Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Earle Martin 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Earle Martin

Final (59/16/4); Originally scheduled to end 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Earle Martin (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'm Earle Martin. This is my third self-nomination. The first was in October 2006; the second, five months later. Both were unsuccessful (obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be reading this). Another five months later and here I am again.

You may well be thinking "Why is he bothering?". Good question. After the hammering I got last time it put me off the process even more than the first time did. No amount of lofty declarations of adminship being "no big deal", even if quoted directly from Jimbo, appeared to influence the fact that clearly it is taken to be a big deal. And "optional questions" were proven, in fact, not to be optional at all, unless you want the voters - and it is oh so a vote, no matter how hard Majorly and other good-hearted people try to fix that - to pile onto you like you just told them their mother wears army boots.

The reason I'm back is simply that I just saw the amazing inflation in edit count required to become an admin. Basically, the notion of applying yet again - in all seriousness, mind you, I really would like to - in light of those figures is perversely stimulating to my sense of humor. (Feel free to cite this as a WP:POINT violation, even though it's not intended as anything of the kind; I will cheerfully ignore you.)

Since the last time, my edit count has increased, but my edit rate has fallen. It was never very high, and only reached a maximum of 265 edits in one month. Since then, well, see for yourself. This is due to several factors. It's partly from being nonplussed at the result (my favorite part was when a bureaucrat closed the vote early... but that's another issue); certainly that didn't encourage me to contribute much immediately after. Mainly, though, it's because I have plenty of work and family commitments in my life, and don't have the time to sit around whacking a button in VandalProof or AutoWikiBrowser for hours on end. That kind of editing doesn't interest me, anyway; I generally edit as I read, casually, but carefully.

Last time around, and the time before that, I presented myself on a platform of wanting to be judged by my contributions, and I'd like to make that statement again. However, since I was so roundly flogged by the fans of the non-optional optional questions, this time I'll make an attempt to answer them. That said, I've talked about myself quite enough already, and don't intend to make this RfA even more of an essay than it already is. Please don't be offended if my answers to questions are short - they're not meant to be brusque. On the other hand, I'm not going to answer "Question 4" - you know, the one about WP:IAR. Sorry, but it's a very silly question.

Yours respectfully, -- Earle Martin [t/c] 23:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

-- Earle Martin [t/c] 00:19, 13 September 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: [Edited for clarity:] In terms of general work, of late I've taken an interest in removing original research and statements that have been flagged with {{fact}} for a long time. My tolerance for seeing that sort of thing in an article has dropped. I think I'll have a look at the backlog in that direction. Regarding admin work, generally speaking, I'm the kind of guy who takes the tools, goes out into the garden and looks for stuff to use them on, not the other way around, so not much plan in this area.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Not all that much, I'm pretty boring. I started the articles Hoxton Square, Gamelan gong gede, Hunguhungu, Common Query Language and Ganjifa amongst others (full list on my user page), and translated Palazzo Bianco (Genoa), that was quite fun.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have to admit that the process of being stomped on in an RfA (twice) is fairly stressful, no matter how hard you try to tell yourself "it's just a website". At that point the solution is to leave the computer alone for a while. Works like a charm.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Earle Martin Requests for adminship/Earle Martin 2 Requests for adminship/Earle Martin 3

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

[edit] Discussion

Hello, I have been following this RfA, even though I likely won't voice an opinion one way or the other. I haven't gone through Earle Martin's contributions since his last RfA, and I don't think it would be proper of me to formally participate without doing that. I just want to say that people have a right to their own personal admin standards, and I don't think they should be repeatedly challenged as I think has been happening in this RfA. Beyond a certain point, I think it stops being constructive and only raises tempers. --Kyoko 14:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. The uproar that one or two users caused after one of my votes was pretty uncalled for. People have different standards. Lradrama 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem to be referring to me when you mention this "uproar", I'll have to clarify: I totally agree with people having different standards (And I almost never respond to people who have high standards, however absurdly high they may be) but the standards should be supportable by some kind of logic. One user got blocked yesterday because he was opposing RfA candidates with less than 40 category talk edits. Would you accept that and shrug it away saying people have different standards? Your reasons sounded as absurd to me and saying arbitrary things like "2,083 edits should really have been achieved by now" made me respond; I did not intend the original comment to be "harsh", even though you apparently perceived it that way. I just pointed out what appeared to be bad logic in each of your three statements. If you call that an uproar, you haven't seen much of RfA yet. - TwoOars (Rev) 17:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to point out - while I don't agree that it's necessarily too low - that 2083 isn't an arbitrary figure, but Earle's total edit count — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, I didn't say the number was an arbitrary one. I meant that whole thing about "achieving" so many edits by now. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, TwoOars, I have been in this situation before in my experience with RfA, and have tended to back out. I'm just getting fed up of retorts now. And before my image starts to get blackened, may I add that I do actually fairly review every RfA and I do hand out probably equal amounts of supports and opposes. If you don't believe me, look through my contribs list. Thanks, Lradrama 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support and three time's the charm. Bearian 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong support, good luck Earle, hope you make it this time! :) Majorly (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Good luck --Aarktica 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. --W.marsh 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Good luck! Hope you get it this time:)--SJP 01:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - this really fills me with the urge to say, "Why the hell not?". Your history convinces me that you wouldn't abuse or misuse the tools.--Kubigula (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong support I was neutral last time purely on editcountitis, which, as I've learned now, was a stupid reason not to support. This is a quality editor. Acalamari 01:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I always take a look at a users contributions, read the nom and their answers to the questions before I make up my mind. That said, the low number of edits to WP:AIV does give pause for thought, but I don’t think this user will abuse the tools.--Sandahl 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. (Very) long-term editor with positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I see no reason to suspect he will misuse the tools. Espresso Addict 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Won't abuse the tools Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. What W.marsh said. Keegantalk 04:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Very strong support I've made my thoughts about Earle known on his previous RfAs, so I won't repeat them here. Suffice it to say, he is someone I trust completely. He is a great contributor, and it will be a proud day for WP when he is made an admin. I say with all honesty that I can't think of any current non-admins to whom I would want to give the tools more than Earle. -- Kicking222 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support. For unabashed realism. Has a no-shit attitude that suits admins well. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support I could not find any reason to oppose when I went through Earle Martin's contributions. I like the general attitude and sounds very sensible. Hope this rfa reverses the edit-counting trend, at least temporarily. - TwoOars (Rev) 08:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support A couple of good edits daily (admin-related) or not is a net gain to the project. I see no reason to withhold the tools.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 11:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong support, without reservation or hesitation. Long overdue. Intelligent guy, good overall attitude towards the project. This is the kind we want as admin. Low-profile editing is absolutely not a problem with this user, please don't fall for that baseless WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — [ aldebaer⁠] 12:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Intelligent fellow, good chap. Will do well. Moreschi Talk 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. support - I'd love to see a precedent of someone getting in _without_ an astronomical edit count. (bet anything this RFA is doomed, though) --Random832 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support A fine editor. No problems here. Glad to give my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - I agree with TwoOars' note on Lradrama's oppose. Basically, this user has been active plenty long enough to understand how to use the admin tools. He may not be the most active user, but semi-active admins don't do any harm to Wikipedia; every little helps. There's absolutely no evidence that this user would abuse the admin tools. WaltonOne 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. I got to thinking about this. Initially, I knew that 2000 edits was on the low end or admins, and I didn't see much activity in any adminsitrative areas. I had concerns about the amount of experience he's had here. I've read User:Ral315/WTHN before and I gave it another read. ...trust that the user will not use the tools for misdeeds. That's all that's needed, really. I know that there is a difference between intentionally abusing and unintentionally misusing the tools. I haven't seen any evidence that he will intentionally abuse the tools; no one's brought up any incivility or anything like that. I also haven't seen that he won't unintentionally misuse the tools; he hasn't been active in administrative areas and don't really know which, if any, administrative tasks he'll perform; that fails to demonstrate experience. Still, I don't see that he would dive into administrative tasks before knowing what he's doing and that if he did, I don't see that he wouldn't be receptive to someone who said, Hey, that's not what we do; we do it that way. After all of this, I feel alright giving him my support. WODUP 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support just like the last time. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Edit count (especially today's inflated expectations) is a poor way to judge suitability for admin tools. the wub "?!" 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. Inactive, active, or hyperactive, it's still correct use of the tools, damnit. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support I don't think he'll abuse the buttons. Then again, I'm afraid they'll get dusty. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Seems to be a solid candidate. Daniel 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Nothing in this editor's history indicates to me that he will abuse the tools, and I would prefer that Wikipedia avoid editcountitis when it comes to RFA. The clear implication from Rspeer's analysis is that RFA will, by January 2008, require the average user to have 10,000 edits under his/her belt for a successful adminship request: a ridiculous amount of editing in order to gain tools which are supposed to be "no big deal". Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - I see that you have good intetions and look for the positive even with a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Bottom line, there is nothing in your history to me to indicate that I could not trust you with elevated privs. I hope you make it. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support No evidence this editor will abuse the tools.--MONGO 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. El_C 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC) ad infinitum.
  32. Maxim(talk) 21:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC), ad infinitum like El C.
  33. Support. Common sense is much more important than edit counts. I think Earle Martin has plenty enough experience to use the admin tools productively. And I don't agree with any opposes that say he doesn't have a use for the tools. As long as his use of the tools benefits the encyclopedia, how often he uses them does not matter. Will (aka Wimt) 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Though lacking in edit rate, they are a quality editor. •Malinaccier• T/C 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support A good editor over a long period, and can be trusted to be a good admin. How often he edits is up to him.--Slp1 22:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Quality over quantity. Recurring dreams 22:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  38. Has been here since April 2003. That's definately long enough for me.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Good job telling the truth in your self-nomination statement, instead of playing Wikipolitics and pretending that you're perfectly fine with the results of your previous RfAs. -Amarkov moo! 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. A long time user that wouldn't abuse the tools. Adminship is not a big deal, and being active or not shouldn't be a factor. NauticaShades 02:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per Nautica. I'm sure he will make positive contributions when he can. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support E.M. having the tools would probably do a small amount in a positive way. And who knows, maybe it'll turn out to be a large amount. CitiCat ♫ 04:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Edit count doesn't account for the time spent reading the encyclopedia, and a long term trusted user who feels they could use the tools should have them. Looking back at how it used to be done and how different the process has become now is illuminating. henrik•talk 08:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    "Can I be an admin please?" "Done." Illuminating indeed. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    I like "Hey, so why is nobody nominating me? I kick ass! Come on. eh? eh?" I may try that sometime! --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Trusted user for a number of years. Editcountitis is no reason to oppose. Oldelpaso 09:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support as per Riana and concerns raised last time are cleared now.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support - there's no reason not to promote - low chance of tools being abused, high levels of knowledge. Edit count is a complete disinterest to me, it's simple and really easy to make several hundred edits in a day using all manner of tools, not doing so is no reason to Oppose, just as doing so is no reason to Support. Clicking buttons on programs doesn't generate the sort of knowledge that can be picked from from quiet, unassuming, genuine editing for many months or years. Nick 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support a candidate with the chutzpah to actually point out the obvious to RfA: Editcountitis is bad, many admin questions are traps, and it's okay to call a vote a vote. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support: My opinion hasn't changed since I supported him in March. --After Midnight 0001 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  49. Very Strong Support If he isn't going to use them that much (per the oppose arguments) then there is precious little chance he is going to abuse them either. I also like the attitude, and believe that a sense of humour is essential in dealing with the wiki-stress that adminship can bring. LessHeard vanU 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)(uprate support LessHeard vanU 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
  50. Support. I still trust this user not to screw up with the tools. Also, anybody who has been around longer than I have and not burned out is clearly in it for the long haul. —CComMack (t–c) 08:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Earle is a wise individual who I have seen contribute to numerous Wiki projects with nothing but positive results. --Alaric 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  52. Why the hell not? Seems as pertinent as the last time. Ral315 » 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  53. Subscribe Does well else-wiki, will do well here. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. I had no idea that he had been around for so long and that he had so much experience. This is obviously a trustworthy and mature candidate who won't abuse the tools, so there's no reason not to support, except for editcountitis. My initial neutral vote was partially based on a misunderstanding (regarding the answer to Q1). Melsaran (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support. Good user, good contributions and also good demonstration of spirit and strength by not getting discouraged and keeping trying despite two unsuccessful nominations. Kudret abiTalk 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support, no issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  57. Strong support -- smart, experienced, committed, and won't abuse the tools. And good for him for continuing to stand up regarding the current crazy RfA process. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support, probably not a poopyface. Neil ム 08:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support, seems nothing wrong with edits. Little on the light side for number of edits but this person seems suitable enough to have an adminship. Aflumpire 08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose You have only had about 500 edits since your last Rfa. This doesn't exactly help the position of improving since a previous Rfa. Also, per lack of all-around editing. Jmlk17 02:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Seeing as the most cited oppose reason was with regard to what ostensibly are the optional standard questions, I daresay there has been a major improvement. — [ aldebaer⁠] 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree. Jmlk17 09:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. — [ aldebaer⁠] 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    I still stand by my oppose. Jmlk17 08:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Are you really active enough to become an admin? The above comment and sifting through your contribs and your edit count makes me wonder if you actually do need the tools? You've been active for a vast amount of time, and over 2,083 edits should really have been achieved by now. Lradrama 08:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    1)Ok, so he's making only 1 or 2 edits a day on an average. Can you explain how that is harming Wikipedia? Considering the fact that this is a voluntary project and we are not supposed to prove our devotion to the Gods of Wikipedia? 2)What does it matter if he does not "need the tools"? There has been enough discussion on this topic already and it suffices for me to say that adminship does not give one the Big red button and "tools" can be given to anyone who is unlikely to misuse or abuse them. (Maybe thinking of them as sysop "rights" instead of admin "tools" will help you understand that better. 3)over 2,083 edits should really have been achieved by now: I was not aware that we were into some kind of competition here, that we have to "achieve" a target to be eligible for admin tools. Bottomline: Adminship is about trust. Not about edit count targets or a need for tools or "dedication to the project". - TwoOars (Rev) 09:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    I just think that the more experience a user has gathered, the more help he will be to the community, especially the less experienced members. Many a newbie will come asking an admin for help, no-matter what their specialised areas are, and I don't feel this user has spent the amount of time on here to fulfill that purpose as well as it could be fulfilled. In no way did I suggest that this is a competition and in no way at all did I suggest his edits are harming Wikipedia. I fully understand that people often have lots to do in real life (like me - college, family, friends, hobbies all come before this), but what's the point in a hardly active admin? Lradrama 10:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    The user has five years of experience. Your definition of "activity" is "producing tons of edits", but that's not a necessary part of being an admin. We also need admins to deal with complicated situations and make tough calls, which is something you can't do at 10 edits per minute. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    I am really getting disturbed by the fact that you make it seem as though edit counts are a challenge and a competition. I am NOT saying this! The point I am trying to make is that there aren't a lot of Wikipedia-space counts, which indicates he hasn't participated as often as others, and therefore hasn't got a nice-looking amount of experience. If the tasks are time-consuming, I understand, but this to me, is not an adminship-worthy outlook. I've been commenting AfDs for a few months now, and I've never seen one like this pass. And don't get the wrong end of this stick there either - I'm in no way saying I don't want it to pass - I'm just saying this is far from the best I've encountered, given the amount of time he's been active. Need I make myself clearer? Anyway, this RfA looks set to pass by a good margin, so this discussion getting more heated will just be unnecessary. (P.S. slight hyperbole - not quite five years experience. ;-) Don't argue over that too though please...) Lradrama 10:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please understand that RfA has changed a lot in the past few years, something that you may not have seen if you've only been commenting on them for a few months. Earle would have easily passed with a similar record a couple of years ago, or perhaps even more recently than that. He has participated slowly but steadily for a long time; longevity counts for something too. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It's really just not alot of edits. There are alot of intricacies of the encyclopedia that can only be acquired through experience, and lots of it. AdamBiswanger1 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Is five years of being with this project not enough experience? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I haven't averaged more than (a roundball estimate) 60 or so edits per month in 2007, and yet, I read every closed arbitration discussion, every RfA, and most AfDs, in addition to any discussions that pop up (such as the current "relevance of content" talk)- and I rarely, if ever, edit any of these pages. Does that mean I'm inexperienced? No- that just means I don't have as high an edit count as I could if I felt like adding unnecessarily. There is zero doubt in my mind that Earle has the experience to be a spectacular admin. -- Kicking222 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with Kicking222 on this one. I have approaching minimal participation in the project by edits considering the time I use it. I have read what Kicking has read, plus most every RfA and RfA talk page as well as WPT:RFA concurrently for three years. Yet query my edits and you will see no dedication to any single discussion or project page as the spread goes. Five years=not Willy on Wheels. Keegantalk 06:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose. I don't know if wanting to become an admin simply because the edit count required has gone up is a good reason. Not to mention the fact that you admit to having no reason for the tools. --Kbdank71 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Hi there. I'd just like to point out that I admitted no such thing. Thanks, -- Earle Martin[t/c] 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Your response to question one says otherwise: "Regarding admin work, generally speaking, I'm the kind of guy who takes the tools, goes out into the garden and looks for stuff to use them on" I don't buy a tool and then see if I have a need for it. --Kbdank71 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    Um, this is some definition of no reason that I'm not aware of. I take tools into the garden because I know it's overgrown and needs work, not because I know specifically there are rhododendrons in the southeast corner that need trimming, or that an infestation of buddleia has appeared next to the pond. Picking up tools and going into a garden is a precise metaphor: I was doing that all day today in some friends' garden. I have blisters on my hands to prove it. Before I arrived this morning I had no idea what needed to be done, just that my friends needed help. And the result at the end of a hard day's group work is that now their garden looks a lot better. Would you tell my friends that I have "no need for the tools"? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I should have just quoted your entire answer to "What admin work do you intend to take part in?", especially the part about "not much plan in this area". So if you have no plans to do any admin work, why should I support this RFA? --Kbdank71 13:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    It does not matter that the user doesn't need the tools. If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose. Melsaran (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    If you are comfortable in making someone an admin who states he won't be using the tools, that's fine. I'm not. --Kbdank71 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Why are you not comfortable with that? What's wrong with an admin that rarely uses his tools? See my comment above. Melsaran (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    If he had said "I'll rarely use the tools", I might not have opposed at all. But he came across not only as if he wouldn't use them at all, I got the distinct impression he did it with a very large chip on his shoulder. Doesn't give me confidence. --Kbdank71 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Not opposing, due to absent evidence of misconduct over a period of five years, would be a start. — [ aldebaer⁠] 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, that may be a good enough reason for you, but it is not for me. --Kbdank71 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    When I registered an account on WP, I had no idea what "tools" were available nor did I have a specific plan on how to use them. And I didn't have to explain to anyone what I was going to do with them. It was assumed that I would be using them for good. How are admin tools much different then? In addition, here we do not have to assume that the user would be a good boy. We have a proven record from which to get a general idea - whether Earle Martin can be trusted or not. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    My oppose is not about whether or not I trust him with the tools. It's about whether or not he has a use for them, and from his answers, the answer is no. --Kbdank71 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    I thought I made it clear - need /use for tools is a meaningless reason to oppose someone. I don't seem to be able to get through though: maybe you'll find the argument here more convincing. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    You made it clear that it is meaningless to you. It is, however, pretty meaningful to me. --Kbdank71 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    Why? Are there a limited number of mops to go around? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose In his opening comments, the candidate shows a very poor attitude that is undesirable in a position that requires one to be an exemplar in the community. Being bitter and negative about the RFA process, rather than taking criticism constructively and having the humility to admit that failed attempts may have actually been due to the candidates attributes (rather than the failings of the process) is not desirable. Your edit history is completely irrelevant if you can't demonstrate a positive, constructive attitude to adminship. VanTucky Talk 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Lord, please help me to stay civil. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak Oppose. Candidate seems to be a nice chap. However, I don't see much encyclopedia-building experience other than stub creation. With some additional editing experience the candidate should be ready for adminship. Majoreditor 02:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose VanTucky articulates my feelings very well. Even if an editor's previous RfA's were great injustices (and I don't know, as I don't recall commenting in either of them), one would hope the editor could accept the results with grace. The obvious irritation and touch of disdain for the community he displays are not good traits in an admin, and suggest that having the mop (which brings with its every use the real possibility of complaint) would only make the editor unhappy anyway. Xoloz 04:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. The sentiments expressed by VanTucky and Xolox sum up my feelings too. I don't think this individual has the temperament to be a good admin. Zaxem 01:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    Three times a charm! 1, 2, 3 :) — [ aldebaer⁠] 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    AldeBaer, I've struck through your statement. Believe me, I want Earle to become an admin more than anyone, but badgering others is unconstructive. Zaxem is allowed to express their opinion just like anyone else, and their opinion is certainly valid. It's one thing to challenge opposers who call a candidate a poopyface; it's quite another to challenge someone for questioning a candidate's temperament, which (as is shown in the nom and other opposes) can be not up to the level wanted by some editors. -- Kicking222 13:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    Just out of interest, has any opposer ever called a candidate a "poopyface"? :-) WaltonOne 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    I make no apologies for opposing all three of Earle's RfAs. I was disturbed by the attitude he displayed last time around, and I can see nothing in this RfA to suggest that much has changed. Zaxem 09:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral - In looking over the questions, I'm not seeing why the user wants the tools. It seems like they just want them to have them. Plus I'm not thrilled with the "short" way in which he's seemed to respond to commenters here. - jc37 08:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I didn't like the bitter and resentful attitude last time round, and I still don't like it this time. I would like to point out that another candidate who chose not to answer the optional questions but did so with good grace and without showing the same hostility passed with ease (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss). The attitude last time (see [1], [2], [3], [4]) and the complaint against on Nichalp for doing his job left a sour taste in my mouth. Had Earle Martin accepted that he had not conducted himself appropriately last time, I might have been willing to support. But, in my opinion the nomination speaks for itself - its tone is largely contemptuous. Its not an attitude I'm comfortable seeing in someone who proposes to exercise additional responsibilities. WjBscribe 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - I'm afraid I have to agree with WJBscribe. Adminship, or even just being considered as a candidate, is something to embrace with open arms and to forget any negativity encountered along the path to becoming one. It's understandable if previous RfA's have left you a tad annoyed but you should build on the criticism (If there was any. Apologies I haven't read through your previous RfA's) and learn to accept and develop from it. Not against it. But those are just my interpretation's of the said "bitterness" situation. ScarianTalk 14:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per WJBscribe, largely. I've not seen a whole lot of change from last time around & right now, there's a certain 'shortness' in your replies here. That's not really something that's desirable in an administrator and I'm concerned how that would translate in this candidate's dealings with other editors - Alison ❤ 05:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. As per WJBscribe; the overt air of being aggrieved doesn't seem to bode well for later. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per WJB and Alison. Sarah 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per WJBscribe. --John 17:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per WJBscribe and others above, and per my own reasons. I actually have very simple criteria for RfAs - proof of solid editing of the encyclopaedia (an FA is preferred but I have voted for editors who upgrade many articles as they perform an equally valid function), proof of ability to get on with others / show good faith / handle disputes civilly and calmly, and in the evidence presented I have seen evidence of the contrary. Adminship gives one the ability to block editors and delete (or undelete) things, and we need to know the applicant will be able to do that responsibly. While I think edit count is an absurd way to measure an editor's worth, one does need an observable and preferably recent history to be able to be judged on whether one would make an acceptable admin who will execute their duties in line with Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, in the nomination, there does not appear to be any reasons cited for running for adminship. Adminship is a service to the community, not a reward or an entitlement, and I would encourage the applicant to consider elaborating on which areas of community need he intends to assist with. Orderinchaos 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. While this user has been around long enough to gain my trust, he doesn't have enough experience to meet my criteria. Decent number of mainspace edits (which is what we're here to do), but I don't think I can give the blocking power to someone with 2 or fewer edits to WP:AIV. I reserve judgement until I have time to look more carefully at his contribs. Useight 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm confused; WP:AIV says "This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only." I don't think I've encountered either of those. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to be an admin until someone destructive has happened to cross my path? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 11:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
      • He probably means that it would be a good idea if you would gain some more experience in "vandal fighting"; that is, patrolling the recent changes for vandalism, warning vandals appropriately and reporting them to AIV once they have received a proper set of warnings and continue. Obviously, it's only a good thing if the articles you work on don't get vandalised a lot, that's not what he meant, but it is important for an administrator to have some experience in admin-related areas (mostly the project namespace). Melsaran (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral. He looks like a good editor, but the answer to Q1 (removing original research and unverified claims) doesn't have anything to do with adminship. Add to that only one contribution to XfD in the past 5 months, and I'm not so sure. You may need some more experience; keep up the good work, though! Melsaran (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (change to support)
    Regarding Q1, you're right, and I've tried to clarify my answer a little. I hope that helps. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 09:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I believe perhaps this RfA was a tad too soon, considering the edits in between. Nonetheless a great contributor, and I wouldn't hesitate to support once user has gained more experience in areas such as AIV and other admin roles. Phgao 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I'm torn on this one. Five years since account creation, closer to two years of actual editing, and most of those months were just a few edits. Focus is not very broad, experience seems limited. The garden analogy above had me leaning toward support, but VanTucky's comments brought me back here. I can't support with the current experience and level of participation, but I can't oppose for someone that I don't think would abuse the tools. LaraLove 04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - would have been a support but for nagging suspicions raised by this — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you'd consider doing us all, and me personally, the favor of explaining precisely what those suspicions are, rather than alluding to them in this fashion? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 13:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think there's any "alluding" here - three months ago you posted "Now there's an idea. Register an account, rack up a pile of edits with AWB and participate in a bunch of deletion discussions, and then sell the account to the highest bidder". The fact that it was three months ago is the reason I'm not opposing on the basis of it; the fact you said it at all is the reason I'm not supporting. Although (I hope!) it was meant as a joke, it provides every person you'll ever get into a conflict with as an admin — and every admin gets into conflicts — with a ready-made pretext for assuming bad faith — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry to see that we've entered an age where cynicism on a mailing list will be held against you. Thank heaven this project didn't start during the Usenet days, eh? Nobody would ever have got anywhere. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Whereby a general adoption of the voting standards espoused hereinabove could, in the fullness of time, have severe humour-impairing implications with which the interlocutor may not, upon due consideration, find even herself or himself to be in complete agreement. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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.