Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ed Poor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was never really put forward, as the user had gone inactive. Please do not modify it.
[edit] Ed Poor
Final (7/3/0) ended 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor (talk · contribs) – Exceptional contributor and a good admin. He was stripped of his sysop abilities due to a poorly handled dispute that didn't even go to RFC but was incorrectly placed at RFA as the first step by the troll who initiated the dispute. Ed Poor should be reinstated ASAP as this poorly handled situation has temporarily driven him from the project. Gateman1997 04:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
- Gateman1997 (nominator's vote added by AnnH (talk) to prevent incorrect tally. 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC))
- Benjamin Gatti 05:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I'll support Uncle Ed. Even where we disagree, Ed makes WP a more pleasant place. He is attentive as a moderator, original, and engaging, and apparently human.
- Support. I totally agree with Benjamin Gatti here. -- Eddie 12:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support Even though he may be gone for good.--MONGO 14:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support -when he accepts the nomination. Come back Ed! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- 'Support --that is if he comes back. Arkon 05:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- 'Support If he returns. Banes 11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- support 100%. Better than most admins, even on an off-day. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Ed lost his admin powers only a week ago, based on [1]. I think this is very too short to start trying to get adminship back. Zach (Smack Back) 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Nope. Too soon since desysopping. Xoloz 17:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose regardless of one's view on his being desysopped, that was the consensus, and whilst (of course) he should be able to rerequest adminship, this is far to short a timescale and would render the desysop punishment pointless. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reason as he was desysopped. --22:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- comment This is beyond ridiculous, and as such will probably succeed splendidly--63.22.87.131 15:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- This still hasn't been listed on the RFA page, as of now voting is limited exclusivly to people who happen to have Ed's page bookmarked--63.22.86.21 21:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know much about the situation with Ed Poor but why has voting started before a link to this page was placed on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? Just curious.--Alabamaboy 20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Probably because this has been highlighted on a lot of editor's talk pages. However, we shouldn't be voting before Ed accepts this, if he does Dan100 (Talk) 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's cool (and that's how I found the page). Probably should put the link on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship just to be safe. Best,--Alabamaboy 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to link from that page to this RfA. To not have this listed on the main RfA page might make people think this is being done in secret (especially since there is such an emphatic statement above about how long the RfA will run for).--Alabamaboy 14:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Didn't know the RfA rules on this had been recently changed.--Alabamaboy 14:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to link from that page to this RfA. To not have this listed on the main RfA page might make people think this is being done in secret (especially since there is such an emphatic statement above about how long the RfA will run for).--Alabamaboy 14:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's cool (and that's how I found the page). Probably should put the link on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship just to be safe. Best,--Alabamaboy 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Probably because this has been highlighted on a lot of editor's talk pages. However, we shouldn't be voting before Ed accepts this, if he does Dan100 (Talk) 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- If he doesn't accpet in a week, could it be speedy deleted? --Jaranda wat's sup 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Might I suggest that since he was involuntarily promoted to User, it is not unreasonable to proceed on the assumption that he accepts the proposed title? I suggest that the community can gift an Adminship without consent as a token of emphatic support; radicals notwithstanding. Benjamin Gatti 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why delete when you can archive? --Improv 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- As a matter of principle, I don't believe it's a good idea to nominate inactive users for adminship. If he comes back first, that is another matter entirely. Morwen - Talk 18:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. We shouldn't be voting on this at all, in my opinion. (Despite that, I've added the nominator's vote, for the sake of an accurate tally.) I'm not going to vote unless and until he comes back and accepts this. For the record, though, I'll say that I think he brought a lot of good to Wikipedia, and did some ill-advised, impulsive things. I was very sorry when he was desysopped. AnnH (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Big Comment He was involuntarily desysopped by people with more authority than anyone on this page, how can a normal RfA process possibly continue under these circumstances? Wouldn't he have to appeal to a so called higher power if he wants any of his former powers back, whether it's adminship, or developer's rights, wouldn't he have to appeal to the people who origionally punished him for abusing all of these positions? after all, they could de-whateverhim just as easily as they did in the first place--63.22.86.21 21:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually no. All he need do is either reapply or be reapplied per the RFA that desysoped him.Gateman1997 06:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Big Comment He was involuntarily desysopped by people with more authority than anyone on this page, how can a normal RfA process possibly continue under these circumstances? Wouldn't he have to appeal to a so called higher power if he wants any of his former powers back, whether it's adminship, or developer's rights, wouldn't he have to appeal to the people who origionally punished him for abusing all of these positions? after all, they could de-whateverhim just as easily as they did in the first place--63.22.86.21 21:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. We shouldn't be voting on this at all, in my opinion. (Despite that, I've added the nominator's vote, for the sake of an accurate tally.) I'm not going to vote unless and until he comes back and accepts this. For the record, though, I'll say that I think he brought a lot of good to Wikipedia, and did some ill-advised, impulsive things. I was very sorry when he was desysopped. AnnH (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This page should be deleted, ideally with a {{speedy}}, SqueakBox 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
