Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ec5618

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tisthammerw's moved discussion

1. Oppose, at least for now. The editor reinserted uncited challenged material, despite the fact that the request for a citation regarding the challenged material was made over a month ago (after which the challenged material was removed for lack of a citation and a small revert war ensued) and that the issue has been through an RfC. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   And I'm sure that once he comes around to your point-of-view, your vote will change, yes? That would, I should think, be the thinly veiled meaning of "at least for now", no? Jim62sch 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Additionally, Wade has decided to put pressure on EC, but in my opinion, I think EC will handle this properly. PRESSURE Jim62sch 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I have put pressure on EC to provide a verifiable citation, but under the circumstances I hardly think that’s inappropriate. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Ignoring that there has been a cite for a month two weeks, you're just tendentiously arguing as usual. Wade, get a new hobby, please? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   There has not been a cite for a month. I requested a cite in December 19, but a citation was not provided until just a few days ago. [1]. (The citation given is of questionable relevance, but this is not the place to discuss it.) My point stands: proper procedure would be to get a citation before reinserting the challenged material. EC ignored Wikipedia policy and reinserted the challenged material without a cite anyway. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Cite given, with page number, by me, datestamp 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC). KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Further investigation reveals that a citation for the Wikipedia entry was not given until January 31, 2005. [2] --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   Your socalled investigation is flawed[3][4]. Again, please take this to Talk:Irreducible complexity. -- Ec5618 16:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   It is not flawed. Those links you provided were at the talk sections, not the actual article. KC apparently was in hiatus regarding whether it should count as a valid citation, because he didn't add the citation until twelve days after he introduced it in the talk page. (The current citation, upon examination, does not seem to contain the content the article claims, but that is another matter.) It is as I said, a citation for the claim on the actual article did not exist when you reverted it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   Please take this discussion to the Talk page. Honestly, it's what they're for. -- Ec5618 19:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   FeloniousMonk has moved the section to one of the talk pages. I should point out that if people (including you) wanted to talk about my vote for opposition in the talk pages, they could have made their responses there. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

   No, I really don't care all that EC believes or what his point of view is--as long as it does not affect his decision to abide by Wikipedia policy. It was still reckless to put back the unsourced challenged material when the request for a citation was made over a month ago (with a subsequent small revert war and an RfC), considering the removal of the challenged material was perfectly in line with WP:CITE, which says, "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." Appropriate behavior for an admin would have been to wait for a citation before the material was reincluded. Or if the admin wanted to have the challenged material included, provide a verifiable citation before doing so. Such ignoring of Wikipedia policy here does not look promising. Proper conduct for an admin would have been to enforce WP:CITE, but instead EC ignored the policy and reinserted the challenged material. That this editor has also been blocked for a 3RR violation makes matters worse. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Policy isn't as clear on this as you suggest. Other editors insist that a cite has been provided. Can we please contain this discussion to Talk:Irreducible complexity though? -- Ec5618 12:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   But the cite was not provided until after you re-inserted the challenged material. This violation of WP:CITE is what prompted me to write “oppose” in the first place. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that, "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor" and no citation was provided when you put back the challenged material. Currently there is a cite, yes (albeit a very questionable one, since it does not seem to contain the content the article claims) but my point is you should have waited to get a cite before you put back the challenged material. I am willing to (and am currently) talk about the matter at Talk:Irreducible complexity, but your ignoring of WP:CITE when re-inserting the uncited challenged material seems relevant to bring up here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   Other editors insist that a cite had been provided. And can we please contain this discussion to Talk:Irreducible complexity? -- Ec5618 12:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   Claiming other editors insisted a cite was provided doesn't change the fact that you re-inserted the challenged material without providing a cite in the Wikipedia article. If you don't believe me, please see the version you reverted to. That version does not contain a citation for the disputed claim. That's why I've criticized you for ignoring WP:CITE and re-inserting the challenged material without providing a citation. If you wanted the challenged material to be there, you should have provided a citation. For whatever reason, you failed to do so, and thus ignored WP:CITE. (Note: the reason I am not moving this discussion to Talk:Irreducible complexity is because this has to do with whether you should be an admin, and you're recent ignoring of WP:CITE leads me to believe that you are not quite ready for that responsibility; I know intelligent design is an emotional topic but you should still be able to abide by Wikipedia policy.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   Can we please contain this discussion to Talk:Irreducible complexity? -- Ec5618 19:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   The reason I did not put it in the talk page was because this was very relevant as to whether you should be an admin. You ignored WP:CITE for your own ends Ec. You put back challenged material without providing a citation. As I said, proper conduct for an admin would be to enforce WP:CITE and not put back the material without also providing the requested citation. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)