Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agüeybaná

From 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.

Contents

[edit] Agüeybaná

(34/43/8); ended 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agüeybaná (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Eddie for adminship. I know his username isn’t Eddie, but I’m far too lazy and inept to type it in its entirety, so Eddie he will remain.

Eddie takes somewhat of a leadership role in WikiProject Puerto Rico, and is an excellent advocate for articles related to Puerto Rico. Many prolific editors have a general area of preference, Eddie’s is his homeland. Through his work in the project, he has brought several articles to good status, and has created numerous articles, many of which have gone on to appear on the Main Page through Did You Know? Portal:Puerto Rico, which Eddie has contributed to extensively, is currently a featured portal candidate.

Eddie is knowledgeable in policy, and is a regular participant in articles for deletion debates. He is also a username reporter. I envisage that if granted sysop rights, he would use his tools effectively in those areas, and in multiple others.

It may come as a surprise to some that I am nominating Eddie for adminship, considering that he and I have had several disagreements of late. My response is that one of the most important aspects of the Requests for adminship process, and one that must be agreed on in the current Request for comment for said process, is that “forgiving and forgetting” must become a central element of the process. I am not a religious person, and there is no reason to be one to forgive and forget, so I have chosen to overlook Eddie’s sometimes odd behaviour and occasionally atrocious sense of humour, and instead to see the many good points in this editor’s favour.

I believe that granting Eddie adminship will benefit the project and its ideals, and as such he has my support in this request. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NB. This is Eddie’s second request for adminship. The first, under his old username of Boricuaeddie, can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie. Please note also that Boricuaeddie (talk · contribs) has since been blocked, as it was recreated by a troll after Eddie’s renaming. Further information can be found on Eddie’s talk page or archives, but it should be noted that any edits or account creations logged under Boricuaeddie’s name were not performed by the current candidate. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nomination For me it is a privilege to co-nominiate Agüeybaná for adminship. I have seen Eddie grow in Wikipedia and I'm very impressed with how mature he is despite his age. He is a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire while interacting with others. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. Agüeybaná is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 06:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nomination I was actually working a nom for Eddie myself [1] so this is just a copy-paste work sorry if it sounds somewhat unusual since it was meant as the first paragraph of the nom Members of the Wikipedia community, I present to you Agüeybaná (more commonly refered to as Eddie) since March 10, 2007 he has been a productive member of our community, gathering more than 7,500 edits in this time period. Among his contribution are helping improve Ramon Emeterio Betances to both Good and Featured status, creating eight articles, successfully nominating 11 articles to DYK, frecuently working with Portal:Puerto Rico (which is currently a Featured Portal Candidate) and creating WikiProject Puerto Rico's Newsletter. He is also a frecuent contributor in several areas of the project icluding: WP:RFA, WP:FAC, WP:FL, WP:AFC and several kinds of deletion discussions. He had a previous RFA which was unsuccessful, but after working with him in several aspects of the project during the last three months and reviewing his contributions, I believe he has worked with the concerns raised in that nomination and several members of the community (including two admins) have agreed with me on this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm Eddie and I approve this message! --Agüeybaná 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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 believe I have experience in several admin-related areas, and I would like to work with as many as possible. I think where I would be most active if made an admin would be WP:AIV, C:CSD, and WP:AFD. I am also an active user at the Wikimedia Commons, where I am a trusted user, and have moved more than 25 free images found here there. When the move is done, the image is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#I8. However, most of the time, the image just sits there for weeks waiting to be deleted, so I would like to participated in that area, too. Other areas I would drop by occasionally include other types of deletion debates and WP:ACC, as well as WP:UAA and WP:RFC, although I would probably participate with much caution, as the rules seem to have changed a lot since I last reported a username there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contribs to this encyclopedia would be anything I have done to improve Wikipedia's coverage of my country and its people. Specifically, I think my edits to P:PUR, Ramón Emeterio Betances, Luis Muñoz Marín, and others are my best. I have also uploaded several photos from Flickr to the Commons and have used them to pretty-fy articles. I think those are pretty good, too, even though they're really minor.
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: Yes, many. I have found that disengagement is the best answer for me, as it prevents any further nasty discussions and ultimately solves the problem.
4. Optional question from After Midnight: Can you please describe what you did with my input from your prior RFA? --After Midnight 0001 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A: Sure. I'll do it one by one:
"1) Withdraw this RFA" — Y Done :-)
"2) Edit" — Y Done. I've been editing for 2 more months and have almost twice as much edits, but I don't think edit count should be an important factor in determining one's suitability as an admin.
"3) Get into conflicts" — Y Done, sadly. Some recent ones include trying to get GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) to stop edit-warring with other editors on the Ed Trice and Gothic Chess articles, trying to stop Kappa (talk · contribs) from pushing his POV at the Tamao Satō article, and trying to stop Jemmy Button (talk · contribs) from adding unreferenced POVs to the Hogging article (I even got RfCd because of this).
"4) Resolve them" — Y Done. See above.
"5) Help other people resolve their conflicts" — Y Done. See the Ed Trice thing above.
"6) Contribute to policy" — Y Done. I'm not entirely sure what you meant with this, but I did try to get consensus for non-admins to be able to close AfDs at WP:DELPRO.
"7) Understand that Wikipedia is more than a bunch of policies, guidelines and essays." — Y Done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a community; I think I got that.
Hope this is satisfying. --Agüeybaná 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Do you still stand by this comment: "... If you're not going to actively use them, then I do not trust you with them. ... --Eddie 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)," taken from this RfA? If your opinion has changed regarding this quote, please elaborate on why so. If it hasn't changed, please explain that as well. (As a side note, I consider you an excellent candidate, I won't oppose regardless of the answer.) RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A: Yes, I do, although certainly not as strongly as when I said that. It is my belief that we give people administrator rights so that they can help maintain the project and make this the best free online encyclopedia ever. People who request adminship knowing that they're not going to use the tools are, in my opinion, power-hungry editors who are just looking for something to show off to their friends. I also endorse a policy used at the Wikimedia Commons that says that admins who do not use their tools in 5 months will have their rights removed, and I think that should be used here, too. Of course, every little thing helps, so I don't use that as a factor when determining a candidate's suitability as an admin any more. --Agüeybaná 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Spebi
6. You confronted a user on their talk page, claiming that their large banner at the top of the page was taken from another user's talk page without attribution. You then claimed in that same diff that it was GFDL violation, and the user must attribute or remove it immediately. Do you still believe today that it was a genuine GFDL violation?
A: Could you rephrase the question? --Agüeybaná 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, my wording hasn't been the best lately. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the diff of the user originally adding the banner, and here is the diff of the user attributing the other user from which he got the banner from initially. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I may be wrong, but, last time I checked, the point of the GFDL is to allow a work to be reproduced, while protecting the original author's rights. CO copied the banner without attribution to the original author (Betacommand). Therefore, unless he had permission, it was a copyright violation. But, that's been resolved, which is what I wanted. To answer your question, yes, I believe it was a violation at that time. --Agüeybaná 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the notice was added on my request. --Agüeybaná 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from CO
7. Do you intend to help with fair use backlog? Last time I checked it was 14 days backlogged, and being trusted on commons means you must have some knowledge of WP:NFCC and licensing in general.
A. Absolutely. If you check my deleted contribs, you'll notice that I've worked many times with fair use images, here as well as commons. I'd be glad to use my licensing knowledge to help out there. --Agüeybaná 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from CO
8. (I wish their were more questions from other editors on RfAs, it is suppose to be a discussion...) This really has nothing to do with your "qualifications" for adminship. However, I'm curiously to know if you think the RfA process is "broken".
A. Well, I don't believe it's the perfect political system, but, really; what system is? I think some changes could be made to make it better, but I don't entirely agree with any of the proposals at the RfA RfC, and I certainly don't think it should be deleted. To answer your question, no, I don't think it's "broken" in its entirety.--Agüeybaná 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Optional question by JetLover
9. Can you explain your attitude in some of the diffs, where you have acted very cold towards other editors? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
A: That is certainly something I'm not proud of. I'm intelligent, but not wise. I didn't think before acting of what the consequences were going to be. It is very rare for me to be like that, and, when it does happen, it can be pretty nasty, as people have seen from the diffs. That's how I am; a person who sometimes can be an asshole. It's just the way I have been raised; to defend my ideals, but I have to learn that there are other ways of doing that that do not include being mean to fellow editors. I've tried to control myself, but apparently, it hasn't worked. I'm sorry for the way I acted, but, there's nothing I can do about that now, is there? --Agüeybaná 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to be an admin, you're going to have to stop. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Piotrus

10. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from User:Dustihowe

10.In the past, apparently you have been in some nasty arguements, do you feel that if granted adminship, you will be more willing to stand your ground RESPECTFULLY, or will you still act strongly and very closed-minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustihowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — Dustihowe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A: I'll try [to be more cool-headed], whether or not this RfA passes. --Agüeybaná 21:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie
Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie2
Requests for adminship/Agüeybaná

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Agüeybaná before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Once again, a stupid amount of co-noms. I don't want to have to read through a huge mass of text just to get to the candidate's statement. 86.137.25.192 15:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no statement from me. You don't have to read the noms; just review the contribs and participate. BTW, who are you, and how did you find this? --Agüeybaná 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • (1) Exactly? I'm pretty sure people would rather hear from you than random passers by who decided to drop on the popularity bandwagon. (2) Is that relevant? There's a big link to it on your talkpage. This is a wiki, you know. 86.137.25.192 17:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
        • If you don't want to read them don't do it, that's a easy solution for it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • When a person has various co-nominators, it is an indication that he/she is held in high esteem by other editors. Participants are not required to read each nomination, that is their option. What I find curious, however is that the anon complaining states "Once again, a stupid amount of co-noms" indicating that he/she has participated in this process before, yet when I checked said editor's contributions I found this: [2]. Strange isn't it? Tony the Marine 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That IP is not a static one. I am familiar with this user, and he does have experience. – Aillema 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    A nomination is to introduce a candidate. What's the purpose of a bunch of nominations? It need not be indicated that the candidate is held in high esteem. Let the RfA participants go through the contributions of the candidate and decide for themselves. We are lazy enough as it is. It's no favor to wikipedia if the RfA participants see 5 noms and say, "wow, all those noms... the candidate must be great!". No need to encourage that kind of thing. Anything that really needs to be said can be said in the discussion section or as part of your support. - TwoOars (Rev) 20:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note: The first two supports were added before the RfA was accepted and transcluded. I'm not going to remove them, as they're the noms. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Completely irrelevant. Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You guys are right. There's no need for so many noms. I have only accepted the ones I believe describe a different aspect of my editing. Thank you for your comments. --Agüeybaná 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I find it a little discourteous to delete positive good-faith comments without further discussion. You could have moved them to the talk page and add a link from this page, or something. Melsaran (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I notified the noms. I think they're OK with it. --Agüeybaná 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Y Done. Added a link at the talk page. --Agüeybaná 15:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you, Agüeybaná and Tony, normally treat anons as you did above? --Iamunknown 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think I mistreated the guy. I just stated something and asked the anon a question. And, no, I don't ask all anons questions like this. I work actively at WP:AFC, where I work closely with anons, and I think I treat them pretty well. After all, they're people, too :-) --Agüeybaná 19:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • To be fair, my tone was confrontational too. Just so we're clear, I'm not pissed off by his response. 86.137.25.192 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, that's a good thing. I am quick to worry that regular editors are putting off new editors ... sorry for jumping to a conclusion. --Iamunknown 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agueybana needs to think his decision to become an administrator through very carefully. Becoming an administrator at such a young age puts you at high risk for some very ugly forms of abuse. You may have the mental maturity to make excellent decisions, but you need the maturity to keep a level head during high-pressure situations and continue playing the administrative chess game. 68.19.77.38 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I can't assure you that I will remain cool at all times, but I certainly can promise you that I'll try the very best I can to keep my calm during those high-pressure situations. --Agüeybaná 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • This is what I'm talking about, even though you may want to blow the roof, administrators much remain calm and always AGF and give adequate warnings before blocking or taking intervention. Thus, remaining cool, should be a prerequsite for admins, as on Wikipedia and in life, going mad and making personal attacks does not facilitate understanding and compromise between editors. Thus I would not support you. 221.133.196.114 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont want to support you as I don't think you have addressed concerns raised in your last RfA, you do not AGF, nor do you edit in a calm manner, while getting 'told off' or receiving harsh comments is bad, it is no good to reply is a same hostile manner. 221.133.196.114 01:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No way I just don't like your interactions with other users especially newbies, you BITE often, and are very hostile, please try to AGF and calm down and not take threats made to you seriously, but with a grain of salt. What is it, the religious thing to forgive and forget? You dont seem to do that often enough to justify giving you adminship. <end constructive rant> 221.133.196.114 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing personal, but I would never support someone H2O nominates due to his own flawed Wikipedia understanding. Also, please don't nom, unless you yourself have looked through all the editor's recent edits and found out there are no wrongdoings or hostility, don't just nom, for the sake of nom'ing and if you think he can get adminship, but really can not. 221.133.196.114 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • One more thing, I feel that the time between the adminship requests is too short, and while you may be alright 90% of time, it is the 10% other htat I worry about. I don't think that its your fault that this rfa will fail, I would blame o'er hasty nominators. 221.133.196.114 01:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Looking at your comments, I'm assuming you are very experienced. However, your first and last comment are clashing against each other where you first say that you don't want to support because of being bitey, then saying it's not Eddie's fault failing this Rfa. Can you clarify this for me? --Hirohisat 紅葉 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course one cannot completely blame nominators, and it is up to the editor themselves to demonstrate trustworthiness. I believe that had this RfA been done later it would had succeeded, but as it is now, I sincerly doubt it will. 221.133.196.114 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of room to grow. Look forward to seeing you as an admin. Love the staunch support of SineBot as well. 69.143.236.33 08:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, unregistered users are not permitted to comment in the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections. ~ Sebi [talk] 08:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Recommend you link your signature to only your user and user talk page. 193.95.165.190 11:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears this candidate has not listened from the comments made here, as he/she recently made this comment. Daniel 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • 1.) I'm a "he". 2.) It's called sarcasm. --Agüeybaná 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral per No big deal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.38.215 (talk • contribs)
    • IP comments go here. --Agüeybaná 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support as co-nominator. Tony the Marine 06:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support - Per my explanation above and great interaction with this user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. I would definitely trust this user with the mop. SQL(Query Me!) 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support I see no good reason to oppose. So support!RuneWiki777 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. the_undertow talk 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support I've noticed Eddie many, many times here and he's done a great job of spreading his contributions across the namespaces, and truly doing a great job at participating in nearly every part of this project. He's a great help at articles for creation, has has even started some work on the Signpost (see here). And, of course, Eddie's outstanding participation in the mainspace must be noted, doing everything from minor edits, like referencing articles and reverting vandalism, to serious article editing [3] [4]. This, along with his always civil interactions with other users and the fact that Wikipedia would be greatly helped with Eddie in this capacity, leaves me no choice other than to support. Good luck, Eddie! ( arky ) 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Great guy. :) GlassCobra (Review) 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support --Hirohisat 紅葉 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support — The issues from the prior RfA have been resolved, with the immaturity issues definitely being so (as a result of other concerns presented previously having been resolved). —[[Animum | talk]] 17:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - I believe Eddie would make a fine administrator. Into The Fray T/C 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - I see no reason to oppose. Lara❤Love 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - from my nom - Eddie is an active editor, registering a an impressive 1,700 edits in the Wiki-space alone, participating in deletion debates and diligent reporting at WP:UAA. He has demonstrated a great commitment to the project above and beyond most users. He collaborates, using talk pages to incite users to get active, as evidenced by the WikiProject Puerto Rico newsletter he created and maintains. I'm believe this user will do great with the tools. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Candidate's explanation of previous sentiments is satisfactory. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Hell yeah! Knows the deletion policy, remembers to notify people when their article is tagged for speedy, as well as wikifying and formatting articles, making substantial contributions, and being a good vandal-fighter. He is exactly the kind of editor we need as an administrator. WaltonOne 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I would certainly trust Agüeybaná as an admin. Captain panda 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. I supported the last time. All my interactions with Agüeybaná have been positive; listens to and takes advice as well. Acalamari 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support has common sense--Phoenix 15 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Common sense is the least common of the senses :-) --Agüeybaná 20:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Have seen good work by this editor around the traps, and believe them to be sensible and intelligent. I think he would do well with the mop Orderinchaos 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Weak support for what it's worth, although I'm still slightly uncomfortable. Carbon Monoxide 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Abstain. Carbon Monoxide 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - I've seen this user around RfA's quite a lot, so I don't have to worry about him not participating in things such as these. His contribs look worthy of an admin, too. Cheers, Ανέκδοτο 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Seen Eddie around WP and on IRC, been consistently impressed. –Crazytales♥ 01:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support He seems like a good guy for the job. A good knowledge of WikiPolicy (I think I just made that up), and would be a good addition to the admin family. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Eddie has been a great help to me in revamping List of U2 awards and definitely has the knowledge and experience necessary for adminship. Neranei (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, I can see that Eddie will be a good admin.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 03:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support This user has a good knowledge on policy. I believe that he will make a fine admin as wel. He has also demonstrated a great deal of commitment to this project as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Obviously to be trusted with the tools. VanTucky Talk 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Per nom. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per nom. Epbr123 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - Agüeybaná is an experienced editor who, in my opinion, would make a fine administrator! I find him not only to be very knowledgeable about policy, but he demonstrates a willingness to help out other less experienced editors in the improvement of newly created articles. Citizen Dick 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support He works to different standards than me, but I don't think he's wrong. Most of the opposes seem to boil down to "sometimes can be an asshole", but if we desysopped people for that there'd be about two admins left. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm, I think this depends on if you have an inside or outside view of a. Well, if you're not an admin, but a 'normal' editor, you might end up in deep, uh, troubles. Wouldn't want to work at an article and hold a different opinion when 'Eddie' is around. And his lazy approach towards blocking is scary.Gray62 03:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know what I'd do with just one other admin around. the_undertow talk 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per strong contributions, dedication to the project, and willingness to help out with backlogs in areas where help would be useful. Many of the oppose concerns are legitimate, however, and I hope the candidate will take stock of them, whether or not this RfA is successful. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support per Newyorkbrad et al. Of course much of the criticism is correct. He's somewhat immature (still in school), a complete pain, and un (some nasty Spanish word I learned in the schoolyards of the South Bronx). But he works well with the others, on the whole, and has made some significant contributions to build WP. Even if this RfA does not succeed, I look forward to mentoring him to do better in the future. Bearian 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - what you've achieved here so far is brilliant. Keep up the good work, and try to keep a cool head, although it must be admitted by all that sometimes it gets hard not to. Lradrama 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support lots of experience and won't misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support I believe that he will be a dedicated editor who shan't abuse tools. Marlith T/C 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support per nom. --θnce θn this island Speak! 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. For what it's worth, I trust Agüeybaná to make a good administrator, even at this point. I encourage him to take the advice from the opposing parties and come back in a few months where he will stand a good chance of getting through. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. I support. I think the community has enough checks and balances to outweigh anyone's fears.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I'm not impressed by this. This is too BITEy and confrontational in a prospective admin candidate. I've unfortunately never found Eddie as an exceptionally mature user, but things like BTW, who are you, and how did you find this? are just plain rude. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    To be fair, that anon's only contribs are here, is very familiar with the process, and, appears very experienced. SQL(Query Me!) 19:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I've been around for 3+ years now so I'm hardly a newbie. 86.137.25.192 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    I was just asking a question. I was curious. I hardly see that as rude. --Agüeybaná 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose Few concerns, such as unhelpful comments like this, and accusing a user of bad faith, which is bad faith on your behalf. I also feel that your admin standards are fairly high. I feel that you group everyone who has few mainspace edits into one group, and don't take time to review what they plan to do when they become an admin. For example, if an admin plans to be active on WP:ANI, yes, mainspace contributions would be much more important because you would have to know relevant polices and communication is extremely important. However if you plan to focus on deleting spam pages, mainspace contributions isn't need so much, it's just a simple matter of deciding if a page is complete crap or not. Carbon Monoxide 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    How ironic. I actually thought I was being too merciful with admin candidates. Well, at least I'm not asking them to have FAs, right? Seriously, though, mainspace contribs shows willfulness to work collaboratively and shows that the user is clear on what we're doing here in Wikipedia. I think it's a perfectly justified reasoning when evaluating a user's suitability as an admin. I understand that you disagree with it, but opposing me because of it isn't going to change the way I evaluate candidates. --Agüeybaná 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I agree with CO that your standards for admin candidates are far too high, and that substantial mainspace edits shouldn't be a pre-requisite for passing RfA. However, that isn't a reason to oppose (this isn't an RfB, after all, and you're entitled to hold different views in good faith). WaltonOne 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. I have concerns about this user's judgement and temperament. Some examples are the defiant unwillingness to compromise as displayed here and here, where Ag, in response to a personal attack by Kappa, makes the exact same implication in return. Two wrongs don't make a right, and if two editors lose control, it doesn't matter who started it. Also, the "You do not accept that you are wrong, continue to attack me, keep reverting my edits when the article is unprotected, and you get blocked" attitude strikes me as leading to the abuse of admin tools in conflicts. Picaroon (t) 22:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I share the above concerns - I find Eddie quite bitey and needlessly aggressive. He seems to me to have a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Not very good if you're on the wrong end of a bad block. – Aillema 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Um, I only had that attitude because I was right, according to policy, and I was not the only one to think that. Anyway, your final comment is irrelevant; another admin can unblock if (s)he feels the block was a bad one. --Agüeybaná 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    This response, minutes after I posted simply proves my point. "Um"; "irrelevant" - words like that sound bad. What are you trying to say? – Aillema 00:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Your attitude here is very concerning, and demonstrative of my oppose reasons. Has it occurred to you that Kappa probably thought he was right and you were wrong? What makes your opinion more important? Dismissing the possibility of bad blocks as unimportant because they can be undone makes me more sure than ever that you will not pay proper attention to the blocking policy and other rules if you become an administrator. So what if I delete the Main Page, it can be restored. No big deal. Picaroon (t) 00:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Now, don't get any ideas, Picaroon.... :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per your post immediately above ( 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC) ). It seems that you have not changed. --After Midnight 0001 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Unless you have a suitable response for the disgusting incivility and biteyness shown here,[5], oppose. --DarkFalls talk 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per the attitude which has been exposed above by six of my peers, which is undesirable in an administrator. Like Picaroon, a general perception of this user forces my hand. This affirms my beliefs. Daniel 00:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Strong oppose per the 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC) comment, "another admin can unblock if (s)he feels the block was a bad one". Although technically true, I would hope that every single administrator realises what damage a block can do, especially an overturned one. It creates an irreversable mark, and the action is personal on a user (unlike a deletion or protection). Any good administrator candidate would be experienced enough to remember the countless incidents (I won't name names) where bad blocks have been placed, had to be removed per concensus, and the levels of drama and/or leaving are disruptive to the encyclopedia. Daniel 00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Stronger oppose again per User talk:Kappa#Your User Page. That's not really appropriate behaviour for an administrator, and I worry that you may abuse the tools if in a similar situation again. Daniel 03:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as per Picaroon and DarkFalls. east.718 at 00:18, 10/8/2007
  8. Reluctant but firm oppose. I'm normally not one to oppose, but I have significant concerns here. Don't get me wrong here, I think have made many excellent contributions. However, as was exhibited at your last RfA, you seem to have a tendency to become confrontational at the slightest disagreement or criticism. Now, your answer to After Midnight was good and I was tempted to go neutral as a result, despite the fact that only two months have passed in the meantime. The links provided by Picaroon though, and your snappy response to Aillema, really make it seem to me that nothing has changed in that respect. As such, I worry about what would happen as and when you end up in conflicts as an admin, as inevitably will happen at some point. So sorry, but I must oppose. Will (aka Wimt) 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose The attitude shown in some of the examples above shouldn't have a place here, editor or admin. Firm oppose. RxS 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Although I agree that some of Agüeybaná's actions are undesirable from an editing point of view, I think it's a bit over-the-top to suggest that Agüeybaná shouldn't contribute at all. Daniel 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Not saying he should go away, but as you say his attitude is not great and he should probably examine how he interacts with other editors here. It contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere for editing and can be downright disruptive in an admin. RxS 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    He is a fantastic editor. Certainly he's not angelic 100% of the time (who is?), but saying he shouldn't be an editor is completely out of line. WaltonOne 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Not saying he should go away, but as you say his attitude is not great and he should probably examine how he interacts with other editors here. It contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere for editing and can be downright disruptive in an admin. RxS 01:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose — I'm sorry, but saying the statement "another admin can unblock if (s)he feels the block was a bad one" doesn't ring well with me. As Daniel pointed out, blocks are not only technical functions but can leave a very real behavioral imprint on a user. Just saying "anyone else can unblock if it's bad" shows a myriad of presumptuousness on your part, and could lead a newbie to leave the site; a newbie that very well may be the next Newyorkbrad. Don't take this oppose personally, because you learn from your mistakes and criticisms, not your achievements and apexes. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I'm really torn over this. I think for the most part you are on top of your game and you really seem to do a good job at what you do, but I'm highly concerned about your interactions at User talk:207.38.160.124 and your response to User:Aillema above. The latter seems to suggest you don't understand how seriously a block may affect other users. I am concerned about what seems a similar unawareness of the impact of your actions at User talk:207.38.160.124 with User:Jemmy Button. I understand your interpretation of that editor's behavior—at least I think I do, as in providing a third opinion I spent quite a lot of time thinking about it—but his statement to you that "You're violating policies (particularly AGF and 3R) and harming the encyclopedia" seemed heartfelt, and your response "Sue me. (You can't, BTW)" was in my opinion clearly out of line. If you had been able to rise above your emotions in the moment and address him there respectfully and fully, you might have been able to nip that conflict in the bud. I know it's really hard to remain civil when you feel like you're being baited by a vandal, but I personally feel like it's an important quality in an administrator to be able to respond neutrally or to have the forbearance to refuse to get in an argument. I think you are absolutely right that disengagement is the proper response, but in that case you disengaged a little too late, I think. Truly, I see that you do great work for the project. I think you will be a fabulous administrator in time. I have a lot of respect for your contributions. I just feel this is an issue you need to master before taking up the tools. And whether you get the tools this time or not, I really hope you will keep this in mind when you interact with other editors. Your words and your actions can have major impact, and it's a whole lot easier to stop and think carefully before unleashing them than it is to clean up after. :/ --Moonriddengirl 00:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Oppose per User:Wimt, User:Animum, and User:East718. NHRHS2010 Talk 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Being a solid stick is a quality that I never wish to see in an administrator, and that said, there is a possibility of abusing admin tools. Other comments share the same concern as I do, so I am going to have to oppose. O2 (息 • 吹) 02:07, 08 October 2007 (GMT)
  14. Oppose I stand by the comments I made on the first RfA and the attitude displayed in his response to criticism on this RfA only strenghtens my feeling. Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, quite strongly, per Maxim, Daniel and Wimt. Interactions with Kappa are far below the standards of civility and etiquette I would expect to see in any user. Please try disengaging from conflicts instead of ascending them. Quality writing but you need to work on your communication skills, sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    I find it very surprising that you oppose him for incivility, yet you nominated Kelly Martin (who is a thousand times less civil) for adminship. I realise this doesn't negate the validity of your comments (indeed, I agree that civility is very important in an admin), but it's generally better to apply consistent RfA standards IMO. WaltonOne 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per above. Civility is something that all admins need to have. Your responses to peoples' opposes in RfAs is a testament to that. Please keep up your contributions on Wikipedia, but I ask you to be careful in how you interact with other users. It might not be intended, but your attitude can give off the wrong idea to your fellow Wikipedians. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per issues raised above... Jmlk17 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose for the same reason as the last time, too young. No need to hash out those details again. Personal reasons that Eddie can do nothing to change, just one of two criteria I have. Keegantalk 04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Unrelated to my oppose but relevant to those above, it is the utmost principle that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Page protection and blocking are immensely serious actions and are not aribitrary or punitive. Keegantalk 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - per Picaroon, and Darkfalls, sorry. Dureo 05:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per many comments above. Civility and a good, helpful attitude is something I require of admin candidates. Useight 06:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per many comments above. I think that you can be a very good contributor, but I feel that you currently make too many comments that only inflame tempers rather than diffusing defusing them. I'm also troubled by your attitude regarding blocks... while you rightly point out that unjustified blocks can be reversed by another admin, the block still has an effect on the editor. Others have mentioned that a wrongly given block might drive away a good editor. What hasn't been said is that even unjustified blocks remain on the record of a user (just see who one rogue (not rouge!) admin blocked, as an example). A person who was wrongly blocked will have to explain that block if he or she seeks adminship/bureaucrat/whatever. It's far better to avoid making the mistake in the first place. I'm not trying to tear you down, Eddie, and I hope you understand why I've chosen to oppose your RfA at the present time. What I think you should do is try to read the various comments presented here, read your own interactions with other users, and try to imagine how your words would be taken by someone else. In other words, try to put yourself in someone else's shoes. I don't think you are permanently unsuited for adminship, I just feel that you should improve your civility and communication skills, and rethink your attitude on blocking. Work on those, and perhaps I might be convinced to support you in the future. --Kyoko 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC), fixed spelling of "defusing" 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose I just can't bring myself to support given the comments that have been pointed out above, while you are a good contributor, that does not mean you will act with a level head as an admin, and your actions above do not demonstrate this. Thus, while I value the work in article creation, incivility issues mean I will oppose for the time being. Phgao 09:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Weak Oppose sorry, the comments highlighted above cancel out some promising editing. I don't see any Good or Featured Article involvement, and only 1 DYK - a more concerted effort at 'pedia building may see a support from me in the future. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Just a small comment: I have worked with other users at WP:PUR to get several articles to GA and FA. I also have more than 10 DYKs (see User:Agüeybaná/DYK and User:Agüeybaná/Creations). --Agüeybaná 21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong Oppose per the various confrontational responses cited above ("so sue me", "your final comment is irrelevant", etc.) These display an arrogance and attitude that is entirely unsuitable for the mop. Ronnotel 10:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose - I don't trust Agueybana's judgement with regards blocking and suchlike at this time. However, the error was being rude, bitey and incivil before getting the mop (wrong order, dude). I admire the honesty, at least. Neil ム 11:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per Darkfalls. Sorry. RuneWiki777 13:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose as per Picaroon above. Sorry buddy. ScarianTalk 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Sorry, Eddie, you are a good editor, but there have been quite a few times in which you have been rude or arrogant to others and left a sour taste in my mouth. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Don't want to pile on, so I'll keep it short -- my default position on an RfA is, among other things, to support absent a showing that the tools may be abused. I really wanted to support you because you've been a fine editor, but you seem to be just a little too quick to anger in the face of opposition (which you would inevitably face as an admin). I was perfectly willing to write off the exchange above in the discussion section, since it seemed like you were just being baited, but a similarly hot response happened more than once, just on this page. As such, I don't see a choice but to oppose. Ashdog137 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose as per Picaroon. --Folic_Acid 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose: I don't think this is a good idea at this juncture, largely for the reasons raised by Daniel, Picaroon, DarkFalls, and Riana. Editors are usually at peak civility before and during an RfA; it only gets worse after they're sysopped and no longer under the magnifying glass. I think there's a level of hot-headedness and immaturity, and a shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude, that augurs poorly for what he'd do with the bit. The way a user handles conflict is a useful gauge of what they'll do with the tools when things jump off. We need admins who will stay calm and refuse to be baited. Based on what I've seen so far (particularly the exchanges cited by Picaroon above), I don't think Agueybana's in this category. Regarding Kelly Martin's most recent RfA, Agueybana wrote that "I would never support such an uncivil user." Amen - me neither. MastCell Talk 05:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose: Agueybana needs to demonstrate a longer history of cool thinking and polite interactions during conflicts before I can support his RfA. One of the rare situations where an intelligent editor in good faith can't reasonably be relied upon not to lose his temper and abuse admin tools. Something he can remedy with consistent effort and attention. AvruchTalk 19:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose per Daniel and Picaroon. This diff provided by Daniel seems a bit much. I do realize everyone is human and makes mistakes, so I'd be open to supporting in the future if civility improves. --Bfigura (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I was initially provided by DarkFalls, for the record :) Daniel 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Very concerned about the unexplained change of the username, and the fact that I'm unable to check older contributions. Candidate seems to be a fast decider, but sadly with some problems in judgment. Comments by other users about rude and arrogant behaviour is alarming. The candidates answers here don't really give confidence this has changed. And coming back to RfA after only two months is a bit to fast, imho. Gray62 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Oppose, regretfully. And frankly, I came here intending to support. The answer to question 9, however, saddened me, as did the confrontational attitude in some diffs and comments at the top of this very RFA. I'm sorry, but I have to now say no. I don't oppose often, and this one saddens me. - Philippe | Talk 17:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Sorry but to be an admin you'll need to cool down a little bit. --Joelster 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. I'm concerned with your answer to question 9. --Kbdank71 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. I am also concerned with your efforts to deal reasonably with people at all times. Your response to 9 seems to acknowledge fact that such outbursts may happen in the future, without any attempts to rectify this problem. If you feel this is a personality issue, it should be dealt with outside of Wikipedia before seeking administrator rights.Ckjy 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Oppose I hate to do this, but I feel that you are a bit too bitey and aggressive. You need to show that you can effectively handle disputes before becoming an administrator. — Wenli (reply here) 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Oppose reasons stated by above opposers are too worrisome. -WarthogDemon 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  41. Oppose that diff is too frightening and is far from helping a user, which is one of an admin's jobs. Sorry! jonathan (talk — contribs) 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  42. Oppose Had to change my mind here. Looking at other comments made me look closer at question 9 and in my opinion, if you cant keep your head, you can't be a reasonable admin. Sorry. Aflumpire 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note I was neutral.Aflumpire 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hello Aflumpire, in the interest of transparency, would you care to restore your previously neutral opinion, struck through like this? This is done by putting <s> and </s> tags around the content. I don't know how other people feel, but I personally prefer to see how people's thoughts and opinions evolve throughout an RfA, hence this request. Thank you. --Kyoko 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  43. Oppose per above. Yahel Guhan 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral leaning support - I was really expecting to oppose this RFA, but I'm impressed with your response to my question. I'll do some additional research and make a final decision in a couple days. --After Midnight 0001 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Leaning support also, viewing some behavior of the candidate on this RfA may prompt me to change. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. On the fence Miranda 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I was expecting to support this RFA but the number of opposes as well as the reasons for them worry me. The curt responses Eddie has made to other editors in a "I'm right you're wrong" attitude makes me unable to support at this time. Sorry :( --Hdt83 Chat 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Same reason as Hdt83. I would like to really support you, but your recent comments to User:Kappa (although he might be personal-attacky) did not show that you are civil. I really don't want to oppose though, so I'll stay neutral. --Hirohisat 紅葉 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - I'm sorry to say that the uncivility changed my opinion. --Eye of the minD 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. The hardest neutral I've always had a pleasant interaction with Eddie and I wish that the missteps reported by the opposers had never happened. Still, due to them, I must stand bitter-neutral for now. I hope that Eddie doesn't feel any discouraged and keep working and improving in order to attain a successful RfA in a few months. He would certainly deserve another chance and I'm sure that the admin tools would then be in great hands. Húsönd 23:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Dead Neutral I'm afraid. Basically per Husond who has eloquently summed up my feelings. I'm sorry Eddie, I truly am. This RfA will not pass. Having interacted with you so much I know that you will keep that positivity and humour that we all like about you. Just take note of the valid comments by opposers, and I look forward to your future RfA when these concerns will have been addressed and you can then get the buttons to further help you in your undoubted commitment to this work. Pedro :  Chat  07:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral your signature [[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]][[User:Agüeybaná/Puerto Rico|<font color="#1E90FF">ü</font>]][[WP:LOVE|<font color="Green">eybaná</font>]] 2 of the nine letters in your signature goes to your UP the rest just goes to other stuff, your signature is a link for for others when someone trying to find you ending up on meaningless pages is only going to enrage others further when they are already experiencing issues with policy. Gnangarra 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    Leaning Neutral Im neutral but I am leaning towards support. Lots of ways to support but the big one for me was unblocking if another admin had made a bad one. True in some cases but I don't agree with that. Aflumpire 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflumpire (talk • contribs)
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.