Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mel Etitis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mel Etitis

final (66/1/0) ending 09:05 6 April 2005 (UTC)

A true Wikiholic from the outset, Mel Etitis has accumulated more than 5900 edits since he signed up, exactly three months ago. He has shown strong community involvement, good judgement and maturity. This is the sort of editor we should hope will stay addicted permanently. He has turned down several suggestions (including, but not exclusively, by myself) for nomination before, saying he wanted to get the hang of the community more [1], but he seems to be prepared to accept the mop now [2], and I am honoured to nominate him. dab (ᛏ) 09:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Thank you — I accept the nomination with some trepidation; adminship would mean having to be even more careful than I try to be now (no marking something for 'speedy delete' with the safety net of an admin to decide whether I'd misinterpreted the rules, etc.), and I still feel that there's far more that I don't know than that I do. Still, If people think that I'm suitable, I shall ease myself in slowly and cautiously. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. I've seen this user on several occasions and I think they'd make a fine admin. Support. Mgm|(talk) 09:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support one of the finest users on here. Smoddy (tgeck) 10:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Oh, and Mel, I believe it's vandalism, not dandalism below... ;)
  4. Support. Dilligent in administrative efforts. JFW | T@lk 11:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Dbiv 11:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support as useful contributor. Radiant_* 12:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. I trust him. --BM 12:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Outstanding editor. El_C 13:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. A courteous, calm, helpful, friendly editor who has demonstrated real commitment. For examples, see Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 1. --Theo (Talk) 13:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, no big deal, seems fine to me, --SqueakBox 13:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, a great contributor. Rje 13:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Kbdank71 14:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Having witnessed the expert, calm and courteous way Mel has dealt with some of the most implacable, determined POV-pushing trolls that Wikipedia has to offer, my support is without reservation. --Mrfixter 14:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support. Good editor, good diplomat. Guettarda 14:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. jni 15:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Give the man a mop. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. --Duk 17:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, give him the mop and bucket. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, strong support. Thanks for you work on vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support. Well-thought-out attitudes_to_Wikipedia. Even goes the extra mile to welcome new users to the community. Rad Racer 22:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. strong support, from what i've seen a great user! Gkhan 22:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Great user! --Neigel von Teighen 23:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Excellent editor. Carbonite | Talk 23:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. I keep seeing things he has done, and he does them the right way. --Henrygb 23:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Strong support --Lst27 (talk) 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Ohyes - a goody. Grutness|hello? 05:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. Strong support! He's not only a first-class trollslayer, he's terrific with new users. - Lucky 6.9 06:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. SWAdair | Talk 11:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support -- Darwinek 12:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support -- Hoary 12:30, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  31. Support - BanyanTree 12:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support after reading his attitudes_to_Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 800 15:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support -- Mel is exactly the sort of editor who will make an excellent admin. In fact he has been behaving like an excellent "admin" more or less since he started editing (as all editors should). All we are doing with this vote is confirming something that is already true, so that he can get the tools to do an even better job. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support - SimonP 21:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Strong support. Mel is one of our best editors: knowledgable, trustworthy, fair, and civil, and he's familar with and respects policy. He'll make an excellent admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support -- Mel seems to be a great editor, and I expect that we'll see an excellent administrator. Joyous 02:40, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support: everything I have seen is good. Antandrus 03:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support Encountered this user in a number of places, found no reason to doubt the above plaudits. Alai 04:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. Active and able. -Willmcw 09:40, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. Has already done some good work. Paradiso 10:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  42. Strong Support Repeatedly fights vandalism without "sysop powers", imagine what good he can do wih them. -JCarriker 11:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  43. ...Support: splendid contributor. Filiocht | Serious fun 11:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  44. RickK 21:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. Excellent candidate. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. Excellent editor; cool-headed. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 22:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. His user and talk pages show us he works well with others, as do his comments as I frequently encounter them on discussion pages. Jonathunder 23:39, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  48. Oops, I had put my vote in oppose section by mistake, following User:Juntung. Of course, strong support. utcursch | talk 11:48, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Cool. --JuntungWu 06:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) Indeed, I made the mistake of voting wrongly (insert your Florida jokes here). Definitely support. --JuntungWu 13:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  50. Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 19:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  51. I've worked with Mel on a few things and just assumed he was an admin already. Sorry Mel, my bad! Support. Fire Star 04:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  52. I am a new wiki, but "since addicted" ... Support, I found him encouraging.--Bhadani 08:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Noisy | Talk 12:11, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. I'm a bit late to the party, but user has a good grasp of policy, and manner in edits and Talk: indicate he will exercise admin power well. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support. I've always found Mel to be highly knowledgeable, fair, and patient with difficult editors.--FeloniousMonk 02:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support Positive, upbeat, and I'm confident he'll be a circumspect adminTjc 02:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC).
  57. Strongly support. A keen and thoughtful user who exemplifies the ideal of editorial grace. -- Hadal 05:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support Excellent. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  59. Oppose, the weird letters in his sig make my browser lock up, and smoke comes out of the back of my computer and it smells like burnt pie. Just kidding, Strong Support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  60. For sure. violet/riga (t) 20:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support Great user. Anilocra 21:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  62. Support Always willing to compromise. Ethereal 03:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support, I've been watching him keep his cool in an argument with a very agressive user. Just the sort of ability an admin needs. Bryan 05:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support — Instantnood 06:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  65. Support A very valuable asset to wikipedia, and, just by looking at the nomination, I can tell that Mel's very responsible and won't abuse eir powers. No reason to oppose, and a multitude of reasons to support. You leave me no choice ;) -Frazzydee|✍ 19:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  66. Support Funky fresh and on the level. SchmuckyTheCat 21:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose, user is so fallacious and difficult as to have repeatedly given me reason to question if he was trolling. For examples, see Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 1. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am sorry you should think so, Sam, but from what I can see, the page to link to is actually an excellent example for ME keeping cool when the dispute gets hot (including accusations of indulging in attacks ad hominem, of which I have found no example) dab (ᛏ) 10:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Suggest calling Mel Etitis only "Mel" for short. I initially read that as "...an excellent example for me keeping cool..." :-) JRM 19:00, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
    • That's a hoot, considering your misuse of the wikipedia email system to send me this. Does your email qualify as not trolling?--FeloniousMonk 02:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That sort of comments is totally unacceptable. JuntungWu 13:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you know that its illegal to publish email without the authors consent? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • That sounds like an implied legal threat. Would you care to discuss how the content your email stacks up against policy? Reading your past comments I link to on my Talk page you were quite proud of sending this email, so I didn't think you'd mind my sharing it whenever the hypocrisy gets a little too thick. As I've told you before I look forward to dropping this matter, just as soon as you leave me an earnest apology on my Talk page.--FeloniousMonk 17:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Now honestly. Maybe if you didn't FOLLOW HIM AROUND and harass him with this e-mail that you call "trolling" and his "hypocrisy" or whatever, it would all blow over. Whenever Gzornenplatz opposed RFAs, I didn't go around following his comments with a "you're the one that revert warred with VeryVerily over George W. Bush" or whatever. ugen64 01:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not in the troll-enabling business, nor is there anything unique to wikipedia that says I must be. Hypocrisy demands a response, just as action demands responsibility. If Sam didn't play games like looking for loopholes that allow him to send emails like that, [3] or file frivolous copyright violations, [4] or vandalize my talk page [5], we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? There's no confusion over exactly who is the victim and who is the perpetrator here.--FeloniousMonk 01:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He sent the e-mail. That was wrong. He shouldn't have done so. You don't have to go around sticking "he sent me a bad e-mail, poo on him" on his RFA votes. And if you didn't go around sticking this in every vote he makes on RFA, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? ugen64 01:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand your point here, but I firmly believe that ethically, hypocrisy always demands a response: [6] I also believe that to turn a blind eye to misdeeds or hypocrisy wherever it is found only serves to enable those that are morally bereft. Challenging them at every instance of their hypocrisy may seem unduly confrontational, but when an individual deletes any and all gentle criticism or correction from his talk page such as Sam has, the public forum is the only avenue left and hence a valid measure to correct misbehavior. Certainly I'd prefer to spend my time working politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people, but when Sam sends emails like this or vandalizes my talk page as he did today, most moral editors will feel compelled to respond to the hypocrisy of his claims of others being dishonest, difficult, and trolls.--FeloniousMonk 04:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Oppose Changed my mind. A most contemptible character. El_C 03:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) – BWAHAHAH! He fell for it! Happy 1 April, Mel! :) El_C

Neutral

Comments

  • 3111 edits to the main namespace. —Korath (Talk) 10:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • 3 = 1 + 1 + 1 I have no idea what it means, if it does mean anything, but Yay! El_C 15:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 111 is bad luck in cricket. Not planning to delete all the cricket articles are you Mel Etitis?

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I have an almost pathological dislike for vandalism, so that would be high on my list of priorities. I'm also worried about the copyright problems backlog, and I'd like to help to get that whittled down.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Of the pages that I've created, it's probably a non-article: Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language. I didn't write most of the text (that was Jmabel), and it hasn't yet made an impact on users, but I still think that it fills an important gap, and that it could help to resolve problems before they've reached unmanageable proportions.
Of pages to which I've contributed, I suppose that I'm most proud of one in progress, African philosophy; it existed, but I replaced the existing small place-holder article, and I think that it has the potential to be a rich resource (especially if other people get involved).
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I don't think that one can make as many edits as I have and not run into conflicts (especially given my activity in the field of vandalism). My first response to good-faith edits with which I disagree (and I try to assume good faith, even when the indications are otherwise) is to offer arguments and evidence for my position. I probably continue with that longer than is useful, to be honest; when someone is clearly determined not to pay attention to arguments, there's not much point giving them, but I'm a teacher, and I try to stay optimistic. Assuming that I get nowhere, or that I don't change my mind myself, my second response is to call in others to look at the discussion (and I sometimes do that right at the beginning too). Like most editors, I sometimes get irritable when reason fails; that's another thing on which adminship would reign me in. If things are going nowhere, I'll generally go off and do other things for a while, keeping an eye on the debate but not getting involved. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)