Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EVula (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 16 January 2009 (updating final tally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Ecoleetage

Nomination

FINAL (119/28/3); candidate has retired, RfA closed by EVula at 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) – Nomination by StarM At a time when Misplaced Pages is losing admins, we need to replace them with editors who have an intelligent and passionate commitment to the project. I would like to nominate Eco for this role. This is primarily because Eco is a content builder; what this project needs. He has improved the project and expanded coverage of a wide range of topics. There have been a number of occasions where I've sought his input or asked him to help with an article where I know he has an interest, or the desire to research it further. I know that if I leave an article/stub/red-link in his hands, what will come out in the end is a well-crafted article on the subject at hand if the subject is notable.

In addition to these content building areas, which are the core of an encyclopedia, Eco is also active in reporting users to WP:UAA where his reports are almost without exception blocked due to the username. His work in tagging articles for speedy deletion is also exceptional. He also participates extensively in AfD, both nominating articles that he finds to be beyond saving and participating in discussions on both sides, as well as successfully closing AfDs via non-admin closure. Eco is neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist but seeks to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages which results in saving some articles and removing others which do not meet our guidelines and/or policies for notability.

Eco is not afraid to ask questions when he wants to know the reasons behind a decision or approach other editors when he thinks there may be an issue. In addition, he serves as an aide to other editors: willing to help them with an article or other questions that may come up and in general makes new users feel welcome to Misplaced Pages. He will definitely be an admin that users are not afraid to approach with questions and/or for discussion. StarM 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Ironholds Star Mississippi has already covered most of the facts of Ecoleetage's wiki-career, but as with any 'trial by jury' as it were the temperament and attitude of the candidate should be considered as well. I've worked with Eco on a variety of things since last summer, and in that time he has shown himself to be a courteous and considerate editor. In the two-and-a-lot years I've been here I've never met an editor as polite as he is, regardless of who he is talking to and his previous contact with them. We don't always agree in AfD discussions, but whatever his belief as to the validity of the article he backs it up with firm, reasoned arguments. His work and his response to his previous RfA has shown he has the right temperament to deal with the tools and the user conflicts that accompany them. The only problem I have with this user becoming an admin is that his new duties will diminish the constant stream of articles he comes out with (270-odd at last count, ranging from the National Shrine of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton to Invasion of the Star Creatures (the sacred and the profane, indeed). As long as he keeps getting "lost" at RfAs, however, I guess I can overlook it :P. Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Here we go again – Eco’s in the house! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN I am sure this will give the Opposers the sense of “I told you so,” but I am leaving both this RfA and Misplaced Pages for good. While there have been many fine people here, I cannot tolerate the endless bickering and too-frequent brawling that goes on here. I am sorry, I don’t have the stomach for this environment. Sorry to disappoint (again). Ecoleetage (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The majority of my work outside of writing and editing articles has focused on four key areas: AFD, CSD, DYK and UAA. All of these areas often get backlogged, and as an admin I would use the tools to ensure the flow of activity therein. As an admin, I would also look forward to granting rollback rights to qualified editors and to work with editors who request the return of deleted articles (and I would also provide assistance in rewriting the articles so they don’t get deleted again). My focus is content creation, enhancement and preservation, and the tools would be used to ensure that Misplaced Pages maintains a high editorial standard.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: Since we last connected, I’ve been a busy Eco. To cover all of the bases (and there are a lot – this may take some time):

1) Content creation. The crux of this project is content, and I have worked hard to bring forth a diverse mix of 273 (to date) entries covering a wide variety of subjects (see my User Page for the full list). Some of these entries are lengthy articles, some are stubs, and I have gone out of my way to identify and fill voids within Misplaced Pages's coverage. (As a note, I am not into chasing awards for myself, which is why I have been absent from the GA and FA processes that require time and patience to focus on individual articles – I would rather use a week’s time to create 3-5 new entries rather than polish a single article.)

2) WikiProject coordinator. Since I was last here, I have become a coordinator in WikiProject Films. My main focus there has been to fill in the gaps in coverage relating to race films, a genre of U.S. independent cinema with all-black casts that were produced and distributed solely for exhibition in cinemas serving African American communities in the Jim Crow-era United States. To this end, I have worked to expand the coverage afforded to the African American pioneering filmmaker Spencer Williams by doing massive rewrites of his biography and the article on his major work The Blood of Jesus, as well as creating new entries on his other films (none of which had any coverage on Misplaced Pages). This has not been easy, since there is no biography on Williams and very little in the way of substantial scholarly work on his canon. Nonetheless, I’ve covered all of his films and hope to add more information as it becomes available.

I am currently working to fill in voids on the films created by another African American filmmaking pioneer, Oscar Micheaux – many of his films are lost and I am working to locate as much information as possible on what this long-neglected artist created. This also included a much-need rewrite of Micheaux’s most celebrated work, Body and Soul (1925 film). Outside of the race films, I also created and rewrote the Misplaced Pages articles relating to Orson Welles and the American Film Theatre.

WikiProject Films is one of 13 WikiProjects where I am involved – I am also a contributor to WikiProjects African diaspora, Agriculture, Bodybuilding, Business, Christianity, Energy, Freemasonry, Mozambique, Museums, Opera, Saints and Unitarian Universalism. I have created original content for all of these WikiProjects.

3) Saving at-risk articles. I have repeatedly come to the aid of articles that were either previously deleted or at risk of deletion. In regard to resurrecting the deleted, I’ve taken all of these back from the dead and brought them to DYK status: Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, David Zolotarev, Potting soil, Cupid's Mistake, Dollis Hill Synagogue (twice deleted, no less), Duty to God Award and Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda). For at-risk articles, I’ve gone out of my way to save The Well (church) after a DRV discussion was planning to restore the original problematic article with the idea of bringing it to AfD for deletion. I was also part of the team that saved Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust when the original article was tagged with copyright violations – I literally rewrote every single sentence twice to ensure all problematic text was exorcised and I was the point man with the admin who cleared the text for its successful return to the project.

4) Article expansion. I've done extensive editing on existing stubs. Some of the expanded articles include Dair Mar Elia, Goodbye, 20th Century!, Yared, To Be Alive!, Sandakan No. 8, Mike Tompkins, Too Much Johnson, The Immortal Story, The Trial (1962 film), The Greatest Story Ever Told, Fear and Desire and Gershom Sizomu (all DYK honourees).

5) Welcoming Committee. My work here makes me a first point of contact for new editors, and I want to be a positive and inclusive greeter. However, not everybody is happy to see me at the front door: .

6) New Page Patrol. Probably my favourite part of the project – I love to read the new articles as they come online and I often commend the writers for their input. Where required, I add WikiProject templates and category listings to the articles in order to spread the word on the new entries, and appropriate tags to beef up the skinnier articles.

7) Speedy Delete. Unfortunately, not all of the new articles deserve a pat on the back. The overwhelming majority of my CSD tags have been processed without any problems. Since I was last here, I’ve kept a record of my CSD tags, and I think my ability to spot problematic articles is pretty good: .

8) AfD. I am all over the place there: nominating articles, participating in discussions, and doing non-admin closures. I have no problems withdrawing AfD nominations if it is clear my call was wrong – and I always congratulate those who saved the article. (I also take time to commend those who put up a lively opposing view in an AfD debate.) And saving articles in AfD can be invigorating: Czesława Kwoka, Western Virginia Land Trust, Life Mel Honey, The Lost Patrol, I, Claudius (film), Lost Hills Books, Upstairs at The Gatehouse, The Suburbs (web series), Vienna Fingers, The Endless Forest, Jesus Trail, List of national parks of Dominica and Lambda Archives are among some of the articles that are still online due, in some part, to my AfD-related input.

9) Anti-spamming action. In my Welcoming Committee and New Page Patrol work, I come across plenty of "Huh?"-raising activity. Since I was last here, I have found myself making a large number of reports to WP:UAA – my identification of spammers has been without controversy. And I am still handing out Level 1 and Level 2 warnings to nutty new vandals who need a good tap on their shoulders.

10) DYK verification. I have received some DYKs, but I think it is better to give than receive and I’ve enjoyed giving the okay to articles that are put forward for DYK consideration. My favourite thumbs-up went to Spy vs Spy (Australian band) – I put an earlier version of that up for AfD but withdrew it voluntarily after the article was upgraded, and I was very happy to give the green light (or green check, actually).

11) Going to war against redlinks. I have yet to meet a redlink that I like, and I will go the extra mile to get rid of them – even if it means taking on a whole bunch of them at once! When I was asked to review Renewable energy commercialization for possible FA consideration, I saw redlinks for the biofuel companies BlueFire Ethanol, Gulf Coast Energy, Mascoma and POET LLC – so I created entries to fill in all four redlinks. When someone put forth Bibliography of Katherine Paterson, I saw there were redlinks for The Sign of the Chrysanthemum, Of Nightingales That Weep, The Master Puppeteer, Rebels of the Heavenly Kingdom, Come Sing, Jimmy Jo, Park's Quest, Flip-Flop Girl, Jip, His Story, Preacher’s Boy and Bread and Roses, Too – and I filled them all in.

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: Well, yes, I’ve the subject of the insults that too often pollute the project. If I am to believe my critics, my opinions are “ignorant,” my conversation is “ranting,” my concerns represent “nonsense” and “bad faith,” I am a purveyor of “poor judgment,” my writing is “dreadful” and “bloat,” and that I am a “power hungry” “dumbass.” I’ve also been accused by someone who believes that I “don’t want to learn,” while someone else claimed he was “disgusted” by me. I’ve been accused of wikistalking, aiding a sock puppet, having a sock puppet, canvassing and being too insecure to absorb criticism. Someone I did not support in a recent RfA told me: “ just bitter about not having made RfA, and now you want to tear others down as well.” And someone else saw that I was born in Africa and called me a “nigger.”

There have been more putdowns that I could list here, but running an inventory of sour remarks is not a sweet usage of time. I don’t stress out over name-callers.

And now...The Candidate's Closet!

Here’s a new feature at RfA: the candidate opens his closet and voluntarily identifies the various skeletons (real or perceived). There’s no need to get mud on your shovels in digging up concerns – I prefer being clobbered with a clean shovel.

Okay, skeletons, come on out and meet the Misplaced Pages community...

Q4: What’s with the “wrong queue” jokes in RfA?

A: When I started participating in the RfA discussions, I always arrived while the discussion was well in progress. I would be the 30th or 40th person to show up for support, but I had nothing original to add since the other 30 or 40 guys already got the best comments. So, the “wrong queue” is my way of saying what everyone else is saying, but with something of a twist that, hopefully, makes people laugh.

Q5: Talk about your last RfA.

A: What is there to talk about? Some guy over at Misplaced Pages Review said it best in a single succinct sentence: How not to do an RfA. Yeah, it didn’t quite turn out as I hoped and I was disappointed at the time. But I can look back at it now, after a good passage of months, and say: eh, so what? Like the Beatles tune says: Ob-la-de, ob-la-da, life goes on.

Q6: Talk about this AN/I discussion from last September: .

A: The story is very simple: last summer, I offered to adopt a blocked editor whose unblocking hinged on being adopted. Now, I received no instructions on how to conduct the adoption, nor was I required to report to anyone regarding progress or termination of the adoption. The adoption did not last very long, because I discovered the editor was a brilliant writer and researcher – one of the best I’ve seen. The only real problem was that the editor was much too passionate in Talk Page debating. I tried to steer the editor away from those toxic areas that resulted in blocking, and at the time I thought progress was made. In fact, the admin Keeper76 awarded this editor a barnstar – no mean feat, since Keeper is not a barnstar dispenser. At that point, I figured my work was done and I closed the adoption.

More than a month later, when I was preparing to go on Wiki-break, I received a notice from an admin with whom I had no previous communications that informed me of the AN/I discussion regarding my former adoptee and my actions with this editor. Now here is the sick part: no one ever contacted me prior to the AN/I discussion to get my input on the case. Instead, it was a rush into the drama pit. The discussion details what happened (but it is quite long – be warned).

Q7: Talk about this incident, where an RfB candidate seemed to make threats against you: .

A: This was very upsetting to me – not because of what was said to me by the RfB candidate during the discussion, but what happened in its aftermath. I was contacted off-Wiki by several people who actively pushed me to initiate desysopping procedures against the RfB candidate. And I was confused by this – why would those people want to desysop someone who never hurt them? Why were they eager for blood when I wasn’t yelling “ouch”?

I responded in a way that few people would consider: the RfB candidate created a stub about Cacela Velha. Without saying anything, I expanded the stub into a longer article and submitted it for DYK consideration, with the RfB candidate and I sharing the credit. It was approved and we both received DYK recognition. I did not request acknowledgement of my actions from the RfB candidate, nor did I receive any message from him. The RfB candidate is still an admin and doing fine work.

Well, someone had to unplug the drama carousel – it might as well be me.

Q8: You do a lot of non-admin closures in AfD, but in the fall of 2008 you had three non-admin closures reverted.

A: I will start by stating that I’ve done several dozen non-admin closures without any problems (I have not kept count of the exact number done – I am not that obsessive about Misplaced Pages!). As for those three reversions, my actions were based on WP:SNOW as per vigourous consensus in the discussions and confirmation of reliable sourcing in each article – none of these were WP:IAR actions. It was my opinion that the reversions were disruptive and I questioned each action, which I have the right to do. I noted that one reversion was based on what I saw as an incorrect reading of my closing statement, one was based on a statement of potential (but undocumented) off-Wiki canvassing, and one was based on the mistaken reading of the length of the AfD prior to the NAC. All three of the reopened AfDs were quickly closed again as Keep – one within an hour, one within nine hours, and the third by the next day.

A couple of admins took umbrage that I mentioned I felt vindicated by the speedy closures that followed the reversions. That was strictly my opinion, nothing more. Please remember that many of these deletion discussions represent the traffic in opinions and not the assault on stone-chiseled facts. Five people can look at an issue and come up five different opinions. I don’t think poorly of the admins who reverted my decisions, and I have never spoken unkindly about their contributions to the project.

Q9: Talk about being called to task for doing a NAC on an AfD where an editor withdrew his AfD nomination .

A: Yes, that was an honest mistake on my part – I thought I recalled seeing something similar done before and incorrectly assumed this was appropriate. I had no problem acknowledging my mistake for that case, though I was surprised at the tone of discussion surrounding this benign action.

Let’s be frank, people – we are not dealing with financial transactions, medical surgery or property construction…any problematic edit can easily be reverted without damage, let alone drama.

Q10: Are you open to criticism?

A: Criticism, yes. Intentional rudeness, no. Criticism should be a positive experience that encourages a person to go forward with new gusto. Intentional rudeness is designed to make a person look like an idiot.

Q11: How come you don’t use Twinkle or Huggle?

A: I never got around to installing either of them. But for hunting spammers (which I do constantly), I prefer old-fashioned investigating. For example: some time back, I found a new user named Nysocfspio, and that just didn’t sit right. So I ran a Google search: the acronym came up as New York State Office of Children and Family Services' Public Information Office, which made sense since the SPA was editing an article on Gladys Carrion, the commissioner of that agency. I reported Nysocfspio to WP:UAA and the account was blocked. I don’t believe I would have caught that spammer if I relied solely on Twinkle or Huggle.

Q12: What’s the single dumbest thing you ever did on Misplaced Pages?

A: Very easy: when AniMate was being talked about as a possible admin in early December, I wanted to pose a hypothetical situation about how he would respond to possible problems that could jeopardize his RfA. Stupidly, I did not clarify in my remarks that I was very supportive of AniMate’s RfA candidacy and that my remarks were meant to be hypothetical. Some people took my remarks to believe I was making threats against AniMate, which was the very last thing I wanted to do. I was terribly upset that people would think this, because nothing was further from the truth. Mercifully, AniMate is a class act guy who saw my mistake for what it was – just plain bad writing – and showed bountiful good faith. Look, I never said I was a good writer!

Hey, I make mistakes, I admit my mistakes, and I try to be a better person having learned from my mistakes. That is why I am putting all of this forward. If you are seeking perfection, I cannot oblige you. But if you are seeking a candidate who has worked very hard to strengthen the content and character of the project and makes an extended effort to work with people in a positive and supportive manner, I believe that I will not disappoint you.

Q's from flaminglawyer

14. The classic: What's the difference between a ban and a block?

A.No, I'm Spartacus! Oh, wrong queue. All seriousness aside: According to WP:BAN (and this is an exact cut-and-paste): A ban is a social decision. A block is a technically-imposed restriction. Yes, I just cut-and-pasted the answer verbatim. You see, that's why I put up that long, long, long text above. I could easily cut-and-paste or paraphrase answers to policy questions -- but that is too easy and it doesn't tell you anything about me. But if I can go in-depth to tell you how I think, why I look at things certain ways, why I goof up on occasion...well, then you can know me better and then understand what to expect if I have the mop. And then you can ask yourself: can I trust Eco with the tools, or will he crash the Wikimedia servers when trying to restore a deleted article? If you go over to the Talk Page for RfA, you will see there is a debate about the questions being asked here: are they too jokey, too stale, too whatever? I guess one question that never gets asked in RfAs is the most simple question of them all: Who are you? Well, looking at my attempt at War and Peace above, I hope you realise who I am and what I can do...or can't do, depending how you read this. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Q's from Cirt

15. One of the problems that AFD sees from time to time is sockpuppet accounts attempting to stack the discussion on one side or the other. Under what conditions would you discount sockpuppet opinions, and/or seek checkuser? Cirt (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A.When the red flag goes up. In many cases, there are very easy mistakes that sock puppets make to tip off their presence, ranging from blatant errors in posting communications (not signing a comment, using near-identical language) to the timing of the messaging (cyclical postings that you can literally set your clock to) to the obvious lack of previous editing history (new editors who show up and make a straight line to the same AfD...hellooooo?). When it is fairly obvious that something wicked this way comes, then action is needed. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Q from Dlohcierekim

15.9999 . . . Please solve the following optional (wink, wink; nudge, nudge) problem. If you need space additional to that provided, please use the back of your paper (or a scroll box). Prove or disprove: 1 white duck = 0 (Nothing at all).

A.Kiddo, I was born in Mozambique and lived for years in South Africa. If we're talking Jethro Tull tunes, then my theme song is Bungle in the Jungle! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Townlake

17. Your answer to Q3 in this RfA is very different from your answer to Q3 in your last RfA four months ago. Why the difference? Townlake (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A Most of those comments compiled in Q3 came after my previous RfA. When I was putting this together, I wanted to gather an inventory of situations that could be considered stressful. But in doing my research, I was struck by what I was reading. Yes, people will disagree with each other – that’s human nature – but some of the words that were directed at me were amazing. But I intentionally did not identify any of the people who said those things to me because…well, it doesn’t matter who said it because these words cannot hurt me. Some people will use words to slice at my intelligence, belittle my judgment, make fun of my heritage…but no pain is being exacted by these words. That’s the message I wanted to convey this go-round: I am not stressed by ill-chosen words, and you shouldn’t be either. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from Durova

This is a follow-up on a previous question. In a response to a question about socking and checkuser, you answered When it is fairly obvious that something wicked this way comes, then action is needed. A good answer as far as it goes, but how do you apply that? Cirt's too polite to follow up, but as his mentor and conominator I'll point it out. At his RFA you switched from support to oppose and chided the people who were questioning the opposers, then never revisited that opinion further despite a nearly unprecedented 13 checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets, more than ninety percent of which occurred on the oppose side. Now despite a reputation as the Wiki Witch of the West I almost never oppose a candidacy for adminship (only done so twice, and later conominated one of them). Yet this discrepancy is too odd to pass without curiosity: do you understand what's obvious sockpuppetry and what isn't? Everyone knows I haven't batted 1.000 either, but if you intend to close AFDs I hope your instincts are generally better than that. Durova 18:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A: There appear to be two concerns here, so I will answer them separately. First, I did not revisit the opinion I offered in Cirt’s RfA because I am not influenced by the opinions of others within consensus-related discussions. The antics of the sock puppets on either side of the debate had no bearing on my consideration of Cirt’s candidacy. And I should take this moment to point out that, in retrospect, my opposition was a bad call – Cirt is an asset to this project, both as an admin and as the creator of excellent articles (please check out Tadodaho when you can – I found this on New Page Patrol and I loved it!).

As for the second concern, I will answer that by stating that any accusation that calls an editor’s ethics into question is extremely serious, and I would never pursue any ethics-related charge unless I can present an airtight case to support that assertion. This is based, in part, on personal experience. Last fall, I was accused of having a sock puppet when a new editor that I greeted as part of the Welcoming Committee followed me to an AfD debate and aligned himself with my position. Because the new editor had only a handful of edits and was in his first AfD, someone who opposed my position in that discussion added 2 and 2 and wound up with 85, accusing me of sockpuppetry. It was very embarrassing and I would never want to anyone to go through that. Yes, I will be on the lookout for people who are disrupting the project – but I will proceed with acute caution when it comes to making accusations of such a serious nature, and I will not hesitate to seek second opinions when I am in doubt. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from DGG

19. With respect to speedy deletion rationales, could you explain a. what "no context means". i am thinking of your A1 no context nomination for Horizontal Mobility: "Horizontal Mobility: social mobility that is not upward or downward (vertical mobility); social transformation in the same social class." and b. why IHRIM Journal "The IHRIM Journal is the flagship publication of the International Human Resource Information Management IHRIM) Association" is blatant spam. (I am aware that in each case another admin deleted following your rationale). In each case, was there any other way to deal with the article besides deleting it? DGG (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A: As I stated in the “closet” section, deletion-related discussions often represent a traffic in opinions. I do not confuse opinions and facts, so my response is framed strictly as an opinion. To go back to the cut-and-paste routine, A1 is defined as “very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.” In regard to “Horizontal Mobility” (and I assume that is the complete article, yes?), the text did not identify the full depth and scope of the subject. For the first part of the definition, what exactly are we talking about? I can understand someone ascending or descending the socio-economic ladder, but ladders are vertical and not horizontal. Maybe it deserved more explanation? The second half was also somewhat vague. Was there sociological value that needed exploring? Thus, it was my opinion – and strictly my opinion – that A1 was appropriate.

With IHRIM Journal – again, is that the complete text? If that is the case, my opinion is that it falls into G11: “Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.” Since there is no article on the trade group that produces the journal, it had no place to go.

Was there another way to deal with the articles rather than delete them? Outside of the other deletion channels of prod and AfD, you could always rewrite them. I’ve done that plenty of times for articles tagged for Speedy Deletion – Ron Ritzman pointed out my work with The Banana Splits in Hocus Pocus Park, which he rightly tagged as spam in its original form and which I was able to clean up into an okay stub. At a somewhat less diverting level than the Banana Splits movie was my work with Engineers Without Borders (Palestine). That was rightfully tagged as G11 in its original form, by I recognised EWB as being notable and I was genuinely interested to see that the organisation had a chapter representing the Palestinian Territories. I did a quick Google check to confirm notability of this particular chapter, then removed the tag when notability was confirmed, and then worked with the article’s creator to put together what became the current article. So, yes, some articles for speedy deletion can be saved.

I hope my answers aren’t too long – I want to explain this as thoroughly as possible, but I do tend to ramble sometimes and I hope you can excuse that. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Basketball110 /_{Tell me yours}

Q: How would you handle a rather established user vandalizing (sockpuppeting, attacking a user, etc.) once or twice? Would you let him/her have any rights from there on out?

A:Not to be evasive, but can you please rephrase this? There is a significant difference between sock puppetry and saying rude things in a talk page discussion – the responses could not be identical. I would respectfully ask if you could serve up a specific problem, or perhaps list a few them via the A, B, C method. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Amalthea

21. Why did you find Jerry's revert of your non-admin closure "disruptive" (WP:DISRUPTIVE)?

A: As I’ve stated several times in the course of this RfA, deletion-related discussions often represent a traffic in opinions. I don’t pretend that my observations are be-all/end-all facts – they are strictly personal considerations stated aloud, and you can choose to attach whatever appraisal value you wish to these comments. That being said, the AfD in question was brought forth because the nominating editor felt (and this is the exact quote): “fails WP:ORG lacks significant third party sources establish notability or existence as a separate article." About 90 minutes after the AfD began, the editor Eastmain added third party sourcing to the article. This negated the crux of the call for deletion. Now comes the slippery part: are high schools considered notable on their own term? Star Mississippi, the admin who reclosed the AfD, stated in the closing statement that “there is an overwhelming consensus” that high schools, as a subject, are notable. There are people who disagree with that opinion – and if something positive can come of this, perhaps it would be to attempt to settle matter so there is no gray area on the issue. I used the word “disruptively” in its context as an adjective and not in context of Wiki-talk, hence the absence of the “WP:” around the word. My opinion (again, an opinion – take it or leave it, for whatever it’s worth) was that reopening the AfD was the wrong call since it was difficult to consider that it would rack deletion cries based on the original nominating concern and based on what appears to be popular consensus (given the absence of specific policy and guideline) regarding the subject matter. The AfD was closed about an hour after it was reopened.

While I am in the spotlight, I would like to take a moment to clearly state that my opinion focused solely on a single administrative decision. During the recent holiday season, I contacted Jerry to let him know that I hoped my input in this matter did not create undue stress. These diffs are a record of our exchange: and . Jerry is a class act – and that is a fact. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't wondering about the NAC, I'm not even questioning it, I find it a reasonable SNOW closure per WP:DPR#NAC.
However, I was surprised to see you labeling the revert as "disruptive", and wanted to know why you felt that it was.
Sorry that I made you defend the closure again, I can see that my actual question could get lost with the three diffs. :) --Amalthea 14:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that I talk a lot? :) Seriously, to go back to what I said, I used word “disruptively” in its context as an adjective – I was not citing WP:DISRUPTIVE – because I felt (again, an opinion) that the discussion had run its course and forcing further debate disrupted what could be considered as a natural conclusion to the discussion. I hope this helps. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "disruptively" is an adverb, not an adjective. Sorry, I'll get my coat. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Malleus, let's keep that between us, okay? Don't tell anyone! ;-) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from DDStretch

Q:Let us assume you are an administrator, and that you come across an article that you think appears to require some serious editing work to get it into shape. The problems you think it has concern matters of content, emphasis, and presentation. You go to its talk page, and there you see a large number of ill-tempered comments, including personal attacks, misuse of the talk page for soapboxing, and other unacceptable types of discussion between two groups of editors. On looking at the article's history, you see you have arrived during an edit-war between the two groups. You do have a position on the content of the article which is in-line with one of the groups of editors. Do you intervene at all? Suppose you decide to, how would you intervene? What would be the comparative advantages and disadvantages of intervening or not intervening in your view?

A: Okay, if you thought the other answers were long, wait until you see this one – this demands a very, very specific explanation.

First of all, the question is phrased in a way that (whether intentionally or not) suggests that my being supportive of one side of an argument automatically means that I would be indifferent or worse to the other side. Nothing is further from the truth. On many occasions, I’ve come to AfD discussions with one opinion (sometimes as the nominator of the article) and then I wind up accepting the view of the other side based on their clear and cogent presentation of facts and supporting references. In the very heated debates that went into rewriting the original copyright violation-tagged version of Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, I did not share the opinion of another editor that a writer named Mark Paul had no credibility as a Holocaust historian and should not be cited as a reference source. Although I ran several Google searches that found no evidence that anyone identified Mr. Paul as a fringe writer or worse, the other editor insisted that we remove his name and books as reference. Realising this would help calm stormy waters, I voluntarily removed Mr. Paul as source – and the article was not impaired for the loss of Mr. Paul’s published work.

In regard to the bad behaviour you cited above, it depends on the severity of what is taking place. Too often, it is easy for people to get carried away with the passion of ensuring facts are presented in an appropriate manner. I will approach this with fairness and not initially assuming there is intentional malice afoot.

Assuming that I am coming to a raw situation and other admins have not previously been part of this fracas, I would need to determine the ringleaders of the edit war and then communicate privately with each of them. I would not approach this an authority figure trying to restore order, but as a potential partner seeking a way to get the full team to work together. I specifically would not template anyone in my initial communication, as people tend to react negatively to having the various circles, triangles and octagons signs plunked on their talk pages.

In the event the edit warring continues, then the article will need to be protected. The length of the protection period would depend on what is taking place.

The challenge that comes next is how to reconcile the rival sides. Many times in the midst of communal editing, the process becomes a game of give-and-take. More often than not, it is a long game and it requires patience. If the situation proves more complicated than initially realised or if the real world calls me away, I would ask another admin to provide assistance in calming things down. I am not afraid or ashamed to ask for help.

I cannot identify any advantage in not intervening, on two levels. First, the project is poorly served if we allow Talk Pages to deteriorate into a Lord of the Flies-worthy scenario. Second, we need to remember there are people across the Internet who are coming here looking for information on a wide variety of topics. If we put forward articles that are factually inaccurate, badly written and changing in content every ten minutes, then our credibility goes down the toilet. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for the detailed answer. However, there is one part which I think needs comment. You wrote: "the question is phrased in a way that (whether intentionally or not) suggests that my being supportive of one side of an argument automatically means that I would be indifferent or worse to the other side." In fact, all that is there is a bald statement that you "do have a position on the content of the article which is in-line with one of the groups of editors", and I don't think that in any of the context surrounding my phrase is there any suggestion or assumption, explicit or implicit, that you would be indifferent or worse to the other side. Indeed, if I did have this assumption, I would be committing a Fallacy of the excluded middle or False dilemma. I suggest that you may think there was evidence there about my assumptions, but you are quite wrong: none was explicitly there; none was intended to be there; and, I argue, none was actually there in what I wrote.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment back Then perhaps we’ve hit upon one of the biggest problems facing Misplaced Pages: people will write one thing and those reading it will incorrectly assume it means something else. I sincerely hope I did not create offense in my inaccurate interpretation of your fine question (and, please, keep asking it in future RfAs). Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from AlasdairGreen27

Q:Per this on your talkpage, and since I can't for the life of me find any on-wiki correspondence regarding this, I'd like to ask the following. How many editors have you contacted off-wiki regarding or mentioning your RfA? What were the criteria you used for contacting them? Would you be prepared to make the wording of your messages public? Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A: The question is problematic because it is framed under the automatic assumption of canvassing. The link that is cited here relates to a message left for me by Cyclonenim, and I hope he does not mind that I am citing an off-Wiki e-mail exchange we had. Back in early December, I contacted Cyclonenim via e-mail (as we have become friends on-Wiki and off-Wiki) to ask about a sensitive situation regarding a fellow editor – I would prefer not to give details on this situation, out of respect for the third person’s privacy. I contacted him via e-mail because it would have been tactless to ask about the matter on-Wiki. Since we were chatting via e-mail, I also asked Cyclonenim what he was up to in regard to Wiki-work and his studies. He filled me in on his activities, including his admin coaching, and he asked what I was up to. I told him that my life was fine despite the dreary weather (I was fighting a cold, hence my grumbling on the weather) and that I was considering another shot at RfA in early 2009. And that was all there was to it. You are welcome to quiz Cyclonenim on this matter -- this took place 11 December, 2008. Cyclonenim’s message on my Talk Page mentioned that he was unaware this RfA was launching and that he wished I gave him a heads up on it. I could not do that because that would be canvassing. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You have referred directly to correspondence between you and Cyclonenim, for which I am grateful, but I cannot help but notice that you have evaded my questions entirely, so I will ask them again. How many editors have you contacted off-wiki regarding or mentioning your RfA? What were the criteria you used for contacting them? Would you be prepared to make the wording of your messages public? Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco, your answer strikes me as slightly inaccurate. You say that Cyclonenim was unaware that your RFA was coming, yet he clearly says "you did alert me that this was coming." What's the real truth? GlassCobra 23:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To go back to my e-mail chat, I told Cyclonenim that I was planning another RfA in early 2009. No date was set -- it was going to be in the first quarter, depending on my offline schedule, but at the time of our chat I had no idea when it was going to be, only that it was going to be. It was the equivalent of telling my brother that I would visit him in Brazil this spring -- no date is set, just a vague notion that I will be going from Point A to Point B in the near future. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco, I made no "automatic assumption of canvassing", as you claim. I AGF'd and searched long and hard for the relevant message through your masses of correspondence, but was unable to find one. As I clearly pointed out in my original message. So, first of all, you might review your ABF, given that you want everyone to trust you. Next, GlassCobra's message is pertinent. So, answers to my and GlassCobra's points please. Thanks in advance. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In my previous RfA, there were concerns raised about canvassing. In preparing this endeavour, I was certain to make sure that the error from the last go-round would not be repeated. It was not. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to correct your ABF and you choose your words carefully, and evasively. You have again failed to answer the questions. This is the 3rd time now. I will ask you again, specific questions. Please answer directly:
How many editors have you contacted off-wiki regarding or mentioning your RfA?
What were the criteria you used for contacting them?
Would you be prepared to make the wording of your messages public?
And GlassCobra's, question, you say that Cyclonenim was unaware that your RFA was coming, yet he clearly says "you did alert me that this was coming." What's the real truth?AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your initial statement reads: “I can't for the life of me find any on-wiki correspondence regarding this.” Since your search to find evidence has found nothing to assert that I am engaged in such activities, I am confused as to why there is the assumption that I am participating in such activities. I have already explained the nature of my e-mail messaging with Cyclonenim – which originated on a completely unrelated matter. Not to be brusque, but I cannot add anything further to this since I am not engaged in the activities cited in your questions. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Eco, Alasdair was searching theough your on-wiki correspondence to find a message that would elicit one like that which Cyclonenim sent you. When he was unable to find it (ie. "can't...find any on-wiki correspondence regarding this"), the conclusion was that the first part of the conversation was carried out off-wiki (which you have confirmed per the e-mail anecdote). This is innocent in and of itself, but Alasdair's question was to inquire whether you had engaged in any other off-wiki discussing regarding your RfA (ie. "How many editors have you contacted off-wiki regarding or mentioning your RfA? What were the criteria you used for contacting them?") This seems to be a fairly straightforward question, can you answer it at your earliest convenience? GlassCobra 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -- I was offline for a bit because I sort of burned dinner (I am glad I am not running for candidacy on "America's Top Chef"). The answer is simple: since that would violate WP:CANVASS, I was not engaged. I am surprised that this concern was raised, but I hope this is satisfactory. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from SDJ

Q:The nature of some of your answers is beginning to concern me. This is a simple yes or no question here: have you or have you not engaged in off-wiki canvassing, as Alasdair's diff seems to imply?

Off-line, Ecoleetage answered both of these questions, but refused to place the answers on-wiki, even when asked multiple times to do so. He denies off-wiki canvassing for his RfA, and refused to give permission to post the logs. Make of that what you will.

A:

Q:Do I have your permission to post the chat logs that would substantiate the nature of Husond's oppose? If no, why not?

A:

Question from Gimmetrow

Q: Sorry for yet another question. You say you will work in CSD. Under what circumstances would you delete an article about a real person under WP:CSD#A7? Please use a short article on non-major actor like Noah Blake or one of your choosing to explain: if this article avoids A7, why? If you think the article could be deleted under A7 what would it need, and under what circumstances would you undelete such an article on request?

A: First, thank you (and the other editors) for putting forth these vigourous questions regarding policy. Many people don’t know me very well, so this provides an opportunity to present myself.

Now, on with the show. Prefixing this again by stressing that I am offering my answer as an opinion, I will now cut and paste the A7 text so we have common ground: “An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.”

I will answer the first part of the question by stating I would delete an article about a real person, as per A7, if the article is absent of any suggestion relating to importance or significance. In the example that is provided, it would appear that the article on Noah Blake would not deserve A7 since there is a suggestion of importance – in this case, his roles in some well-known film and television productions.

If another admin speedy deleted this and I was asked by the article’s creator to bring it back, I would take a four step process: (1) check the article to confirm that the deleting admin was on target in the deletion, (2) provided a case can made, confirm that the editor requesting this action has information that would ensure the article can be rewritten to meet Misplaced Pages standards and would prevent a reprise of the deletion, (3) ask the deleting admin if there would be an objection to bringing the article back, and (4) place the article in a sandbox first and work directly with the editor to ensure we have the bes quality work possible.

On several occasions, I have worked on behalf of other editors to bring back deleted articles and to rewrite them in order to meet Misplaced Pages occasions. In this endeavour, DGG has been very helpful in providing the texts to the deleted articles, and for that I would like to thank him. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage
• Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 2
• Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3

• Links for Ecoleetage: Ecoleetage (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ecoleetage before commenting.

Discussion

• A few diffs that should be noted. I like Eco a ton, but I will either be neutral or oppose this RfA, based partially upon these diffs, and partially on off-wiki interactions I had with him when I declined to nominate him for RFA/Eco 2.

  Incivility.

  AGF problems. ,

  My interaction with him when I declined to immediately nominate him for RfA. .

• My interaction with him when I tried to nominate him for RFA, but he declined. . Jonathan321 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• I like Eco immensely, but I just felt these diffs needed to be looked at before promotion. SDJ 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This was highly predictable from you, SDJ. I, too, had arguments with Eco in the past - but unlike you, I am able to put it behind me. If you want to recycle the same tired diffs from the last RfA this time around, I suppose that's your prerogative - but it's pretty condescending to say "I like Eco a lot" as you proceed to attempt to throw him under the bus. Tan | 39 02:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    That's quite rude. I haven't opposed Eco, and I do like him a ton. You can like a person a ton, and think they wouldn't make a good admin. I feel the same way about Giano. I love the guy, but he wouldn't make a good admin. Eco is my friend, but not all my friends would make good admins. I am still deciding where I will land on this, but I don't need you to tell me that I don't really like Eco, or that I'm being condescending because I posted some diffs, with pretty benign commentary. SDJ 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    • While looking up those 13 diffs, did you happen to look up the thousands of other edits. All this tells me is that out of his thousands of edits, he had 13 bad ones. iMatthew // talk // 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

      I know Eco very well, both on- and off-wiki. I've worked with him quite a bit on-project. He's a good content-creator without question. And your attacking me doesn't help his cause at all. SDJ 02:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

      • I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to figure out why this couldn't have been balanced out between bad edits you mentioned, and other good edits he's made. Not important, carry on. iMatthew // talk // 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! :P Ecoleetage (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

:) SDJ 02:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The irony! iMatthew // talk // 02:57, 14

• I've made the monters long answer to Q2 and the self-asked Q's scrollable, because they were huge. flaminglawyer 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ecoleetage appears not to understand that word usage goes in dictionaries, not encyclopedias. Unfortunately, s/he'she's got lots of company, as you can see in that AFD. But Misplaced Pages doesn't need more admins who misunderstand basic policy. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  As an IP, you can't vote, not sure if you were trying to. If you are registered, please log in and sign your comment with your username.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  And for the record, I am Mr. Eco. Honest! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  No, I wasn't trying to vote, hence the bulletpoint instead of the number. If I'm not allowed to comment here, please remove my comment. Thanks. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  Moved to comments section. Giggy (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  Correctly argued for the ultimate outcome in an AFD debate is by far the worst reason I've ever seen to oppose a candidate. That's worse than the opposes I got for not escalating a conflict. WilyD 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  No, his argument was not correct. The fact that he agreed with the AFD consensus doesn't somehow vindicate his (or the others') failure to apply policy correctly. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  And after he was beaten about the head and shoulders for his misunderstanding, he took the chastisement with grace and learned from the experience. I am impressed that he accepted remonstrations with dignity. Learning from one's errors is a quality to be admired... in an editor AND an Admin. Schmidt, 06:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  I don't see where he has "learned from the experience" and "accepted remonstrations with dignity". Below, in response to the "faggot" issue, he has only said that "The article's notability was confirmed via AfD and it was not judged to be a dicdef"--giving no sign that he understands that the article is still 100% dictionary material. And he has not dealt well with criticism of his NACs, claiming vindication when the AFDs were subsequently wp:snow-kept by admins. In this respect he's like the editors who wrongly tag articles for speedy deletion who claim vindication when some admin incorrectly speedy-deletes the article they tagged. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I took the liberty of reviewing nominee's deleyed article edits. Not all of them were from CSD tagging. Some were from tagging for AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am more than half tempted to withdraw my support in protest at this ridiculous "nomination statement" which has just been added, apparently without consulting the candidate (at least, I can see no "are you happy for me to co-nominate you?" question on his talk, let alone his expressing any kind of approval of this idiotic hyperbole). Eco, please tell me you didn't give consent to this; Editorofthewiki, if this was a joke this isn't the place for it, and if it was serious it really isn't going to help. – iridescent 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a similar reaction, Iri, in that this is definitely against SOP. But, then I thought - not much of what EotW does makes sense to me. After thinking about it, I decided to chalk it up to "whatever". Tan | 39 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, what is SOP? Anyway, I just added the conom because I felt very strongly about my position, and I didn't think Eco would object. But if it pisses you off so much, I can remove it. It's not a joke in the least, and I fail to understand what is so offensive about it, especially to tempt someone to remove their support. ~EDDY ~ 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure. You should have asked the candidate before adding you conomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, moved to "support". ~EDDY ~ 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Iri...I just got home (I was offline for about three hours) and I just discovered this. I did not authorise an additional co-nom. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:100! flaminglawyer 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting immediate 'crat intervention in this RFA

I have to request that a crat come in immediately, as per the unacceptable level of drama in this discussion involving SDJ's repeated demands to post off-Wiki material and this posting, with SDJ entertaining a request from Arcayne to send off-Wiki communication: . This is a blatant case of WP:HARASS and this has to stop immediately. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? Off wiki communications are not favored, but they aren't against the rules either.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that requesting a crat step in and execute..whatever..is simply going to create more drama. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Advertising your email account so people can get private correspondence (intact or doctored) without the permission of the person involved in the correspondence is reprehensible. This has gone beyond concern over viability as an admin. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is - but maybe more suited for ANI or oversight? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I strongly discourage SDJ from sending any logs to anyone besides a crat or ArbCom member; considering sending them to others is not a good idea. However, this big banner is yet another unnecessary "ZOMG DRAMAZ" for this RFA. GlassCobra 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I concur. I presume you are referring to my request from SDJ for the info regarding your supposed comment. I asked for it because I am not prepared to allow the statement to remain without substantiation. As it is, SDJ preferred to have a crat evaluate it first. Please try to keep the focus upon yoursellf and sidestep the drama, please, Ecol. - Arcayne () 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have at no point said I would. As for Eco's current accusations of harrassment and doctoring logs against me, I shouldn't be surprised at all. It's not true, but I'm unsurprised. I declined to send Arcayne the logs, but rather told him I'd send him an explanation of the context. I know you don't want it coming out, Eco, but accusing me of harrassment? That's beyond the pale. You know that what I've written is true, and you know I'd never doctor logs. Cease such accusations immediately. SDJ 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what kind of bureaucrat intervention could stop somebody from publicizing private logs. I certainly agree with everybody else who has said that sharing of logs is not appropriate unless all participants have agreed, but there's nothing a bureaucrat can do to stop people who wish to violate this principle of good online manners in private. This situation will greatly complicate the closing of the RFA, but I don't think putting it on hold mid-process would serve any purpose. Or did you have some other kind of intervention in mind? — Dan | talk 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Eco has just posted on his talk page that he has retired. Schuym1 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  I am forced to assume, then, despite my support at all stages of this process, that the logs that SDJ would have provided would have crippled this RfA and, I assume, his standing on Misplaced Pages. Should we consider this a 'withdrawal by candidate' and shut the down? Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Please note I have somewhat limited Wiki access during daytime, EST. So if you're looking for me with a question, ping my talk or e-mail. StarM 01:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
2. (EC) Support. Absolutely. bibliomaniac15 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
3. STRONG SUPPORT. He wrote 274 articles -- how much more commitment to Misplaced Pages do you want? travb (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - While I don't know the editor to well, he has done some impressive work. Wrote 274 articles and countless DYKs.--Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong support. Massive content creator. Knows policy as well - or better - than most admins. Has the patience of a saint. Tan | 39 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
6. 3RD??? Majorly talk 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support — Definitely. Has worked very hard in areas such as WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:UAA, etc.. He has policy knowledge, is civil, very informative in discussions, and all that I like to see in admin-candidates. He has also done a big load of work for WP:DYK, having over 100 of his DYK nominations appear on the Main Page. With nearly 300 article creations total, he's obviously very dedicated to Misplaced Pages. Has also proven that he has improved from the issues that came up in his last RfA (which really should have passed...). I have no concerns with Ecoleetage. I have full trust for him, and I'm sure he'll be a fine administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong support Eminently qualified editor, will make a great admin. I was struck at how he fought (even abandoning the wrong queue jokes) when he saw (I'm biased here) ridiculous opposes in my own RfA, and I had never dealt with him before. I am happy to return the favor, though, mind you, I wouldn't vote for him if I didn't think he was qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Hi, my name is Alvin and I was wondering if you would consider buying my new album. Theodore needs the extra money to open up his own candy store and...oh, wrong queue. Well while I'm here, strong support for an undeniably excellent candidate. iMatthew // talk // 01:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - We've disagreed at least once recently, but I supported before and I'm supporting again. There's no question in my mind that Eco is admin-calibre already, and I'm glad to support early.  Frank  |  talk  02:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - I hold some truths self-evident. Eco being admin-capable is one such truth. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Great knowledge of content, policy, and actually being a caring human. Eco is by far one of the nicest guys on the world-wide-web, and would be a great plus to the project with the mop. Sam 02:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong Support Extremely helpful, kind, and a great editor. He is one of the few people who has ever expressed concern for my well-being online. Very thoughtful. :) Has contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages. No doubt he would continue to do so as an administrator.--Xp54321 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Strongest Possible Oppose This user is horrendously, absolutely and undeniably ... good for the project (had you going there, didn't I ;) ). Ecoleetage is an excellent user who has helped to bring some of the much needed good humor to the RfA system. I see no blocks, good edit summary usage, many of my possible concerns (and frequently thought questions about the wrong queue jokes) have been alleviated by the detailed (and dare I say innovative?) "Candidate's Closet" section. I believe that Ecoleetage would make an excellent administrator, bringing his unique humor and skills to where are sorely needed. Also per my RfA criteria. And just a small note, I would hope that anyone who is weighting these votes to remember that is is a Strong Support (duh...). Foxy Loxy 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. All I have seen was good. 'Nuff said. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong Support per all of the answers to the questions (especially the 'Candidate's Closet'). Very impressive! LittleMountain5 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Knows his stuff; dedicated; trustworthy - it's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Support –Juliancolton 02:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong Support, absolutely - without a doubt Eco. will make a great admin. I am most impressed with the civility in which he handles himself. I am also impressed with the fact that when he realizes that he has made a mistake, he admits it and does everything possible to correct himself. Eco, I hope to be among those who will welcome you to the club. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Strongest possible support!: Eco is an amazing editor I could go on and on about him. But I need to sum it up. He is here to help and help he has. Rgoodermote  03:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong support from me too... Eco is a great all-rounder. He has succeeded as an article writer, and is also active in the various areas in which admins play a role. And he is approachable and helpful... Johnfos (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
22. — Realist 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - Good all rounder, knows what he's talking about. — neuro 03:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
24. Strong support--Cool, calm, collected, knowledgeable... No doubt that Eco will make a great administrator. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
25. Extremely Strong Support -- After a great Misplaced Pages career, Eco has shown time and time again that he is capable, thorough and, most importantly, willing. After a second failed RfA, he took a sabbatical to reconsider his role on Misplaced Pages, and has come out the wiser. With all my heart, etc. I vote for Ecoleetage. He's earned adminship.

    On an unrelated note, what is this I hear about Wiki losing admins? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#A modest proposal. Regards SoWhy 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

26. Strong Support because this user has gone thru three long and hard RfA's, and this one clearly shows that he is an admin we need! (SEE DETAILED INFO ON K50 DUDE'S PAGE.) K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
27. Strong Support - I have seen Eco throughout the project, and have been impressed by his overall level of "clue" despite disagreeing with some of what he's said at times. The concerns in the Discussion section above outlined by SDJ do not concern me in the least (benign diffs, most of which happened over 6 months ago and some over a year ago). Master&Expert (Talk) 04:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
28. Support for making my Hall of Fame and my list of nice Wikipedians. The editor has many did you know credits and barnstars and has never been blocked. I doubt we have agreed in every AfD we both commented in, but in this instance, the positives greatly outweigh any negatives. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
29. Hello, I'd like to support Ecoleetage, because he's a great candidate, and... wrong queue. While I'm here, I'd like to support Ecoleetage, because he's a great candidate, and I believe that he would make a great admin. I have trusted him for a while, and he should have had the mop for a while now. Xclamation point 04:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - creates content? doesn't use huggle or twinkle? Seems like an ideal candidate. WilyD 04:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - Eco has started/developed countless articles; should've become an admin long time ago. AdjustShift (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Yes. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. Ecoleetage, I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies! Oh, wrong queue. Lame queue aside, I thought you were admin already. DiverseMentality 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
34. Support!!!! With this being a third RfA, I admire that he takes the previous two as guidelines for personal improvement. I admire his demeanor when editors try to push his buttons and get a rise out of him. I admire that for him WP:AGF is more than a guideline. I admire his stedfast good humor and willingness to share a smile. I admire his enduring patience with such newcomers who sometimes fail in their initial understanding of the wiki processes. I admire his enthusiasm for Wiki and his continued efforts at the betterment of the project. I admire that as a coordinator for Project Film he metaphorically dives into the darkest holes to find the glowing treasure that an article might become. His reason and temperment make him a valued candidate for Admin. Schmidt, 06:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. Naturally. --Poeticbent talk 06:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. User has come a long way, gone through a lot, become better for his experiences. I trust w/mop. FlyingToaster 07:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
37. Finally!...I mean Support ;-) I really like Eco's work and while I too told him from time to time to calm down a bit, I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that he will make a great admin which is demonstrated by the fact that I had this RfA preemptively watchlisted :-D SoWhy 07:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
38. Support I'm not perhaps as wildly enthusiastic as some above me, but I can't see that you're likely to go wrong with the tools to be honest. There is a very convincing case made by the misery of WP:FORMER that we need more active editors with +sysop. Pedro :  Chat  10:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
39. Strong Support No, I said penguin soup...Oops, wrong queue. Any editor with the (generally restrained) passion for this project over a wide swath of articles is bound to a)occasionally get provoked and b) occasionally make a bad edit. After some rather uncivil treatment on his last RfA, I am surprised to see him back here, but I think that shows the true passion of the this editor and not a "desire" to be an admin. Eco is truly one of those dedicated ones around here that knows policy and how to write an article. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
40. Thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
41. Strong support. Wizardman 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
42. Strong support, but could we please reverse the current trend of starting off noms with phrases like At a time when Misplaced Pages is losing admins? That's like saying, "Vote for me for President because, uh, we need a new president." Giggy returns ... yay! ...and immediately jumps to the dark side ... boo! I'd be more effusive in my support, but it looks like everyone's got it covered, Eco, so I'll just add my strong support. If at first you don't succeed... - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - But of course. Every interaction I've had with Eco and seen him have with others has been courteous and positive. He also has solid contributions to UAA. TN‑X-Man 14:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
44. Delete Not enough portal edits. Too much work in admin related areas. Too much time with the project. Too many deleted articles. Way too much participation at RFA. Dlohcierekim 14:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    And way too damn many articles created. Dlohcierekim 14:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

45. Support Thought he was already an admin, and also think the opposers are grasping at straws. Not having 50,000 edits or incorrectly labeling a CSD don't bother me. Tool2Die4 (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    well said. Dlohcierekim 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

46. Support as nom. Blame my HDD, not me. Ironholds (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
47. Support This is to counter the oppose for him having too many deleted edits. To me a lot of deleted edits indicates articles correctly tagged for speedy deletion. He's definitely not trigger happy either. He declined one of my speedies on an article that at first looked like spam. (one of my wiki pet peeves) This is what the article looks like now. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
48. Automatic support in protest against this idiotic witchhunt. Sceptre 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Wow. SDJ 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not commenting on the contributors; I'm commenting on the process. Sceptre 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Seems like calling something an "idiotic witchhunt" is implicitly calling a lot of people idiots. I know and like Eco. I also know and like several that have both supported and opposed his candidacies, now and in the past. None of them would I describe as "idiotic" or part of any sort of "idiotic witchhunt." SDJ 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

49. Support - good content, wise contributions and I'd assumed already an admin. PR 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
50. Support based on the candidate's overall record and per the comments above. I have considered the opposers' views and find most of them reasonable but ultimately unpersuasive. I also note the candidate's reference above to "Bungle in the Jungle"—a song that I sometimes think was written to describe the more negative aspects of the RfA process:

    The rivers are full of crocodile nasties

    And He Who made kittens, put snakes in the grass. He's

    A lover of life, but a player of pawns—

    Yes, the king on his sunset lies waiting for dawn

    To light up his jungle, as play is resumed:

    The monkeys seem willing to strike up the tune.

    All right, I exaggerate, but by how much? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

51. Solid Support. As much of a train wreck as the first RfA was, I didn't have a problem with this user then and I certainly don't now. I don't see him as at all having difficulty understanding the daily work of editing ... much of his project namespace work that I'm familiar with is in places like DYK which have a lot to do with the editorial side of this encyclopedia. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Why not? — Aitias // discussion 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Without hesitation. Keepscases (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
54. Support to all these charming ladies for their contributions (hey! here's my tip jar too!) NVO (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
55. Support per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
56. FINALLY!!Hoorah! Great editor, great person, great contribs! So support! Andy (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. Don't worry about RFA nastiness. Once you've become Comfortably Numb, there'll be no more aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh. Jehochman 17:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    The moral of this story is not to edit Misplaced Pages while hanging off the top of a building :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

58. Support. Ecoleetage is seriously one dedicated Wikipedian, I know he has copped a lot of abuse at times but has always stuck it out and moved on. my vote of support is for the respect I have for such a person who has these values.--intraining 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Ray (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Great contributor, I think he will make a fine admin and am not persuaded by any oppose reasons. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
61. Support An excellent contributor of content to the encyclopedia who has displayed a sense of humor and an ability to learn and change. For a rhyme, I suggest mucilage with an appropriate shift of emphasis. Acroterion _(talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Established editor, quality contributions. Looks trustworthy and extremely unlikely to misuse admin tools. --NrDg 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
63. Strongest support — Like many, I've had confrontations with Ecoleetage in the past, one of which was rather hostile from both sides; however, since then, we've made much better terms and I've come to recognise Eco's contributions to the project as priceless. I have no doubts whatsoever that Eco will be a good admin, and he'll help to make this project a better place. Kindest regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
64. Strongest support - Eco has been a source of guidance and advice during my infrequent visits here and I've found him to be unendingly knowledgable and forthright. MikeWattHCP (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
65. One of the good guys. Take it easy with the added triggers, eh? Skomorokh 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
66. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
67. Strong Support - And he didn't even let me know of the RFA off-wiki this time. Good luck!!! <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
68. Support A levelheaded answer to a hardball question. Good reply on the merits, and I like a candidate who can handle a curve. Durova 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Has a clue, and is already doing sysopy things... Hiberniantears (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
70. Did you know...that although scroll bars annoy me, this user has been one of the most helpful and friendly users I have met since joining Misplaced Pages? Strong Support _shoot! 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - Has a good grasp of knowledge about Misplaced Pages's policies & guidelines; he's civil, active, and a little bit humourous! SchfiftyThree 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
72. From Malleus and Wisdom, he's now under a barrage
    And Caulde don't like the votes expressed in rhyme
    The diffs presented by opposers form a strong collage
    But there's no support-killer in that grime
    Our civility policies are these days just a mirage
    "Sometimes can be annoying" is not a crime
    I agree with "trigger happy" concerns raised about Ecoleetage
    But up Misplaced Pages's ladder, let him climb
    (If he turns out to be another in the "per policy" entourage
    He can always be desysopped in his time.) – iridescent 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Civility is nonsense
    As anyone can see
    But threats of retribution?
    Unacceptable to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    In a perfect world, of course that wouldn't have occurred
    But it seems to only be a one-off snap
    I'm willing to forgive his unfortunate choice of words
    He hasn't got a lengthy history of this crap. – iridescent 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

73. Unquestionably. Ecoleetage has a crapload of article contributions, and he has a very good head on his shoulders, and I have no reservations to giving him the bit. J.delanoy_adds 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
74. Unquestionably strong support - one of the great contributors we have on here, like the answers to the questions, no good reason to oppose and...of course...Adminship is no big deal. David Shankbone 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
75. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
76. Strong Support Wow! Your not an admin yet?--Iamawesome800 22:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
77. Thuppert I was going to stay out of this RfA because I didn't know anything about the candidate, but then I realized that he was the guy going around saying stuff like, "Who's on first? Oh, wrong queue..." I've seen this guy around a lot, but I never noticed who it was. flaminglawyer 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
78. Support per all his excellent cotributions to Misplaced Pages. RMHED (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
79. Right person to support.Beagel (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
80. Eco is my idol. Eco is the best thing that could have come to Misplaced Pages (well, tied with User:Dr. Blofeld.) He is kind, thoughtful, reasoned, and good-humoured. I first met Eco when he came out of the blue and gave me a barnstar. This is a testiment to how nice a person he is. Now, what I admire most in Eco is his creation of new content. Not necessarily new articles, which he is exceptionally good at, but prose. I would like to point out his involvement with Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. He brought this up from a copyvioed and horrible article to a GA nomineee. Using profound collaboratory skills with User:Piotrus, he honored those brave people with a decent article. It can be argued that Eco has few edits to the mainspace; he writes a lot in very little. Eco is also never afraid to stand up for what he believes, even if it is unpopular. Nonetheless, he always convays his points in the kindest behavior of anyone I've ever met. He is also a very good AFDer, always well-reasoned but not longwinded. He does make mistakes, but so do all of us. In short, I am Mother Teresa, and am looking for children in Africa to help nourish. Oh, wrong queue. ~EDDY ~ 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
81. Strong Support I created the article The Suburbs (web series) and it was put up for deletion. Eco came charging in from out of nowhere and stood up for the article. Because of him, the article is still online. Thanks sooo much Eco! Starsking (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
82. Support He has made loads of great contributions, contributes in different areas of the project, and I've had good interactions with him. WereSpielChequers 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Awesome content creator and solid contribs in other areas. While I do note the objections raised in the oppose section, my personal experiences with Eco leave me with no question that he can be trusted with the tools, which is, after all, the only question that needs to be addressed here. Thingg 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    Support: He has created many articles, is a good contributor to AFD, and is civil to editors. Schuym1 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (Switched to Oppose)

84. I have the feeling I've been here before... Synergy 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
85. Strong Support User has been around since Aug 2005 and written numerous articles and DYK.Feel giving the user tools will only be net positive to the Project.Further need more admins and editors who work on Africa articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
86. Support The nominations were not convincing for me, and neither was my not very deep prior experience with the candidate - which was mostly seeing him making "wrong queue" jokes @ EFD. However, the way he answered the questions thrown at him was exceptional. The quality of his writing was not something that every RfA candidate has. After looking into what he's done so far, I think I'll support. Icy // ♫ 01:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
87. Support, good user. Why not? —_macy 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
88. Support, great work on DYK, among many other things. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
89. Support - sure. He'll be just great. I'm not overly swayed by the arguments of the opposes, really - Alison 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
90. Support - would definitely be better than most.--King Bedford I 07:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
91. Strong Support : Content builder of the best....Exactly those we need here... I trust you with the tools .. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 07:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
92. Support My friend Eco, you are a valuable asset to WP:DYK. Please keep up te good work! Narutolovehinata5 08:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
93. Support, I'm not convinced by the Opposes, but please just try not to blow up this time, please Eco =). Lankiveil 08:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC).
94. Support --ROGER DAVIES  09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
95. Support - Fritzpoll (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
96. Support Misplaced Pages needs dedicated individuals who will use the tools appropriately. Although as somebody mentioned below Eco can occasionally appear to change personality or over-react very quickly which I have witnessed personally also. In one instance he yelled at me for attatching his name (the fact that he was from Maputo) to WikiProject Mozambique in good faith which I apologised for but I was very surprised by the initial over-reaction in all honesty. I'm not one to fish around for things in the past but I had to mention it to give an honest view for this RFA. Overall though he always appears to me to be friendly and most importantly dedicated to building wikipedia. But I trust him to remain level-headed and use the tools to the benefit of the project and I think adminship will be a good thing for his development on here. Best of luck The Bald One 11:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    While I am deeply appreciative of the support, I need to clarify something that is not correct in the above statement (supported with diffs). I signed up for WikiProject Mozambique on my own, because that is the country of my birth . Dr. Blofeld, without my knowledge, added text next to my name which I did write: . That's a big difference. Ultimately, there was no harm done. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    Oh yes thats right, my mistake, but I still thought you flared excessively up in your response to it, something like "NEVER DO THAT AGAIN"!! I wouldn't normally add things but I thought the fact you were from Maputo was quite special and worth mentioning but I guess that is your decision to make. Perhaps you could provide the link to your message to me too? Anyway it pales in signifiance to your contribution and presence on here which is overwhelmingly positive. The Bald One 11:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    It was strictly a "huh?" moment that came and went -- like I said, no harm done. And, trust me, I am not that special. The important thing is that we are able to provide proper editorial coverage relating to Mozambique and the other African nations. And for that, I am grateful for your efforts in bringing my homeland's history and culture to Misplaced Pages. As we say in Mozambique: A luta continua! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    OK cool I agree. As I said it was the only instance I can think of from what has been said below and I think as I thought before that you will use the tools sensibly and to the benefit of the project. It is actually good to see a good contributor up for RFA and I think that becoming an admin you would feel under obligation to always remain level-headed and act sensibly over AFDs or anything you becoming involved in. As long as adminship doesn't stop you contributing to the mainspace!. The Bald One 12:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

97. Support He is a very helpful editor who helped me with Engineers Without Borders (Palestine). Amer Rabayah (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
98. Support. I have yet to experience or see his disrespect firsthand and I seriously don't believe he is severely disrespectful. Net positive. DARTH PANDA 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
99. Support with pleasure. I trust this candidate. --Kanonkas :  Talk  16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
100. Support per pleasant interactions at WikiProject Films and solid background. Mop is no big deal. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
101. Support It's time! Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
102. Support, although ironically, I think he'd be better off without the tools. I'm guessing Eco will try them out, realize just how genrally not that wonderful the tools really are, eventually start to use them more and more sparingly, and then ultimately go back to what he likes doing, that which he does well, which is article writing/improving/rescuing/referencing. He's upper echelon in that regard, one of our (currently active) finest. Basically though, I think Eco is in the wrong queue. All that to say, he's done nothing at all that I can see to warrant not letting him try out the buttons. Also very unimpressed with Husond's "approach" to this rfa. Grudges are thataway, bygones are the new red. Keeper | 76 20:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
103. Support squared! Very cordial, civil, hard working and knowledgeable editor.radek (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
104. Support Dear god yes... Qb | 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
105. Strong Support - In all my experences with Eco he has been nothing but kind and supportive. VX! 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
106. Yes please. —Animum (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
107. Strong support although the candidate needs to upgrade from the "queue" jokes. :D Anyway, all of my interactions with this candidate have been totally positive, and I have seen no major red flags. —Ed 17 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
108. Support Editor will do great with the tools. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
109. Support 100+ people supporting this rfa. That speaks volumes about a candidate. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
110. Support on the condition that he not halt his wonderful contributions in lieu of his new-found power. Themfromspace (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

     You can't make that a condition. I'm just saying... Crystal whacker (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

111. Support I found the substance of Ecoleetage's comment to RFA to be entirely reasonable. The tone was too harsh, and for that an apology was given, but the idea of letting someone know privately that their RFA may be headed for trouble before the whole world finds out is, to my mind, desirable. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
112. Support Jonathunder (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
113. Support I told Eco a month or two ago, that I thought he was a strong candidate and would do fine in his next run... he asked me to nominate him this time around, but I dragged my feet (for which I apologize.) I have the hardest time evaluating people who I consider wiki-friends, which I do with Eco, that I was unsure if my evaluation of him was accurate or friendship speaking... seeing as how this is going, I'm going to trust what I thought... I do want to reiterate the concerns I've shared with him in the past... his threat mentioned below, choose your words wisely. And keep your cool.---Balloonman CSD Survey Results 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
114. Support...comments and timing seem to warrant the success of this candidate...Modernist (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
115. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
116. Support: Have seen him around DYK, and my idea is he's a good editor, with good ideas (except for the bloody wrong queue jokes ;)) and a clear head. Chamal 13:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
117. Support as a useful addition. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
118. Support Eco is a generous and caring person. I support him . Yitzhaac Pesach (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
119. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unsuccessful requests for adminship