passion to build and keep the encyclopedia here for all. With great determination and skill, he will make the sysop position look easy. Full stop. Secondly, he has a great and friendly heart that he will express to any user he comes across. If you don't support Eddie, I don't know who else you would. In a few words, a great editor that needs the sysop position. Good luck Eddie. — E talkbots 10:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I believe someone else pointed out that walking away from Wikipedia shows an essential ability to step back, exercise restraint, and collect your thoughts. While his departing message initially said his absence would be indefinite, I think there has been a time or two (or twelve) when we've all threw our hands up in the air in frustration, and I think that would be the case in especially trying circumstances (having to insist you're not a sock puppet is, I imagine, never fun). That being said, he does a lot of work here, and he's trustworthy and able to deal with stress in a way that won't harm others or the project. So, good luck.   user:j    talk   11:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I am confident that this user would not abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. An enthusiastic editor with much to offer the project, but when a dispute about a fair use image in user space just a few weeks ago [10], led him to pack it in and go home. This demonstrates some unfamiliarity with policy and a tendency towards histrionics that is not becoming in an administrator. A Traintalk 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that that incident was not the one that caused the WikiBreak. If you see here, you'll see that I was ultimately correct and the user apologized. Doesn't that show knowledge of policy? --Boricuaeddie 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I took a break because of the unfair blocking of User:Qst and because I was unfairly and incorrectly being accused of being a sockpuppet of former bureaucrat User:Ed Poor. --Boricuaeddie 17:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, the Oppose above seems a little unfair - I think Boricuaeddie has satisfactorily explained his reasons for temporarily leaving the project. And it's certainly more mature to take a wikibreak than to get further embroiled in disputes, as a rule. WaltonOne 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected with regard to the fair use issue, my apologies, Eddie. But I my concern stands. I sympathize completely with having your fill of Wikipedia from time to time and wanting to walk away. For me though, leaving an "I'm leaving forever" message, returning, and then self-nominating for adminship all in the span of three weeks doesn't inspire confidence in me. This is nothing personal, it's just an oppose. A Traintalk 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Thank you for your concern. I knew there was nothing good about leaving and then coming back. <joke>Well, at least it got me 100 more points at the Wikipediholic test :-)</joke> --Boricuaeddie 18:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I do not have power hunger. I had several standing offers to nominate me, but I hate to ask people to nominate me, so I decided to do it myself. --Boricuaeddie 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you're back, but you may want to take a look at User:NoSeptember/Leaving. MastCell Talk 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose You are a very skilled and dedicated editor. However, the departure and return in such a short period for an editor who has been registered for what is also a short period of time (though with a tremendous edit count) does not suggest a temperment that will suit you in the type of situation you will face as an admin. I myself had a similar problem regarding temperment in my own RFA, and would suggest learning from it (which it appears you have), and establishing a longer record demonstrating that you have matured (maybe a couple of months). I will support you in the future if you demonstrate you can keep at it. Hiberniantears 18:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reluctant Oppose Great editor, civil, friendly. However, it is my feeling that the user is too young to be an administrator here. While there is a certain amount of anonymity, administrators are much higher profile and sometimes subject to harassment outside of the Wikipedia environment. This is not something that I want a user who is still under guardianship to be accountable for. I'm not opposed to minors being sysops- we had a b'crat who was 14. It is just my opinion that the user is not old enough to have the "maturity" that an admin should have. Absolutely nothing personal or anything that is within the user's control. I just don't feel comfortable with the age. Keegantalk 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow this rationale. Sadly, we've had admins that are well into the age of majority that have not demonstrated the maturity of their years and conversely, young teens that have shown great maturity for their years. Still, it is your opinion, after all, and entitled to it - Alison ☺ 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I was taking pains to express that it is my personal view that I do not want young teens as administrators and that's also why I put "maturity" in quotations- there are immature adult admins. Clearly this is my opinion and I do not wish to see a pile on oppose based on what I've said. A fine user that is a couple years too young for my comfort. Keegantalk 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns, but I still think that maturity should not be determined by age. --Boricuaeddie 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe it is as well. As I said above there is absolutely nothing you can do and it is not your fault you're young. My opinion on a minimum age for an administrator comes solely from my personal experience on the job and in no way reflects distrust or immaturity. Who knows, this RfA may succeed anyway. Keep up the good work. Keegantalk 02:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmmmm... If Boricuaeddie had not revealed his age, would you have opposed? ♠TomasBat 02:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably, since he doesn't show it in his behaviour... Giggy Talk | Review 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer to answer for myself. No, I would not have. I probably would not have participated. Paradoxical? Yes. It goes to the nature of what we reveal about ourselves. Fair game question. My opinion on appropriate ages are the same as <edit> my opinion on administrators and </edit>the use of open proxies: there's nothing I can do about what I don't know, but when I know, I speak. Keegantalk 03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the user's oppose, and I suggest others do, too. The user has stated that he/she is doing it for my benefit. --Boricuaeddie 03:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Boricuaeddie has done some valuable work in the few short months he's been here. But building an encyclopedia hasn't been a large part of that work. An example of this is that of his less than 1,000 edits to the main space, many of them are tagging, stub sorting and vandalism reverts. I have come to believe, though it is a generally unpopular belief at RfA, that a demonstrated interest in encyclopedia building is essential for an effective administrator. I am not unyielding in this belief -- someone who has made hundreds of reports to AIV over many months, or someone who has done truly exceptional "metapedian" work, for example. But I don't see that with this very new user. Respectfully, I oppose, until a later date when the user has had more experience. --JayHenry 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Does not understand WP:BLP, per his statement above that "every piece of information added about a living person must be neutral". That is far too far from what BLP requires for this person to be an admin. GRBerry 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what he means is that content written in a BLP must be written in a neutral point of view, and not that the information itself must be neutral... Spebi 10:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what I meant. --Boricuaeddie 14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - BLP does not state that information must be "neutral", only that information must be presented in a neutral manner. Leaving and returning are also not encouraging. Tim Vickers 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I hate to do it, since my interactions with Eddie have been great and he is a great editor, but more experience is needed for me to support. Get the experience under your belt, and try again this fall. Jmlk17 00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense mate, but having been around for over 3 months is something that plenty of people have gotten through with. (No, this isn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS :P) Is there anything Eddie has done in his time here that indicates inexperience? Giggy UCP 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *Cough* Four moths *Cough* :-) I agree with Alex. Have I done something here to suggest that I am inexperienced? --Boricuaeddie 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. While I have no specific reason to think this is the case with you (and I hope it's not), it's not a risk I'm willing to take. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A new signature, but the same pointyness :( Giggy UCP 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with self-noms? How can every self-nom be accused of power hunger? That's a very poor review of the candidate. J-stan Talk 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kmweber, I do not like your's or Matthew's very WP:ABF votes in RfAs. Who can say this user is power hungry? How are self-noms evident of a user's contributions? Are you saying that you'll "take a risk" and oppose users based only on a self-nom? I tenaciously implore you to review this user's contributions and not blatantly oppose every self-nom just because you think they're bad. —« ANIMUM » 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You say ABF, they say AAGF. You can't win. Giggy Talk | Review 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    J-stan points out "That's a very poor review of the candidate. In fact, Kurt admits that he doesn't review the candidates. He doesn't take the time to find out if his accusation is accurate. Leebo T/C 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't feed him, guys. Deny him the pleasure. --Boricuaeddie 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Boricuaeddie, calling someone a Troll and a Vandal for making what they believe to be a good faith oppose on your RFA is not a good way to demonstrate why I should trust you and is in fact likely to earn you additional opposition. --After Midnight 0001 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained this several times before, but every time I have been either ridiculed or ignored. This is my last attempt:
    It is my belief that the mere fact that one self-nominates himself for adminship makes him too great a risk to support. I have never claimed to have specific evidence that a specific user simply seeks power for power's sake. That's irrelevant; in my judgment, the possibility--the risk--is too great. I really don't understand why you insist on calling me a "troll" when I'm simply a bit more risk-averse than you are. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I can not support someone who quit 3 weeks ago and who has either not experienced a true dispute or not been able to navigate successfully through one on his own accord, or is just unable express his ability to do so. --After Midnight 0001 01:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure I've had many conflicts, but I don't like to think of them as conflicts, but as small discussions. If you're unsatisfied with my assumption of good faith during discussions, then fine. --Boricuaeddie 01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now make that Strong oppose. You clearly don't get it. Quoting policy like AGF rather than recognizing something for what it obviously is is just silly. There is nothing so horrible about the connotation of the word conflict that one can not be called such. The fact that you seem to be unable to understand that things are what they are and that they must be dealt with by you sometimes, instead of AGF'ing and waiting for a white knight to ride in and save the day, show me that you are clearly not prepared for adminship. --After Midnight 0001 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't help me or the encyclopedia. Instead of only telling me what I am doing wrong, please tell me how I can gain your trust. --Boricuaeddie 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Withdraw this RFA 2) Edit 3) Get into conflicts 4) Resolve them 5) Help other people resolve their conflicts 6) Contribute to policy 7) Understand that Wikipedia is more than a bunch of policies, guidelines and essays. That will be a start.... --After Midnight 0001 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Honestly I don't see where your major contributions to the encyclopedia have been. You want to be involed in WP:AIV yet have barely reported any vandals. The only area that I see you participate actively in is Usernames for admin attention, but it doesn't really take a firm grasp of policy to know that User:wjkud or User:J!mbo wales are inappropriate. T Rex | talk 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, you have participated twice. See comment #14. --Boricuaeddie 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there's no need to count your beans if you know you have enough to eat. Does anything in my 17 reports to AIV or my 172 edits to UAA show that I have no understanding of WP:VANDAL, WP:BLOCK, or WP:U? --Boricuaeddie 01:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to strike out earlier support. T Rex | talk 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - per first oppose. Immediate negative reactions are unfortunately not helpful. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Not at this time Strong Oppose. In his short tenure here, Boricuaeddie has made more contributions to the encyclopedia than I have, but I still can’t support yet, mostly per After Midnight. After leaving and returning two weeks ago, I feel it is too soon to apply for adminship. I’d like to see a few more months of stability, so I can be more confident this won’t happen again. I do not believe this user has the emotional stability to be an admin. --barneca (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Nothing overly problematic: Eddie is an asset to the project but small concerns do add up. His opposition in Brian New Zealand's RfA [11] shows a misunderstanding of what admins should be and a lack of judgment. I am also wary of very young admins because I do think that dealing with problematic users requires a maturity that very few 14 year olds have. Many will point out that we have some good teenage admins but I would humbly suggest that this is because we have a very high proportion of teenage editors. We also do have a few adult admins who behave like 14 year olds but I don't quite see why this is an argument for promoting more 14 year olds! Actually, the announced departure a couple of weeks ago is an ominous sign in that respect. All in all, I'm not convinced that Eddie would be able to communicate effectively and with the necessary finesse when he will face opposition of his admin actions and this concern is amplified by Eddie's self-confessed so-so English. Pascal.Tesson 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Tim Vickers and Atrain's comment at 18:00, among others. Though I have seen your work around, and generally it looks okay, there just isn't enough evidence of the proper experience in admin work and dispute resolution. Not having much to go on, your muddled and terse responses here, in a forum where you are expected to show the utmost civility, gives me pause. And the time-span issues brought up don't exactly inspire me either. I say give yourself some time, and you'll probably make a fine candidate. VanTucky (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Lack of time served, unnecessary and rather rude responses to opposers' concerns. Does not have the necessary experience or temperament. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per barneca. Initially, I was skeptical of the maturity concerns here; I'm willing to overlook someone's leaving (because I'd rather have someone leave than snap and become unfriendly.) However, the candidate has seen fit to reply at this RfA to a large number of these opposes, sometimes with quite provocative, unnecessary comments. Conduct here does give me pause, and I now feel the candidate is not yet ready to handle the pressure of the mop. Xoloz 15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - per question four. Indef. blocks can be temporary. I have seen users who have been blocked indef. have their blocks lifted by an administrator who is willing to give that user another chance. A ban is placed by the community, Jimbo, or the arbitration committee. For bans placed by the arbitration committee, they have to be appealed via arbcom or Jimbo Wales. Miranda 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said they're permanent. --Boricuaeddie 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answer to question above, but currently leaning oppose. Considering that you haven't been here very long and that you retired just 3 weeks ago, I am not inclined to support. --After Midnight 0001 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Since he recently withheld support based on edit count, it's only fair to critically evaluate his own edit count here and now: Only 21 wikitalk edits is not enough to demonstrate any mentionable participation in debates there; and a ratio of less than a thousand mainspace edits versus 4.500 in total is rather uninspiring, too. —AldeBaer 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I don't have much talk page edits because I prefer to use a more personal approach to users. Because of this, I discuss changes to articles and other things on user talk pages, not article talk pages. --Boricuaeddie 00:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Using article talk pages to discuss article content isn't impersonal, it's good practice. Article talk pages centralize discussion so that interested editors can find active debates on a particular subject in one place. A Traintalk 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your opinion. --Boricuaeddie 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's exactly what I said it is, good practice. Look at the talk page guidelines. A Traintalk 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is not a very good reason to be neutral. Politics rule 03:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. His catty retorts to oppose and neutral responses don't fill me with much confidence. Then I looked at his user page and saw he was in eighth grade. I try not to be ageist, but the comments do make sense given his age. I know I could be like that when I was younger. Thus, I won't oppose, because it's really...not his fault. People grow as they get older, and I know he will. However, I did want to register the complaint against catty remarks like "well, if you don't like good faith, then FINE" and "that's YOUR opinion." I don't blame him, though, because I really do think it's just because he's not matured yet. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:14, 2 August 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Boricuaeddie&oldid=1090627985"