Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura

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.

[edit] EddieSegoura

Final (0/12/1) ended 02:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

EddieSegoura (talk · contribs) – My names is EddieSegoura. I has been surfing this site for months now and has edited quite a few pages. Unfortunately, the edits were under those numeric IP addresses. I am seeking promotion because I think I can help people out. I do have a career of being a chat host on AOL back in 1998 and it was a successful experiance. Hoever, I have to quit in 1999 because the forum moved to the web. I am aware the moderators are privvy to things normal users can't to and I know it's a big challenge and responsibility. I am willing to accept this job. EddieSegoura 08:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose as you have only been here for three days. You need some more time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    Response: Although I only used an account for 3 days, I've been visiting and tweaking pages for months. While I'm not going to go into details, I've been surfing this site for a much longer time then You think.
  2. Oppose I rarely oppose, but you need more time to learn.Gator (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    Response: Read Above
  3. Oppose. Hi. I'm going to have to oppose for now, for three reasons: 1) there is no way to confirm your experience based on the edit history of your account; 2) you have made a few errors in this RfA that lead me to question your knowledge of Wikipedia editing - in particular, you have typed your responses to the above two "oppose" comments with flush lines instead of indenting them, which breaks the numbering of the list (I have fixed this), and you placed your nomination in the middle of the RfA page, instead of at the top where new nominations are directed to go (I have fixed this also); 3) per your answers to the questions below, you state that you intend to help out by "Correcting mistakes, adding new facts as they become available", but this requires no admin powers (there are plenty of users who have racked up thousands of edits worth of quality contributions of that nature without having any interest in becoming admins). Also, I'd like you to clarify your answer to question 3 below, for reasons I will explain there. BD2412 T 21:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Very strongly oppose. This editor created, I presumed accidentally, Eddie Segoura. I speedy userfied it per CSD A7 (I could have just gotten rid of it). He left me an extremely patronising {test1}, telling me I was "experimenting with the delete function". He then recreated the article, after removing it from his user page. Needless to say, I deleted it again (only once: the deletion log is the victim of my impatience with the deadness of Wiki). He is unfamiliar with the standards of the encyclopedia, patronising, recreates speedy material, Q1 says he doesn't understand what adminship is about and Q3 openly admits to intent to take actions tantamount to vandalism, and which would certainly earn him a block if repetitiously carried out. He didn't answer the questions in the first draft of this RfA, didn't add it to the page until prompted, and then added it to the wrong part of the page. I would normally suggest that a new user try again in a few months, but I wouldn't wish to mislead, so I won't. (Oh, and he appears not to know how to use the indentation features properly — somebody has had to fix it for him. And don't lecture me on biting, since I'm not, and he says he's far from new.) -Splashtalk 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Note he has also created, and had deleted, Wikipedia:Eddie Segoura. He claims this was an accident. Even with AGF, he should have known by now not to recreate the article. -Splashtalk 23:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    I thought about deleting these votes, because these users are not aware of the fact that I did edit pages using different IP addresses. I will be more than happy to Email the contributions prior to creating this username. I have decided to leave these vote alone and will respond to any further comments from these users. —EddieSegoura 6:32 PM; November 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Thinking about deleting votes is probably a nail in the metaphorical coffin. I don't really mind what the contributions as IPs were. My experience of you is so overwhelmingly negative that they aren't going to change my mind, unless they are something truly astonishing. -Splashtalk 23:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, for all the reasons stated by others, and the answers to your questions below. —Cleared as filed. 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, too inexperienced. Korg (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Read above.
  7. Oppose, you may be willing to accept the job, but we aren't willing to accept you. Too inexperienced. Nothing more to say. Fahrenheit Royale 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - more proof of inexperience is he fact that an RfA lasts SEVEN, not TEN days. And deleting these votes is vandalism. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose as above. Lord Bob 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Admins should have some basic knowledge of Wikipedia editing, including the fact that we don't use <a href> or <img> tags. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Sorry. This candidate has not provided sufficient reason that we should support him. DS 02:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - let's see. First, we have a case of insufficient time. He's been here less than a week; certainly not long enough to learn any policies, and from what I gather, he's made no attempt to. Second, casually mentioning fiddling his Oppose votes. That's just not helping whatsoever; and demonstrates, as I noted in point one, a lack of understanding of how things work here. Third, his answer to question one makes me believe he doesn't realise that he doesn't need adminship. Fourth, his answer to question three, which I read as, "I've ordered people to vandalise Wikipedia in the past, for my own entertainment" - that doesn't strike me as responsible, nor helpful. All in all, a clear-cut oppose vote - this is not someone I would trust with adminship. Rob Church Talk 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    Response: Because of the all misunderstanding and negative feedback, I have will try this again. If things don't work well on the second attempt, I will try again next month. EddieSegoura 03:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: There's not enough information to go on. Would you please list the IPs you have been editing from? --Durin 23:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Response:Please <a href="mailto:Eddie@EddieSegoura.com">Email Me. I will not post them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieSegoura (talk • contribs)
    Why are you unwilling to make your contributions public? That is generally not a good sign. —Cleared as filed. 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed. People would possibly be willing to vote for you if you were willing to show us your overall contributions, and not just the very limited set made under this username you've only made over the last week. There's just not enough information to work with. I could e-mail you to get the IPs from you, but far more than myself need them; you should post them here so all people can see. If you're not willing to do that, I suggest you withdraw your nomination until you've developed a significant editing history under this username. --Durin 23:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just noticed that you are not listed on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page and you have not answered the questions below. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • EddieSegoura is either a newbie, who should not be (further) bitten, or a troll who should not be encouraged. (I did enjoy his edit summary when he added this RfA [1]). Piling on isn't called for here, that's for sure. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Eddie, I do not want to pile on on the oppose votes, but please consider retracting your RFA. You're clearly not ready for it yet, no matter how many different IP's you have been using in the past. And whatever you do, don't even think about deleting votes, as you indicated above. Whether or not you agree with them, you are never supposed to delete them, even if you think they are based on unjust arguments. --JoanneB 23:46, 22 November 2005 (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. Correcting mistakes, adding new facts as they become available. My favorite pages deal with the NYC Subway. Since I live in NY and ride the Subway, I can contibute a fairly good amount of material on each line.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Sites on TV Shows, BMT Sea Beach Line, NYC Subway.
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. I've had a few people revert or delete new pages I create just for the fun of it. I realize that when I create a new page, I need to save it on My computer so I could restore deleted page if it gets messed up.
Request for clarification - do you mean to say that you have "created pages just for the fun of it", and that those pages were then deleted? or do you mean to say that you created new pages which were then deleted, and which the person doing the deleting was deleting just for the fun of it? BD2412 T 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I've had users delete and vandalism pages "Just for the fun of it". I keep a copy of the original file so I can correct or restore the current version. I've just checked those pages, and they're fine.
You're aware, I hope, that pages can only be deleted by administrators, who make up a very small subset of particularly trusted users. I doubt any page you made was deleted for the fun of the deleter. BD2412 T 00:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
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.